Prospect Info: Sharks Prospect Info & Discussion Thread XX

[coooldude]

In our ever-circular series of discussions here on HFB, I wanted to intro this good analysis from the main boards into the Sharks discourse. We all know some people hate DW and DWJr and some people liked them, or are ambivalent, but data always helps.

This post does a backward-looking analysis of draft performance based on NHL games played vs. expected for the draft position. tl;dr Doug Wilson's tenure was in the 3rd quartile (aka worse than average, around 30-40%, but not bottom 25%).

I'm hoping that this will speed up the next cycle where we criticize former regime draft pick, and can instead agree that "they weren't very good, worse than average, weren't the worst either."

Some caveats:

• Games played not necessarily the best metric -- some teams, it'll be easier to play games. Someone suggested scraping cumulative WAR or something.
• Other stat nerd caveats in thread.

Grading each NHL team's draft performance

I've created a tool that, building on a some previous work (see Acknowledgements below), allows us to score each NHL team's draft performance. Basically, for each NHL draft pick 1 through 200ish we can look at the average number of NHL games played by each pick. Schuckers notices that there's...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[OrrNumber4]

In our ever-circular series of discussions here on HFB, I wanted to intro this good analysis from the main boards into the Sharks discourse. We all know some people hate DW and DWJr and some people liked them, or are ambivalent, but data always helps.

This post does a backward-looking analysis of draft performance based on NHL games played vs. expected for the draft position. tl;dr Doug Wilson's tenure was in the 3rd quartile (aka worse than average, around 30-40%, but not bottom 25%).

I'm hoping that this will speed up the next cycle where we criticize former regime draft pick, and can instead agree that "they weren't very good, worse than average, weren't the worst either."

Some caveats:

• Games played not necessarily the best metric -- some teams, it'll be easier to play games. Someone suggested scraping cumulative WAR or something.
• Other stat nerd caveats in thread.

Grading each NHL team's draft performance

I've created a tool that, building on a some previous work (see Acknowledgements below), allows us to score each NHL team's draft performance. Basically, for each NHL draft pick 1 through 200ish we can look at the average number of NHL games played by each pick. Schuckers notices that there's...

forums.hfboards.com

Thanks for the link, and I'm sure others can dig in...but that conclusion is absolutely hogwash.

Maybe we're talking past one another, but Doug Wilson was GM from 2003 until 2021 (arguably more or less). In that period, the Sharks are probably in the top 3, especially if you look at games played!

 

[landshark]

Thanks for the link, and I'm sure others can dig in...but that conclusion is absolutely hogwash.

hahaha, darn. I couldn't find Col. Potter saying, "Hogwash" but this totally made me think of that.

 

[coooldude]

Thanks for the link, and I'm sure others can dig in...but that conclusion is absolutely hogwash.

Maybe we're talking past one another, but Doug Wilson was GM from 2003 until 2021 (arguably more or less). In that period, the Sharks are probably in the top 3, especially if you look at games played!

Well, one way to get out of the data is to cite conclusions that aren't covered either way by the data!

This analysis covers 2013-2023. So unless DW and team were truly exceptional (#1) for those first 10 years 2003-2012 (Pavs surely could help a lot), I don't think the data supports your conclusion that he was top 3 over his entire tenure.

Let's eyeball it though: (source: this page plus the aforementioned post, eyeballing their eGP chart)

• Michalek in 2003 at #6 and 747GP is probably expected. 0 positive or negative points.
• Bernier at #16 and 637GP is probably expected.
• Hennessey at #43 and 23GP is a bust by about 200-ish games.
• Carle at #47 and 730GP is probably 400-500 over expectation. nice job.
• Pavs at #205 and 1337GP is ~1200 games over expected and probably one of the top 5 late round draft picks of all time.
• The rest are zeros, so you prob lose roughly -30 to 50 per X6. Let's say -40.
• That nets you roughly +1200 GP. 2003 was excellent. The best 3 GMs are averaging +600-800.

2004:

• Lukas Kaspar at 22OA and only 16GP is a bust by 300-450 games.
• Greiss at #94 and 368GP is probably a +100.
• Mitchell at #126 and 666gp is probably a +500. Nice.
• The rest are zeros, so -40 X7.
• The net is roughly +100 or so. this puts him in the 2nd quartile. slightly better than average.

2005:

• Seto at #8 and 516GP is either expected or a minor bust, let's say -50.
• Vlasic at #35 and 1296 and counting is a big win, +750.
• Stalock at #112 and 178gp is a minor win, +50.
• Joslin at #149 (good ol' ottawa 67) and 116gp is probably at expectation.
• The rest are -40 X4.
• Net win is roughly +550-600, so very good because of Vlasic.

2006:

• Ty Wishart at 16OA and 26GP is a bust by 450gp. ouch.
• Jamie McGinn (67s) at 36 and 617GP is a +400, let's call it.
• John McCarthy at 202 and 88gp is roughly +70, if we're giving -20's at this point.
• -30 for the rest X3
• Net win is roughly -50-100, let's say. 3rd quartile, clearly worse than average.

