NHL Draft Software: 2018 Top100 End of the regular season rankings

[ProspectsFanatic]

Players entered in the software:

DY: Draft year. DY-1: 1 year before draft. DY-2: 2 years before draft.
The first section (with DY, DY-1, DY-2) are the evaluations of each prospect season performance calculated by the software based on the data entered.
The second section shows the percentage taken into account in the final score, it varies depending on the games/tournaments played for each season.

Previous 2018 draft rankings:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/nhl-draft-software-2018-rankings.2446691/

Last year:
Software evaluating draft eligible player

Previous drafting results (drafting as MTL for the last 5 years):
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...-can-now-start-comparing-the-results.2430975/

Data taken into account:
- Age, height, weight.
- Scouting evaluation; Skating speed, edge work, shooting, puck control, offensive IQ, competitiveness, physical play, defensive play. (Those evaluations are impacting the statistical evaluation, both sources of data are tested again each other in different ways.)
- Last 3 seasons stats in all leagues played; League difficulty, ice time, quality of teammates, organizational depth, (regular+playoff) GP, G, A, PTS and if available A1, A2, Sh%, relative +/-. Tournament play: WJC18, WJC20, Hlinka.
(The statistics are used as an indicator of performance, but where the player stands in terms of organizational depth is also weighted, those two are weighted differently according to the algorithm depending on the context of each player, for example, independently of statistics being 2nd line SHL on draft eligible year mean something and can be measured as a value.)
- Consensus ranking (only little impact)
* On rare occasions some players are given positive or negative bonuses if something of relevancy hasn't been taken into account by the software, example; injury prone, attitude issue, extra international play.

When players are very close it really doesn't take much for them to switch places, so rankings are still susceptible to move greatly.

I did not saw every single of those players play, if there are highlights I have probably seen them though, but I am using other reports a lot for the scouting evaluation section to complement.

I'll do overager later on, most are not noteworthy, maybe Durzi could crack the top100, I left it out for now.

I hope I didn't forgot anyone.

Don't hesitate if you have questions or remarks.

And yes, I did spent a lot of time on this.

Click to read more...

 

[37 others]

Dang. Where the heck do you get all of your stats from?

 

[Tube Skates]

Always impressive

 

[CanuckCity]

Those rankings from 2017 draft are looking pretty spot on right now.

As for 2018 i like the ranking of Tkatchuk 11th, although dont know anything about about the 2 guys ahead of him.

 

[Castle8130]

These rankings make you think of this draft in such a different way, it's awesome.

 

[pckstpr31]

Always appreciate this perspective. Surprised the system drops Zadina down, but I love the Kravtsov placement. Kudos for the work on this, obviously early but the rankings for '17 seem pretty solid as of now.

 

[Tube Skates]

How do you filter the goalies into the top 100?

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

Dang. Where the heck do you get all of your stats from?

EliteProspects and leagues websites.

Always appreciate this perspective. Surprised the system drops Zadina down, but I love the Kravtsov placement. Kudos for the work on this, obviously early but the rankings for '17 seem pretty solid as of now.

One main reason is that Zadina is not a great skater and the software values greatly skating. Also when you are factoring everything Wahlstrom has the better stats to start with. But he is still fairly close to the players above him rankings could still change.

How do you filter the goalies into the top 100?

I just placed them myself to roundup the top100, they are independent of the software results.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Well done! thanks for sharing

 

[Peeps]

Why don't you use PIM in your calculation?

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

Why don't you use PIM in your calculation?

How would you use them?

Taking penalty is supposed to be a bad thing, but paradoxically it can also show that this is a player with high intensity, willing to drop the gloves possibly, which is a positive. I find it hard to find any information of relevancy out of that number which can be translated into a formula that can affect players appropriately across the board. I am open to suggestions though.

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

Do you have full lists for each year you've started to do this? Would like to apply it to my team out of curiosity

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

Do you have full lists for each year you've started to do this? Would like to apply it to my team out of curiosity

No not really, this is only the 2nd year I have created and been using the software. Any sort of rankings I did in previous years can be find here.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...-can-now-start-comparing-the-results.2430975/
Based on how high I was on them compare to were they fell pretty sure you would have Point, Kase, Bratt and Safin on your team and some of Hagg, Lehkonen, Buchnevich, Bjorkstrand, Wallmark, Tkachev, Tryamkin, Sprong, Kylington or Gildon to stop there if I was the chief scout of your team, note that I did not mentioned any 1st rounder.

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

No not really, this is only the 2nd year I have created and been using the software. Any sort of rankings I did in previous years can be find here.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...-can-now-start-comparing-the-results.2430975/
Based on how high I was on them compare to were they fell pretty sure you would have Point, Kase, Bratt and Safin on your team and some of Hagg, Lehkonen, Buchnevich, Bjorkstrand, Wallmark, Tkachev, Tryamkin, Sprong, Kylington or Gildon to stop there if I was the chief scout of your team, note that I did not mentioned any 1st rounder.

That's too bad, well it will be interesting to see over the years, so I hope you continue to post your results!

I did take a look at all the links, so of the players you would have drafted in those positions, were these the players that you had rated the highest that were available? Or did you make other considerations?

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

That's too bad, well it will be interesting to see over the years, so I hope you continue to post your results!

I did take a look at all the links, so of the players you would have drafted in those positions, were these the players that you had rated the highest that were available? Or did you make other considerations?

You are Vancouver right? I could give you my fair selections base on what I recall if some informations are missing I like doing those.

