Does the volume of draft picks matter? An analysis

[Eram]

Over the past few months in Sabres threads on the main board, people often like to mention how we have so many 1st and 2nd round picks over X years, usually 4. So I got to wondering... is this actually true? Is having a large volume of picks guarantee a successful rebuild? When you start to factor in where you pick to, how does that change things?

To start off, I used this chart of expected value from position:
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

Then took the picks by year going back to 2000 and summed up the values. The result:

Using today's (1/30) standings and the EV table, we're looking at us having the most valuable draft [on paper], and that's before any selling of Stafford/Stewart.

Now taking a sum of a rolling 4 years, we get this:

Right now we're also at the highest collection over 4 years seen. Assuming we get a top 10 pick next year that will likely go higher. Important to keep in mind these are all numbers based off of averages. Look no further than the lowest team Detroit to show that there's other factors like scouting that matter. Some food for thought...

Here's my my google doc if anyone wants to browse further. Also have 3 and 5 year rolling sums.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBHkl2Ie8g3xmLYfU-VAgt-vZbFIv2ie2Qdfule_igE/edit?usp=sharing

Click to read more...

 

[TheMistyStranger]

This is awesome. Also, and I mean this in the absolute nicest way, you might be the biggest nerd on the board.

 

[cybresabre]

Cool stuff, thanks for putting it together!

I'd be so embarrassed to be a Detroit fan...

 

[Myllz]

I get what your data is saying, but I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. The question in your title is "does it matter" to have a lot of picks. Of course it matters, the more of you, the better your odds at drafting decent players. Is it a guarantee for a successful rebuild? Of course not. Nothing's going to guarantee a successful rebuild, but if you ask all the GM's in the league if they'd rather have 4 picks in the first 2 rounds of the next 3 drafts or 2, every one of them is going to say 4 (assuming there's no huge jump up or down in terms of where the picks are in each round), so number of picks is most definitely an asset.

 

[EichHart]

You should really post this on the main boards to show how the Pitts/Chicago models work and it's all based on this. This is amazing stuff right here.

 

[Eram]

I get what your data is saying, but I'm not entirely sure what your argument is.

Me neither, was a little bit blazed after work. Just was curious.

 

[Djp]

I've fne similar analysis going back to 1999 and anslysis 3 yr blocks and rolling 3 years. I only focused on the first 3 rounds because generally 4th round or later you have very little chance of getting a top 4/top 6 player. You have a slim shot getting a player who can be in the nhl for a few years enem as a filler role or bottom 6/ bottom pair.


Chicago, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and Washington is what you want yo follow. With LA and Chicago people forget they had a few non playoff years and got high picks.

I prefer not yo use the pick value chart in scoring because it skews to those who picked high that year.

 

[Montag DP]

The four-year rolling sum is really cool. You can see how a number of teams, like Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh stockpiled high picks for a number of years before becoming perennial contenders. But then there are Boston, Detroit, and Annaheim who are or have been really good without using that approach, at least not to the same extent. And then there are teams like Edmonton, Florida, and Washington who had one or more of those streaks of high draft picks without ever really making it over the hump. So in the end, I guess it says what we all knew already, that stockpiling high picks can definitely work out, but it's not guaranteed to get you a Cup and it's not the only way to do it, either.

 

[Paxon]

The four-year rolling sum is really cool. You can see how a number of teams, like Chicago, LA, and Pittsburgh stockpiled high picks for a number of years before becoming perennial contenders. But then there are Boston, Detroit, and Annaheim who are or have been really good without using that approach, at least not to the same extent. And then there are teams like Edmonton, Florida, and Washington who had one or more of those streaks of high draft picks without ever really making it over the hump. So in the end, I guess it says what we all knew already, that stockpiling high picks can definitely work out, but it's not guaranteed to get you a Cup and it's not the only way to do it, either.

What it reinforces in me is that teams like Florida and Edmonton are more the exception than the rule, the rule being that this approach results in building a competitive team. Not everyone won the Cup obviously, but that's an unrealistic expectation to hold up to a very general team-building philosophy. If something so general resulted in the Cup every time everyone would do it, then logically it could not result in a Cup every time. The teams that have become competitive without a high level of pick value in successive years, well, hats off to them, but it's not as readily reproducible, especially when you're a team that almost has to start from scratch.

The bottom line is that of the teams who've followed a path similar to us, the majority have found what I would measure to be success. We differ from most of them in that our roster at this point is among the worst, if not the worst, which is a negative, but our pick value will be the greater than any previous team, which is a positive. Given the balance we project to have, balance Edmonton hasn't had and never was projected to, there's really no reason to have anything but expectations of a successful rebuild.