2007:

• Couture at 9OA and 933GP is maybe +200
• Petrecki at 28OA and 1GP is -250, charitably
• Pielmeier at 83 and 1GP is -150 or so.
• Bonino at 173 and 868 is great. +840.
• Justin Braun at 201 and 842gp is big. +820ish.
• Frazer McLaren at 203 and 102gp is roughly +80.
• The rest are -40 X2.
• Big year because of Braun and Bonino! let's call it +1400. Huge.

2008:

• Wingels at 177 and 448 is great - +400.
• Jason Demers at 186 and 700 is greater - +670.
• Daniels at #62 and no games is a -200.
• Groulx at 92 and no games is a -125.
• Sateri at 106 and 15gp is a -80, let's say.
• 2 more -40 = -60.
• Net is a +450 or so. Probably the bottom of the top quartile - bad year at the top, but Demers and Wingels late picks help a lot.

2009: Rough year.

• William Wren at 43 / 0gp is -250.
• Doherty at 57 and 0gp is -250.
• Varone at 147 and 97 is a +50ish.
• other two are -40.
• Net this year is a -500ish. Bottom 5 performance. Bad.

2010:

• Charlie Coyle at #28 and 867GP is great! Too bad he didn't play them for us. +600.
• Uh oh, that's it.
• Max Gaede at 88 and 0gp is -125ish.
• Ferriero at 127 and 0gp is -100ish.
• 5 more with 0gp, let's be nice and just -40 them all.
• Net gain is +100ish. Second quartile, but not encouraging. Close to average, and only because of Coyle.

2011

• Nieto at 47/673 is great. +400ish.
• Sefton at 89/0 is -125ish.
• Kuraly at 133 and 480 is +400ish!
• DeMelo at 179 and 554 is great, +500.
• Blackwell at 194/235 is +200.
• Sobchenko -40.
• Great year! lots of depth players, no stars. +1300 or so.

2012

• Hertl at 17/718GP and counting is good. +200 let's say.
• Tierney at 55/649 is great. +400.
• Joakim Ryan at 198 and 145 is a minor win, +100.
• Other 3 are roughlly -140.
• Net gain is 550-600. Nice year!

That's 10 years, total games gained +4700, so by my VERY rough math, that's +450-550gp per year average. That puts him just outside the top 5, if we assume that the top 5 scored similarly back then to today.

And in going through every single draft pick from that era, I can say that for sure they did very well in the outer rounds finding role players, but probably pretty average with the top picks.

Either way, I don't think you could say that from 2003-2021 that DW was a top 3 GM at drafting. Not even from 2003-2012, unless the top performer scores were very different back then.

 

[Alaskanice]

Well, one way to get out of the data is to cite conclusions that aren't covered either way by the data!

This analysis covers 2013-2023. So unless DW and team were truly exceptional (#1) for those first 10 years 2003-2012 (Pavs surely could help a lot), I don't think the data supports your conclusion that he was top 3 over his entire tenure.

Let's eyeball it though: (source: this page plus the aforementioned post, eyeballing their eGP chart)

• Michalek in 2003 at #6 and 747GP is probably expected. 0 positive or negative points.
• Bernier at #16 and 637GP is probably expected.
• Hennessey at #43 and 23GP is a bust by about 200-ish games.
• Carle at #47 and 730GP is probably 400-500 over expectation. nice job.
• Pavs at #205 and 1337GP is ~1200 games over expected and probably one of the top 5 late round draft picks of all time.
• The rest are zeros, so you prob lose roughly -30 to 50 per X6. Let's say -40.
• That nets you roughly +1200 GP. 2003 was excellent. The best 3 GMs are averaging +600-800.

2004:

• Lukas Kaspar at 22OA and only 16GP is a bust by 300-450 games.
• Greiss at #94 and 368GP is probably a +100.
• Mitchell at #126 and 666gp is probably a +500. Nice.
• The rest are zeros, so -40 X7.
• The net is roughly +100 or so. this puts him in the 2nd quartile. slightly better than average.

2005:

• Seto at #8 and 516GP is either expected or a minor bust, let's say -50.
• Vlasic at #35 and 1296 and counting is a big win, +750.
• Stalock at #112 and 178gp is a minor win, +50.
• Joslin at #149 (good ol' ottawa 67) and 116gp is probably at expectation.
• The rest are -40 X4.
• Net win is roughly +550-600, so very good because of Vlasic.

2006:

• Ty Wishart at 16OA and 26GP is a bust by 450gp. ouch.
• Jamie McGinn (67s) at 36 and 617GP is a +400, let's call it.
• John McCarthy at 202 and 88gp is roughly +70, if we're giving -20's at this point.
• -30 for the rest X3
• Net win is roughly -50-100, let's say. 3rd quartile, clearly worse than average.

