NHL Draft Expected Range

[Der Kommissar]

Some of you might know of Colin Cudmore's project "NHL draft expected range" that he produced from 2019 to 2021. It was the best way to follow the draft and have a quick analysis of your team draft performance live. Sadly, Cudmore, put an end to the project in 2021. Since then the project was dormant.

But, no more! I've decided to put the project back online, not without the help of Colin Cudmore who gave me access to his spreadsheets, and I now present you with the 2024 NHL Draft Expected Range : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

If you like it, spread the news! And let me know what you think!

Click to read more...

 

[Castle8130]

Some of you might know of Colin Cudmore's project "NHL draft expected range" that he produced from 2019 to 2021. It was the best way to follow the draft and have a quick analysis of your team draft performance live. Sadly, Cudmore, put an end to the project in 2021. Since then the project was dormant.

But, no more! I've decided to put the project back online, not without the help of Colin Cudmore who gave me access to his spreadsheets, and I now present you with the 2024 NHL Draft Expected Range : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

If you like it, spread the news! And let me know what you think!

I would swap Sennecke and Eiserman. Sennecke is considered to be the 2nd best forward by a couple NHL scouts. Eiserman could slip out of the top 16.


Good work! It turned out really great

 

[Der Kommissar]

I agree that Sennecke has a good chance to go before Eiserman in the draft but this is not how expected range work. Expected range does not represent the highest and lowest ranking of a player. It is a calculation of a player’s average draft value, split into a range by taking a standard deviation on either side of the ranking.

For Eiserman, that xRange goes from 3 to 16 and Sennecke 7 to 26. Chances are Sennecke will go in the higher section of his xRange and Eiserman inthe lowest of his.

I think that you understand it already but, xRange is much more than a consolidated draft rankings. First by the use of the standard deviation and secondly for the use of the value curve research of Michael Shuckers. It permits a quick analysis of the teams performances during the draft.

Also, xRange is a great tool to compare the different draft rankings you can find on the net.

 

[Kearns]

This is a great resource for draft junkies. If you have the patience, can you explain to me like I am kindergarten how you use the range and # of sources (and the sources specific rankings) to come up with the ranking? I am an excel guy, not a google sheets guy, and I don't see a formula that helps me understand xRange. I should probably Google it.

 

[Der Kommissar]

Go to the F.A.Q. it explains how the calculations work. For more information on standard deviation go here: Standard deviation - Wikipedia

 

[spfan]

I would say this is more of a rankings average than where they will go on draft day.

 

[tomd]

It would be great if there was an "average" field added to the spreadsheet to help narrow down the range.

For example, someone with a range of 3-18 might have an average of 5 for all of the 19 sources while another player with the same range might have an average of 15. Knowing the average better helps to judge where the player might go.

 

[CaptainShark]

Fantastic, i am having a blast with it. Thx for the hard work.

 

[Der Kommissar]

@tomd There is no reason for an average, first of all this is NOT a draft ranking list, it's an xRange. what It supposed to tell you is in which range a player should be selected. Picked before that range it's a reach, after that range it's a steal! If you follow the draft live with the sheet open at "Watch List" you'll be able to see which players are in range to be selected next and which ones are "falling"

Also, the players are already "ranked" according to the average value according to the Michael Shuckers chart.

And, since I'm here...the final ranking of Logan Horn published yesterday as replaced his april list. So everything is up to date with the different rankings published so far.

 

[57special]

Great stuff, Serge!

 

[Der Kommissar]

3 more sources added, 3 updated.

 

[GiGi1994]

Beau travail Serge ! Je vais suivre ça avec attention.
Are you active on social media ? Where can we get in touch with you ?
By the way, latest update should be 2024 and not 2023 Just so you know !

 

[Der Kommissar]

Actually, I am not. I do have a twitter account but I don't do much with it. I've been too busy being the commisionner of a simulated hockey league for the last 20 years to do much else. If you want to contact me ,my email is on the google sheet. I'll be glad to hear from you. And thanks to help correct the small typo ;-)

 

[saintunspecified]

This is a really cool resource! Thank you for the really great contribution.