 

[yahhockey]

To me the data shows that you need to "hit" on your draft picks. There were teams that made good selections (Pittsburgh, LA, Chicago) teams that made poor selections (Edmonton, Florida, Phoenix) and a couple in the middle (St. Louis and Washington). Another issue to consider is that maybe their draft selections weren't terrible but if you do not build the correct supporting cast around them then you will not become successful. Of course there are also teams that had stretches of lower round selections (because they were contending teams) which may have lead to the current state of their teams (Ottawa/Philly to name two). As expected Detroit is the outlier with off the charts success given their status as a perennial contender (even if it may have finally caught up with them).

Using rolling averages our 2015 is off the charts however as a stand alone it is comparable to the 2010 Florida Panthers who also had three picks in each of the first two rounds. They went on to draft Erik Gudbranson 3rd, Nick Bjugstad 19th, Quinton Howden 25th, John Mcfarland 33rd, Alex Petrovic 36th and Connor Brickley 50th. Those names simply reinforce the fact that you can accumulate all of the draft picks in the world but if you cannot draft the correct players then it's all for naught.

 

[dire wolf]

To me the data shows that you need to "hit" on your draft picks. There were teams that made good selections (Pittsburgh, LA, Chicago) teams that made poor selections (Edmonton, Florida, Phoenix) and a couple in the middle (St. Louis and Washington). Another issue to consider is that maybe their draft selections weren't terrible but if you do not build the correct supporting cast around them then you will not become successful. Of course there are also teams that had stretches of lower round selections (because they were contending teams) which may have lead to the current state of their teams. As expected Detroit is the outlier with off the charts success given their status as a perennial contender (even if it may have finally caught up with them).

Using rolling averages our 2015 is off the charts however as a stand alone it is comparable to the 2010 Florida Panthers who also had three picks in each of the first two rounds. They went on to draft Erik Gudbranson 3rd, Nick Bjugstad 19th, Quinton Howden 25th, John Mcfarland 33rd, Alex Petrovic 36th and Connor Brickley 50th. Those names simply reinforce the fact that you can accumulate all of the draft picks in the world but if you cannot draft the correct players then it's all for naught.

Good post. Scouting is the key.

Also, accumulating more and more draft picks does not add infinite value. the 50 contract limit does come into play at some point.

 

[tsujimoto74]

Good post. Scouting is the key.

Also, accumulating more and more draft picks does not add infinite value. the 50 contract limit does come into play at some point.

Sort of true, at a certain point. Ultimately, more at bats means more chances for a hit. I don't think the contract limit is a factor until you've accumulated so many picks that you can't even sign all the guys that look like clear-cut "hits". I think it would be pretty difficult to reach that threshold given the nature of drafting 18yos is that so much of the time, it's a swing and a miss.

 

[sabrebuild]

The one thing that is toughest to predict is luck of who is available. Huge difference if your top choice at center is Toews or RNH. Or Huberdeau v Kane.

 

[joshjull]

Also worth pointing out those picks have value as trade pieces as well.

 

[Clock]

Great job on this, Eram. I like the part where Buffalo is winning, too.

 

[Eram]

Great job on this, Eram. I like the part where Buffalo is winning, too.

Also my favorite part. I don't really know enough about NBA to do something similar, but I've always wondered if there's ever in pro-sports such a drastic tear down of a team. I'm thinking we might be the most drastic one yet.

 

[Eram]

Using rolling averages our 2015 is off the charts however as a stand alone it is comparable to the 2010 Florida Panthers who also had three picks in each of the first two rounds. They went on to draft Erik Gudbranson 3rd, Nick Bjugstad 19th, Quinton Howden 25th, John Mcfarland 33rd, Alex Petrovic 36th and Connor Brickley 50th. Those names simply reinforce the fact that you can accumulate all of the draft picks in the world but if you cannot draft the correct players then it's all for naught.

2010 for Florida is really something, and if they picked better (easier said than done, but I would guess they have one of the lower scouting budgets), I would say they would be a legit Stanley Cup contender this year. Take a look

3rd OV: Erik Gudbranson
Next Pick: Ryan Johansen

19 OV: Nick Bjugstad
Next Pick: Beau Bennett (probably better to keep Bjugstad)

25 OV: Quinton Howden
Next Pick: Evgeny Kuznetsov

33 OV: John Mcfarland
Next Pick: Dalton Smith

36 OV: Alex Petrovic
Next Pick: Justin Faulk

50 OV: Connor Brickley
Next Pick: Calle Jarnkrok

Of course hindsight is 20/20, and with these picks they probably would've been better last year and not gotten Ekblad, but they could be seriously stacked with some different luck.

 

[polish assassin]

Also my favorite part. I don't really know enough about NBA to do something similar, but I've always wondered if there's ever in pro-sports such a drastic tear down of a team. I'm thinking we might be the most drastic one yet.