2007:

• Couture at 9OA and 933GP is maybe +200
• Petrecki at 28OA and 1GP is -250, charitably
• Pielmeier at 83 and 1GP is -150 or so.
• Bonino at 173 and 868 is great. +840.
• Justin Braun at 201 and 842gp is big. +820ish.
• Frazer McLaren at 203 and 102gp is roughly +80.
• The rest are -40 X2.
• Big year because of Braun and Bonino! let's call it +1400. Huge.

2008:

• Wingels at 177 and 448 is great - +400.
• Jason Demers at 186 and 700 is greater - +670.
• Daniels at #62 and no games is a -200.
• Groulx at 92 and no games is a -125.
• Sateri at 106 and 15gp is a -80, let's say.
• 2 more -40 = -60.
• Net is a +450 or so. Probably the bottom of the top quartile - bad year at the top, but Demers and Wingels late picks help a lot.

2009: Rough year.

• William Wren at 43 / 0gp is -250.
• Doherty at 57 and 0gp is -250.
• Varone at 147 and 97 is a +50ish.
• other two are -40.
• Net this year is a -500ish. Bottom 5 performance. Bad.

2010:

• Charlie Coyle at #28 and 867GP is great! Too bad he didn't play them for us. +600.
• Uh oh, that's it.
• Max Gaede at 88 and 0gp is -125ish.
• Ferriero at 127 and 0gp is -100ish.
• 5 more with 0gp, let's be nice and just -40 them all.
• Net gain is +100ish. Second quartile, but not encouraging. Close to average, and only because of Coyle.

2011

• Nieto at 47/673 is great. +400ish.
• Sefton at 89/0 is -125ish.
• Kuraly at 133 and 480 is +400ish!
• DeMelo at 179 and 554 is great, +500.
• Blackwell at 194/235 is +200.
• Sobchenko -40.
• Great year! lots of depth players, no stars. +1300 or so.

2012

• Hertl at 17/718GP and counting is good. +200 let's say.
• Tierney at 55/649 is great. +400.
• Joakim Ryan at 198 and 145 is a minor win, +100.
• Other 3 are roughlly -140.
• Net gain is 550-600. Nice year!

That's 10 years, total games gained +4700, so by my VERY rough math, that's +450-550gp per year average. That puts him just outside the top 5, if we assume that the top 5 scored similarly back then to today.

And in going through every single draft pick from that era, I can say that for sure they did very well in the outer rounds finding role players, but probably pretty average with the top picks.

Either way, I don't think you could say that from 2003-2021 that DW was a top 3 GM at drafting. Not even from 2003-2012, unless the top performer scores were very different back then.

Impressive work. I only wanted to point out Sobchenko. You have him at no NHL games played and a -40. He died at 20 in a plane crash that killed a number of Russian hockey players.
He was thought to be a steal and with a very good future.
Just seems wrong to put him down in this list.

 

[coooldude]

Impressive work. I only wanted to point out Sobchenko. You have him at no NHL games played and a -40. He died at 20 in a plane crash that killed a number of Russian hockey players.
He was thought to be a steal and with a very good future.
Just seems wrong to put him down in this list.

Fair point! in fact, the original post mentioned this concern with a number of young prospects.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Well, one way to get out of the data is to cite conclusions that aren't covered either way by the data!

You didn't specify years, you said:

Doug Wilson's tenure was in the 3rd quartile (aka worse than average, around 30-40%, but not bottom 25%).

Tenure would imply 2003 to 2022ish. If it really is 2013 to 2023, then perhaps I could understand (but even then, it's quite early to be judging some of those years)

Let's eyeball it though: (source: this page plus the aforementioned post, eyeballing their eGP chart)

• Michalek in 2003 at #6 and 747GP is probably expected. 0 positive or negative points.
• Bernier at #16 and 637GP is probably expected.
• Hennessey at #43 and 23GP is a bust by about 200-ish games.
• Carle at #47 and 730GP is probably 400-500 over expectation. nice job.
• Pavs at #205 and 1337GP is ~1200 games over expected and probably one of the top 5 late round draft picks of all time.
• The rest are zeros, so you prob lose roughly -30 to 50 per X6. Let's say -40.
• That nets you roughly +1200 GP. 2003 was excellent. The best 3 GMs are averaging +600-800.

2004:

• Lukas Kaspar at 22OA and only 16GP is a bust by 300-450 games.
• Greiss at #94 and 368GP is probably a +100.
• Mitchell at #126 and 666gp is probably a +500. Nice.
• The rest are zeros, so -40 X7.
• The net is roughly +100 or so. this puts him in the 2nd quartile. slightly better than average.

2005:

• Seto at #8 and 516GP is either expected or a minor bust, let's say -50.
• Vlasic at #35 and 1296 and counting is a big win, +750.
• Stalock at #112 and 178gp is a minor win, +50.
• Joslin at #149 (good ol' ottawa 67) and 116gp is probably at expectation.
• The rest are -40 X4.
• Net win is roughly +550-600, so very good because of Vlasic.