 

[Der Kommissar]

Updated with the final ranking from Button

 

[Der Kommissar]

I made a gross mistake in the xRange in the last update. It's now corrected. Sorry about that

 

[Der Kommissar]

Updated with the final list from Steven Ellis from Daily Faceoff

Also, I changed my mind and I've now included the complete list from all sources to the xRange and not only the first 100 players. This will give a more precise xRange for middle-late round players.

Still waiting for final list from a couple of sources. Stay Tuned!

 

[Evgeny Oliker]

Great stuff!

Question:
Why are you not using:
Bob Mackenzie’s list
Hockey Prospect (black book)

 

[Der Kommissar]

New update with the final list from Smaht Scouting. 19 of the 22 sources presently listed. Gabriel Foley said on X that he will update his on thursday. Will see for Forbes and Cosentino.

@Evgeny Oliker - Mackenzie doesn't scout players, all he does is go talk to the NHL scouts and make is "list" from the answers he gets. So, in that way he's not really scouting. It's not that is list is not relevant it's just that I feel like it's more hearsay than scouting. I still might add it if he makes a final list this week and it's more than the 15 players his last one had.

Hockey Prospect is another story alltogether, there's a limit to the amount of money I can put in buying draft guides just for the sake of this project. I've never used the Black book before so when I decided to follow up on Colin Cudmore with this project I forgot about the black book.

Thank you for reminding though, I will add the public first 32 players of their list in my next update

 

[FLAMESFAN]

Neat list. How is Vanacker ranked 26th, but his expected range is 33-72?
Wouldn't 26 be considered a reach?

 

[ProfessorFink22]

Not trying to be a Negative Nellie, and I'm not a stats/math guy, but a quick glance shows there are only 3 players expected to go in the top 4? Wouldn't math and logic dictate we need at least 4 players in the range of going in the top 4?

Is Columbus just doomed to get a 'reach' grade on their first pick? What am I missing?

My question aside, this is cool and I will look at it after the draft out of curiosity, good work and a cool concept.

 

[Der Kommissar]

Neat list. How is Vanacker ranked 26th, but his expected range is 33-72?
Wouldn't 26 be considered a reach?

Thank you.

This is not supposed to be seen as a ranking per se. Without being too technical, for now it is "ranked" first by the number of sources, then by the average position (not xRange) obtained in the sources. Vanacker is the last player by average position present, in all 22 sources so he is "ranked" before the players present in 21 sources.

It's quicker for me to make my updates that way. But, I will make the final update, later this week, ranked by the average value according to the xRange calculations. This will make incongruities disappear.

 

[Der Kommissar]

Not trying to be a Negative Nellie, and I'm not a stats/math guy, but a quick glance shows there are only 3 players expected to go in the top 4? Wouldn't math and logic dictate we need at least 4 players in the range of going in the top 4?

Is Columbus just doomed to get a 'reach' grade on their first pick? What am I missing?

My question aside, this is cool and I will look at it after the draft out of curiosity, good work and a cool concept.

It sure does look weird, doesn't it? What you have to understand from that is that there absolutely no concensus (not even close) on who's number 4.

The formula to find the xRange goes like this: first you take every individual player ranking into a draft value using the table from the research of Michael Shuckers which you can find here

Then you find the average value and the standard deviation of every player, the formula for the standard deviation is √(X+Y+Z)/n where X, Y and Z are the draft value and n the number of sources listing the player.

You then create the upper and lower values by adding/subtracting one standard deviation from the average value. These two new numbers represent the expected range (Upper and Lower), but in terms of draft value. All there is left to do is to transfer back those value into draft pick numbers using Shuckers table to get the xRange.

So, to get back to the 4th rank, the absence of players listed as expected to be picked 4th, only means that, from that calculation, nobody get a draft value high enough to be expectedly ranked 4th.

 

[Der Kommissar]

Big update! Five more sources have been added and the list from FCHockey has been extended to 200 players.

There will be one more update before the draftwhich will features at least three more sources.

 

[SomeDude]

Nice little reference tool. Thank you for your efforts!