2010-2014 Cleveland Cavaliers. Up until last season their post LeBron plan was accumulating as many assets as possible and the amount of picks their gms (then grant now griffin) accumulated was just ridiculous (2011 -1st and 4th overall; 2012 - 4th and 24th overall; 2013 - 1st and 19th overall; 2014 - 1st overall). In addition to this they also stockpiled many future picks as well as very favorable contracts and it was quite obvious prior to last season that it was a 100% tank.

Following the Cavs the past 4 years has prepared me for what we're going through presently with the Sabres. The Cavs, however, ended up getting LeBron back after their 4 year rebuild.

 

[Bps21*]

2010-2014 Cleveland Cavaliers. Up until last season their post LeBron plan was accumulating as many assets as possible and the amount of picks their gms (then grant now griffin) accumulated was just ridiculous (2011 -1st and 4th overall; 2012 - 4th and 24th overall; 2013 - 1st and 19th overall; 2014 - 1st overall). In addition to this they also stockpiled many future picks as well as very favorable contracts and it was quite obvious prior to last season that it was a 100% tank.

Following the Cavs the past 4 years has prepared me for what we're going through presently with the Sabres. The Cavs, however, ended up getting LeBron back after their 4 year rebuild.

And were handed the fixiest fixed fix of all time in the lottery this year for an Edmonton like set of first overall "luck"

 

[Sabre the Win]

Yet Detroit is still pumping out prospects to remain relevant for the last 20 years with the latest being Nyquist and they have the lowest numbers. What gives? So I guess the answer to your question is No, the volume of picks doesn't really matter if you have scouts and a farm like Detroits.

 

[dunwoody_joe]

Eram, nice work!

When I think about success in the draft, I believe there are several factors to consider:

1. Total number of picks;
2. Relative value of picks;
3. Quality of the draft eligible prospects;

Of course, how they develop and then fit into a stable structure are important, but that comes later. Anyway, have you some way to factor into your table the quality of the draft eligible prospect in each year? I'd guess that 2015 Sabres draft will score very high (many picks X many high picks X very strong draft) = much success in about 3 years!

 

[Beerz]

Also my favorite part. I don't really know enough about NBA to do something similar, but I've always wondered if there's ever in pro-sports such a drastic tear down of a team. I'm thinking we might be the most drastic one yet.

It happens quite a lot in NBA ... Celtics are on the tail end of it. Lakers are going thru it with the exception of Kobe.

 

[Zman5778]

Yet Detroit is still pumping out prospects to remain relevant for the last 20 years with the latest being Nyquist and they have the lowest numbers. What gives? So I guess the answer to your question is No, the volume of picks doesn't really matter if you have scouts and a farm like Detroits.

Or a different explanation, which I think is actually closer to being right:

Detroit is the outlier to the general rule that having more draft picks is better than having fewer.

Kind of like how many advanced stats people throw out Buffalo this year in analysis b/c we're soooo freaking terrible, I think an analysis like this needs to more or less throw out Detroit, as they are the CLEAR outlier to this situation.

 

[sabrebuild]

Or a different explanation, which I think is actually closer to being right:

Detroit is the outlier to the general rule that having more draft picks is better than having fewer.

Kind of like how many advanced stats people throw out Buffalo this year in analysis b/c we're soooo freaking terrible, I think an analysis like this needs to more or less throw out Detroit, as they are the CLEAR outlier to this situation.

The other possibility with the Detroit success too, is that it's a thing of the past more so than recently. They got enormously lucky picks that turned into superstars, in part because nobody else had good scouting in europe, Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Since then, which was 15 years ago, they really haven't gotten any more home runs out of the first two round than most other teams. To some degree, I think Detroit's reputation is outliving the reality for a few years now.

 

[dire wolf]

The other possibility with the Detroit success too, is that it's a thing of the past more so than recently. They got enormously lucky picks that turned into superstars, in part because nobody else had good scouting in europe, Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Since then, which was 15 years ago, they really haven't gotten any more home runs out of the first two round than most other teams. To some degree, I think Detroit's reputation is outliving the reality for a few years now.

Part true, part not true. They have always drafted low and traded away a lot of 1st rounders, yet since 2000, they still managed to find:

2000 - Kronwall 1st round (29th pick)
2000 - Kopecky 2
2002 - Hudler 2
2002 - Fleischmann 2
2002 - Filppula 3
2003 - Jimmy Howard - 2
2003 - Quincey - 4
2004 - Franzen - 4
2005 - Kindle 1 (19)
2005 - Abdelkader 2
2005 - Helm 5
2006 - Matthias 2
2008 - Nyquist -4
2009 - Tatar - 2
2010 - Sheahan 1 (21)
2010 - Pulkkinen - 4
2010 - Mrazek - 5
2011 - Ouellet - 2
2011 - Jurco - 2
2012 - Mantha 1 (20)
2015 - Larkin 1 (15)

etc