2006:

• Ty Wishart at 16OA and 26GP is a bust by 450gp. ouch.
• Jamie McGinn (67s) at 36 and 617GP is a +400, let's call it.
• John McCarthy at 202 and 88gp is roughly +70, if we're giving -20's at this point.
• -30 for the rest X3
• Net win is roughly -50-100, let's say. 3rd quartile, clearly worse than average.

2007:

• Couture at 9OA and 933GP is maybe +200
• Petrecki at 28OA and 1GP is -250, charitably
• Pielmeier at 83 and 1GP is -150 or so.
• Bonino at 173 and 868 is great. +840.
• Justin Braun at 201 and 842gp is big. +820ish.
• Frazer McLaren at 203 and 102gp is roughly +80.
• The rest are -40 X2.
• Big year because of Braun and Bonino! let's call it +1400. Huge.

2008:

• Wingels at 177 and 448 is great - +400.
• Jason Demers at 186 and 700 is greater - +670.
• Daniels at #62 and no games is a -200.
• Groulx at 92 and no games is a -125.
• Sateri at 106 and 15gp is a -80, let's say.
• 2 more -40 = -60.
• Net is a +450 or so. Probably the bottom of the top quartile - bad year at the top, but Demers and Wingels late picks help a lot.

2009: Rough year.

• William Wren at 43 / 0gp is -250.
• Doherty at 57 and 0gp is -250.
• Varone at 147 and 97 is a +50ish.
• other two are -40.
• Net this year is a -500ish. Bottom 5 performance. Bad.

2010:

• Charlie Coyle at #28 and 867GP is great! Too bad he didn't play them for us. +600.
• Uh oh, that's it.
• Max Gaede at 88 and 0gp is -125ish.
• Ferriero at 127 and 0gp is -100ish.
• 5 more with 0gp, let's be nice and just -40 them all.
• Net gain is +100ish. Second quartile, but not encouraging. Close to average, and only because of Coyle.

2011

• Nieto at 47/673 is great. +400ish.
• Sefton at 89/0 is -125ish.
• Kuraly at 133 and 480 is +400ish!
• DeMelo at 179 and 554 is great, +500.
• Blackwell at 194/235 is +200.
• Sobchenko -40.
• Great year! lots of depth players, no stars. +1300 or so.

2012

• Hertl at 17/718GP and counting is good. +200 let's say.
• Tierney at 55/649 is great. +400.
• Joakim Ryan at 198 and 145 is a minor win, +100.
• Other 3 are roughlly -140.
• Net gain is 550-600. Nice year!

That's 10 years, total games gained +4700, so by my VERY rough math, that's +450-550gp per year average. That puts him just outside the top 5, if we assume that the top 5 scored similarly back then to today.

And in going through every single draft pick from that era, I can say that for sure they did very well in the outer rounds finding role players, but probably pretty average with the top picks.

Either way, I don't think you could say that from 2003-2021 that DW was a top 3 GM at drafting. Not even from 2003-2012, unless the top performer scores were very different back then.

Good work with this analysis. But to do it properly, you'd have to look at every other team back then and compare (and probably no eye-balling)

Impressive work. I only wanted to point out Sobchenko. You have him at no NHL games played and a -40. He died at 20 in a plane crash that killed a number of Russian hockey players.
He was thought to be a steal and with a very good future.
Just seems wrong to put him down in this list.

With this kind of analysis, where there is aggregation, you don't have to remove outliers like Sobchenko (or Mike Morris).

 

[gaucholoco3]

It is almost impossible to determine if DW was great at drafting because he had roughly 10 years of outstanding drafting and 10 years of horrible drafting. It’s no surprise taking over a playoff roster he led them to a near 20 year playoff streak only to have the bottom fall out with his last 10 years of drafting leading to the roster that was the worst in the cap era.

 

[Patty Ice]

Sobchenko -40.

That's rough. That should be a 0 due to unfortunate circumstance.

 

[Cas]

That's rough. That should be a 0 due to unfortunate circumstance.

You could make the same argument about any injury.

 

[Patty Ice]

You could make the same argument about any injury.

I think it was a little more than an injury.

 

[coooldude]

You didn't specify years, you said:

Bro, the analysis specified the years, you can't put that on me. You seem smart enough to understand that my statement was summarizing someone else's analysis, where DW was 3rd quartile in the period analyzed.

Tenure would imply 2003 to 2022ish. If it really is 2013 to 2023, then perhaps I could understand (but even then, it's quite early to be judging some of those years)

Bro, go look at the analysis. quintessential shooting of the messenger. I then spent like a half hour eyeballing (really, more than eyeballing) our draft history 2003-2012 to see if your claim made sense, and I don't think the evidence holds up that it makes sense.