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

You are Vancouver right? I could give you my fair selections base on what I recall if some informations are missing I like doing those.

Ya Vancouver, if you can remember that would be cool

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

Ya Vancouver, if you can remember that would be cool

2017
5. Elias Pettersson
33. Nicolas Hague
55. Josh Brook
64. Max Gildon
95. Ostap Safin
135. Calle Sjalin
181. Alexander Chmelevski
188. Pavel Shen

2016
5. Matthew Tkachuk
64. Vitaly Abramov
140. Tim Gettinger
154. Jesper Bratt
184. Stepan Falkovsky
194. David Bernhardt

2015
23. Boeser (Thats an important one, easy to say you called it, I actually found my old crappy list https://bit.ly/2H0Y5X9 ; no one drafted below him is in front of him on my list. List matching my MTL picks having Sprong and Kylington high)
66. Filip Ahl
114. Dmytro Timashov (I think)
144. Cooper Marody
149. Nikita Krorostelev
174. Gustav Bouramman (I think)
210. Nathan Noel
Thats probably the year I followed the less for the later rounds ending up with pretty bad results, not fully sure about the selections though.

2014
6. Nikolaj Ehlers (damn, most people would have went Ehlers or Nylander to be fair I believe)
24. David Pastrnak (oh god)
36. Roland Mckeown
66. Brayden Point (ok that year would have been insane)
126. Ondrej Kase (wait... wasn't over)
156. Adam Ollas Mattsson
186. Vladimir Tkachev

2013
9. Valeri Nichushkin (sorry for that)
24. Hunter Shinkaruk (same mistake)
85. Pavel Buchnevich
115. Eric Roy (damn you missed the good ones, late 3rd Bjorkstrand & Lehkonen with 2nd)
145. Lucas Wallmark
175. Nikita Tryamkin (got him 1 year before!)
205. Brendan Harms

Did not follow that draft enough before that, but your former Vancouver Giants Gallagher would be on your team for sure (but I may have messed up some other picks tho who knows?).

Pastrnak-Point-Boeser
Ehlers-Buchnevich-Tkachuk
Bratt-Kase-Pettersson

Not bad , trade whatever extra for a D. You got 3 good Ds in the early rounds of 2017, thats a good bank to start securing the future too.

 

[Matt Rentfree]

You must have worked incredibly hard on this, so firstly, thanks for all of your hard work! I had a question about the weighting of different years. Why are different prospects given different weights in different years? As an example, Jesperi Kotkaniemi's draft year is weighted at 83%, Tkachuks is weighted at 53% and Veleno's is weighted at 66% (I just picked these three because they're right next to each other and all have three years of data to work with). You have data for three years on all three players, so why are their draft, draft - 1 and draft -2 years weighted differently from one another?

 

[ShouldveDraftedFiala]

2014

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

You must have worked incredibly hard on this, so firstly, thanks for all of your hard work! I had a question about the weighting of different years. Why are different prospects given different weights in different years? As an example, Jesperi Kotkaniemi's draft year is weighted at 83%, Tkachuks is weighted at 53% and Veleno's is weighted at 66% (I just picked these three because they're right next to each other and all have three years of data to work with). You have data for three years on all three players, so why are their draft, draft - 1 and draft -2 years weighted differently from one another?

Thanks!
It is calculated automatically by the algorithm depending on the quantity of games played and tournaments played for each season. By default I think it is something like 68% 23% 9% if games played each year are equal.

 

[canucks20]

This is awesome. You're the people that make hfboards worth all the crap

 

[blindpass]

I did not saw every single of those players play, if there are highlights I have probably seen them though, but I am using other reports a lot for the scouting evaluation section to complement.

I must be confused about what you are doing. If you are just getting data into an algorithm, what difference do your subjective evaluations make? Why does it matter if you've watched a player?

 

[37 others]

EliteProspects and leagues websites.

It looks like you have a big spreadsheet for the calcs. Did you manually pull the info or are using EP's API/a webscraper?

I'm super interested in this type of hockey datalytics. I've been working on a project to judge prospects but it's nothing compared to what you've done haha. How'd you get into doing work like this (you can PM me if you don't want to post it publicly)?

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

I must be confused about what you are doing. If you are just getting data into an algorithm, what difference do your subjective evaluations make? Why does it matter if you've watched a player?

I can see how it can be difficult to grasp how I am using the subjective evaluations so here are further explanations; I rate players attributes which is converted into an overall score, this score is sort of used as an expected value to remove anomalies in statistical performance (if the player overperformed or underperformed base on what you would expect). Those evaluations are also seen by the software sort as a projection of the player skills, affecting the final score again at the end, you can often see players with good stats but bad skating fall in the draft, so I particularly value skating so the software can match that. So it matters that I watch the players in order to have the appropriate subjective evaluations. If you were to be using the software you might obtain different results, but it should normally tend to look like mine.

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

It looks like you have a big spreadsheet for the calcs. Did you manually pull the info or are using EP's API/a webscraper?

I'm super interested in this type of hockey datalytics. I've been working on a project to judge prospects but it's nothing compared to what you've done haha. How'd you get into doing work like this (you can PM me if you don't want to post it publicly)?

I have been entering everything myself, i'll be looking into EP's API/a webscraper it could save me a lot of time.

Nice to see people sharing my interest, I believe there is true potential I that type of approach. I am not sure I fully understood your last question; I just started out less than a year ago on my own sort of as challenge I set myself (thinking I could have better scouting results with a well programmed software) and here I am now. Do you mean how did I achieve those type of results with my algorithm?