Good work with this analysis. But to do it properly, you'd have to look at every other team back then and compare (and probably no eye-balling)

Yes! as I said in the bolded statements - "assuming the top 5 scored similarly versus today." I am not going to replicate this guy's analysis for 2003-2012 across the league. You can if you feel strongly that you want to prove DW was top 3! However, the simplest assumption is that drafting hasn't changed much, the top and bottom scores and the general distribution is mostly the same, and your statement that DW was top 3 across his whole tenure, or even just across 2003-2012, is an overstatement.

With this kind of analysis, where there is aggregation, you don't have to remove outliers like Sobchenko (or Mike Morris).

Go read the thread man. He did want to remove a few outliers including other draft picks who died young. However, as Sobchenko was a 166 draft pick, the impact is less than e.g. the Leafs prospect as mentioned on the thread.

It is almost impossible to determine if DW was great at drafting because he had roughly 10 years of outstanding drafting and 10 years of horrible drafting. It’s no surprise taking over a playoff roster he led them to a near 20 year playoff streak only to have the bottom fall out with his last 10 years of drafting leading to the roster that was the worst in the cap era.

I think the rough evaluation I now have, having just gone through this in the posts above, is that it is possible to determine if DW was great at drafting, at least in a fuzzy way.

• He was close to top 5 but probably not quite top 5 from 2003-2012, mostly propped up by excellent role player finds (plus Pavs and Vlasic, two excellent players) in the late rounds.
• Other analyses show that he was 3rd quartile (not bottom quartile, but not average) from 2013-21.
• Conclusion: he was not consistently great at drafting. He had some great years in the early going and his staff performance suffered in the last 9 years of his tenure.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Bro, the analysis specified the years, you can't put that on me. You seem smart enough to understand that my statement was summarizing someone else's analysis, where DW was 3rd quartile in the period analyzed.

I want to plant a flag here.

You can criticize me for not diving into the quoted analysis, but you must also take some blame for blatantly misrepresenting the results. "DW's tenure" are the exact words which you used. It could be forgiven had you also mentioned the years, or used "second-half of DW's tenure", but that's not what you did.

The language you used was tendentious as hell. Discussions need to be had in good faith; we don't want an environment where we have to double-check everyone's work and posts and links.

After all, you seem smart enough to know how your words would be interpreted, and what the data was actually saying. So was it sophistry, carelessness, or just bad analysis on your part?

I think the rough evaluation I now have, having just gone through this in the posts above, is that it is possible to determine if DW was great at drafting, at least in a fuzzy way.

• He was close to top 5 but probably not quite top 5 from 2003-2012, mostly propped up by excellent role player finds (plus Pavs and Vlasic, two excellent players) in the late rounds.
• Other analyses show that he was 3rd quartile (not bottom quartile, but not average) from 2013-21.
• Conclusion: he was not consistently great at drafting. He had some great years in the early going and his staff performance suffered in the last 9 years of his tenure.

Let's put this to bed.

The original thread had a link to this tool, which lets you modify the parameters. I came up with this:

scout nhl draft scores from 2003 to 2021

scoutthe.xyz

This shows that the Sharks were #1 during DW's tenure.

 

[Cas]

I think it was a little more than an injury.

Sure, but not in a way that matters for this kind of analysis.

You don't get credit for drafting a great prospect who suffers a career-ending injury in juniors. I don't see why you should get credit for drafting a great prospect who dies in a plane crash (or car crash, etc). Injury and even death are simply risks that all players have, and once you start playing the "what if" game, you can continue to use it to massage whatever argument you want.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Well, one way to get out of the data is to cite conclusions that aren't covered either way by the data!

This analysis covers 2013-2023. So unless DW and team were truly exceptional (#1) for those first 10 years 2003-2012 (Pavs surely could help a lot), I don't think the data supports your conclusion that he was top 3 over his entire tenure.

Let's eyeball it though: (source: this page plus the aforementioned post, eyeballing their eGP chart)

• Michalek in 2003 at #6 and 747GP is probably expected. 0 positive or negative points.
• Bernier at #16 and 637GP is probably expected.
• Hennessey at #43 and 23GP is a bust by about 200-ish games.
• Carle at #47 and 730GP is probably 400-500 over expectation. nice job.
• Pavs at #205 and 1337GP is ~1200 games over expected and probably one of the top 5 late round draft picks of all time.
• The rest are zeros, so you prob lose roughly -30 to 50 per X6. Let's say -40.
• That nets you roughly +1200 GP. 2003 was excellent. The best 3 GMs are averaging +600-800.

2004:

• Lukas Kaspar at 22OA and only 16GP is a bust by 300-450 games.
• Greiss at #94 and 368GP is probably a +100.
• Mitchell at #126 and 666gp is probably a +500. Nice.
• The rest are zeros, so -40 X7.
• The net is roughly +100 or so. this puts him in the 2nd quartile. slightly better than average.

2005:

• Seto at #8 and 516GP is either expected or a minor bust, let's say -50.
• Vlasic at #35 and 1296 and counting is a big win, +750.
• Stalock at #112 and 178gp is a minor win, +50.
• Joslin at #149 (good ol' ottawa 67) and 116gp is probably at expectation.
• The rest are -40 X4.
• Net win is roughly +550-600, so very good because of Vlasic.

2006:

• Ty Wishart at 16OA and 26GP is a bust by 450gp. ouch.
• Jamie McGinn (67s) at 36 and 617GP is a +400, let's call it.
• John McCarthy at 202 and 88gp is roughly +70, if we're giving -20's at this point.
• -30 for the rest X3
• Net win is roughly -50-100, let's say. 3rd quartile, clearly worse than average.

2007:

• Couture at 9OA and 933GP is maybe +200
• Petrecki at 28OA and 1GP is -250, charitably
• Pielmeier at 83 and 1GP is -150 or so.
• Bonino at 173 and 868 is great. +840.
• Justin Braun at 201 and 842gp is big. +820ish.
• Frazer McLaren at 203 and 102gp is roughly +80.
• The rest are -40 X2.
• Big year because of Braun and Bonino! let's call it +1400. Huge.

2008:

• Wingels at 177 and 448 is great - +400.
• Jason Demers at 186 and 700 is greater - +670.
• Daniels at #62 and no games is a -200.
• Groulx at 92 and no games is a -125.
• Sateri at 106 and 15gp is a -80, let's say.
• 2 more -40 = -60.
• Net is a +450 or so. Probably the bottom of the top quartile - bad year at the top, but Demers and Wingels late picks help a lot.

2009: Rough year.

• William Wren at 43 / 0gp is -250.
• Doherty at 57 and 0gp is -250.
• Varone at 147 and 97 is a +50ish.
• other two are -40.
• Net this year is a -500ish. Bottom 5 performance. Bad.

2010:

• Charlie Coyle at #28 and 867GP is great! Too bad he didn't play them for us. +600.
• Uh oh, that's it.
• Max Gaede at 88 and 0gp is -125ish.
• Ferriero at 127 and 0gp is -100ish.
• 5 more with 0gp, let's be nice and just -40 them all.
• Net gain is +100ish. Second quartile, but not encouraging. Close to average, and only because of Coyle.

2011

• Nieto at 47/673 is great. +400ish.
• Sefton at 89/0 is -125ish.
• Kuraly at 133 and 480 is +400ish!
• DeMelo at 179 and 554 is great, +500.
• Blackwell at 194/235 is +200.
• Sobchenko -40.
• Great year! lots of depth players, no stars. +1300 or so.

2012

• Hertl at 17/718GP and counting is good. +200 let's say.
• Tierney at 55/649 is great. +400.
• Joakim Ryan at 198 and 145 is a minor win, +100.
• Other 3 are roughlly -140.
• Net gain is 550-600. Nice year!

That's 10 years, total games gained +4700, so by my VERY rough math, that's +450-550gp per year average. That puts him just outside the top 5, if we assume that the top 5 scored similarly back then to today.

And in going through every single draft pick from that era, I can say that for sure they did very well in the outer rounds finding role players, but probably pretty average with the top picks.

Either way, I don't think you could say that from 2003-2021 that DW was a top 3 GM at drafting. Not even from 2003-2012, unless the top performer scores were very different back then.

Thanks for putting in that effort. I think this is a way better than back of the napkin job of contextualizing the first half of DWs tenure.

And I think it generally washes. The Sharks and DW built a reputation of doing well in their drafting, getting good value relative to their draft positions (as a whole, individual selection criticism aside,) during that period where they were perceived as a perennial contender; and really fell off in the second half of his tenure culminating in the barren wasteland that Grier inherited.

Sure, but not in a way that matters for this kind of analysis.

You don't get credit for drafting a great prospect who suffers a career-ending injury in juniors. I don't see why you should get credit for drafting a great prospect who dies in a plane crash (or car crash, etc). Injury and even death are simply risks that all players have, and once you start playing the "what if" game, you can continue to use it to massage whatever argument you want.

Furthermore, this isn’t some mission critical dataset or something. We’re not measuring to five decimal places here; what do we think the impact of these outliers are? DW moves +/- one position? Sure. Fine. Who cares.

 

[Patty Ice]

Sure, but not in a way that matters for this kind of analysis.

You don't get credit for drafting a great prospect who suffers a career-ending injury in juniors. I don't see why you should get credit for drafting a great prospect who dies in a plane crash (or car crash, etc). Injury and even death are simply risks that all players have, and once you start playing the "what if" game, you can continue to use it to massage whatever argument you want.

I get your point but the angle I'm going at is to put respect on his name and not list him at -40 on some inconsequential analysis.

 

[coooldude]

I want to plant a flag here.

You can criticize me for not diving into the quoted analysis, but you must also take some blame for blatantly misrepresenting the results. "DW's tenure" are the exact words which you used. It could be forgiven had you also mentioned the years, or used "second-half of DW's tenure", but that's not what you did.

The language you used was tendentious as hell. Discussions need to be had in good faith; we don't want an environment where we have to double-check everyone's work and posts and links.

After all, you seem smart enough to know how your words would be interpreted, and what the data was actually saying. So was it sophistry, carelessness, or just bad analysis on your part?

Let's put this to bed.

The original thread had a link to this tool, which lets you modify the parameters. I came up with this:

scout nhl draft scores from 2003 to 2021

scoutthe.xyz

This shows that the Sharks were #1 during DW's tenure.

No. I'm not going to take blame. You use the words "tendentious as hell" -- right back at you man, you are being pedantic as all get out. "Discussions need to be had in good faith." Yes, I did that. We're delving into absolutely mind-gooifying minutia so that you can what, feel smarter? Prove a point about Doug Wilson being #1? 3 paragraphs to lecture me on my word choice because you think I should have included the date range and think I was being purposefully (checks thesaurus to impress everyone omg) obfuscatory?

Come on bro.

Great, the tool when it gets to 7 years post-draft shows that the Sharks are #1 if you start at 2003-2021. And how many games above expected? 1,800. Take Pavelski out and you're at 600. Right back at "pretty good! but not the best."

If we want to give DW credit for being the best drafting GM from 2003 to 2021 because he grabbed Joe Pavelski in the 7th round, we can. That's what the data shows for your date range. Fair is Fair. I, however, am not willing to plant a flag that DW is the best drafting GM in the league during his entire tenure because he drafted Pavs in the 7th round in the first year of his tenure, and then the majority of his games++ came from that one pick over the next 18 years.

Stepping back from this pointless shit fight which I stupidly created by sharing someone else's analysis, I think this discussion has been helpful to me in that it gives me a POV on DW's tenure. Here's my summary and no amount of sexy vocabulary is likely to change it at this point:

• There is no objective way to analyze how good a GM is at drafting
• The fuzzy ways we can look at it show that DW was pretty amazing at finding talent deep in the draft - mostly role players, but one bonafide star (Pavs, easily one of the greatest picks ever) and another with an elite ceiling (Vlasic)
• In that first decade he was decidedly less awesome in rounds 1-3, maybe batting at average or in the quartile above average
• In the decade following, he was a lot less awesome, but still not in the bottom quartile.
• In 5 years, I'm gonna guess that the last few years of his tenure when DWJr was at the helm will look really gross. But we'll see.

 

[coooldude]

God, I was so steamed from that interaction that I went back to the tool to look a little deeper. Maybe people will find this interesting. All grades 7 years post-draft, here's the tool.

• 2003-21: Sharks #1 (top contributors in order: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Pavs)
• 2004-21: Sharks #1 (top: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro)
• 2005-21: Sharks #1 (top: same as last)
• 2006-21: Sharks #4 (top: Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto)
• 2007-21: Sharks #4 (top: same as last)
• 2008-21: Sharks #8 (top: same as last)
• 2009-21: Sharks #12 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Coyle)
• 2010-21: Sharks #6 (top: same as last)
• 2011-21: Sharks #10 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Hertl)
• 2012-21: Sharks #9 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Hertl, Gambrell)
• 2013-21: Sharks #20 (top: Labanc, Ferraro, Gambrell, Gregor Balcers)

If that doesn't paint a pretty clear picture of a great drafter at the beginning of his tenure, especially for role players with the two home runs (edit: grand slams) of Vlasic and Pavs, who got a lot worse as time went on, I don't know what else to say.

 

[OrrNumber4]

No. I'm not going to take blame. You use the words "tendentious as hell" -- right back at you man, you are being pedantic as all get out. "Discussions need to be had in good faith." Yes, I did that. We're delving into absolutely mind-gooifying minutia so that you can what, feel smarter?

I'm pointing out that saying DW's tenure was 3rd quartile drafting is completely unfair given that you only looked at the latter half of his tenure (and if the dataset was 2013-2023 and post-7-years, you're really only looking at 4 years of his tenure?).

That's not being pedantic, that's pointing out that your conclusion is inaccurate.

Prove a point about Doug Wilson being #1? 3 paragraphs to lecture me on my word choice because you think I should have included the date range and think I was being purposefully (checks thesaurus to impress everyone omg) obfuscatory?

Come on bro.

I will amend this...I think this next part shows that you weren't being obfuscatory, but simply (insert thesaurized "dumb").

Great, the tool when it gets to 7 years post-draft shows that the Sharks are #1 if you start at 2003-2021. And how many games above expected? 1,800. Take Pavelski out and you're at 600. Right back at "pretty good! but not the best."

There you go again!

You contend that Pavelski is responsible for 1,200 of the 1,800 games above expected (GAE). But he isn't...it's only 255. Of course, if you go to 23 years post-draft, then Pavelski contributes more than 1,200 games...but the Sharks's total is still nearly 4,900 GAE. Taking out Pavelski would still put them in second place, league-wide, behind LA.

The rest of your summary falls apart since you've misconstrued the data.

Ultimately, this analysis shows that during DW's tenure, the Sharks were the best drafting team in the league. Of course, this analysis has issues as you and others have pointed out (emphasis on GP, baseline bias, etc.). By my reckoning, DW (or in my head, Burke) was not #1, but I'd have considered him #4-5, and this analysis is useful enough that I think it nudges me at #4 or even #3.

Lastly, I will add this...you seem unusually waspish and agitated, as if this discussion has strongly disturbed you (maybe this is some version of Poe's law). So I will ask...why you heff to be mad? It's only game!

 

[coooldude]

I'm pointing out that saying DW's tenure was 3rd quartile drafting is completely unfair given that you only looked at the latter half of his tenure (and if the dataset was 2013-2023 and post-7-years, you're really only looking at 4 years of his tenure?).

That's not being pedantic, that's pointing out that your conclusion is inaccurate.

I will amend this...I think this next part shows that you weren't being obfuscatory, but simply (insert thesaurized "dumb").

There you go again!

You contend that Pavelski is responsible for 1,200 of the 1,800 games above expected (GAE). But he isn't...it's only 255. Of course, if you go to 23 years post-draft, then Pavelski contributes more than 1,200 games...but the Sharks's total is still nearly 4,900 GAE. Taking out Pavelski would still put them in second place, league-wide, behind LA.

The rest of your summary falls apart since you've misconstrued the data.

Ultimately, this analysis shows that during DW's tenure, the Sharks were the best drafting team in the league. Of course, this analysis has issues as you and others have pointed out (emphasis on GP, baseline bias, etc.). By my reckoning, DW (or in my head, Burke) was not #1, but I'd have considered him #4-5, and this analysis is useful enough that I think it nudges me at #4 or even #3.

I have to be honest with you man, you are more condescending and frustrating to interact with than bad Hodge.

I just made a post which addresses the only thing I'm going to address in your post in bold. Everything else, you enjoy your afternoon. If we have another exchange this frustrating I'll probably just block you, the condescension is something else. Call me dumb again, I'll just never have to listen to your BS for the rest of my life and I'll sleep easy.

I'll repost the post here.

God, I was so steamed from that interaction that I went back to the tool to look a little deeper. Maybe people will find this interesting. All grades 7 years post-draft, here's the tool.

• 2003-21: Sharks #1 (top contributors in order: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Pavs)
• 2004-21: Sharks #1 (top: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro)
• 2005-21: Sharks #1 (top: same as last)
• 2006-21: Sharks #4 (top: Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto)
• 2007-21: Sharks #4 (top: same as last)
• 2008-21: Sharks #8 (top: same as last)
• 2009-21: Sharks #12 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Coyle)
• 2010-21: Sharks #6 (top: same as last)
• 2011-21: Sharks #10 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Hertl)
• 2012-21: Sharks #9 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Hertl, Gambrell)
• 2013-21: Sharks #20 (top: Labanc, Ferraro, Gambrell, Gregor Balcers)

If that doesn't paint a pretty clear picture of a great drafter at the beginning of his tenure, especially for role players with the two home runs (edit: grand slams) of Vlasic and Pavs, who got a lot worse as time went on, I don't know what else to say.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I have to be honest with you man, you are more condescending and frustrating to interact with than bad Hodge.

I just made a post which addresses the only thing I'm going to address in your post in bold. Everything else, you enjoy your afternoon. If we have another exchange this frustrating I'll probably just block you, the condescension is something else. Call me dumb again, I'll just never have to listen to your BS for the rest of my life and I'll sleep easy.

Let me try and desescalate.

I'm not calling you stupid; if you were stupid then that would explain the bad analysis. But...and maybe you find it condescending, I maintain that your initial analysis was unfair. And I think it was unfair not because you are dumb, but because you are too smart for your own good...you saw an analysis that agreed with your conclusion (that DW is a bad GM) and ran with it, no questions asked! Look at what happened the moment I pushed back: an in-depth analysis where you're scrutinizing every year and outlier (Pavelski and Vlasic) to prove me wrong...and again I'd argue unfairly; you are too reluctant to give DW any credit.

Let me add that I've been as critical of DW as anyone...but I am still obligated to acknowledge that the team's drafting under his tenure has been well above average. It's why I still have a lot of respect for Tim Burke and am skeptical of diminishing his influence.

I'll add by saying that I am likely twice if not three times your age...I have the right to condescend and lecture a little.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I have to be honest with you man, you are more condescending and frustrating to interact with than bad Hodge.

I just made a post which addresses the only thing I'm going to address in your post in bold. Everything else, you enjoy your afternoon. If we have another exchange this frustrating I'll probably just block you, the condescension is something else. Call me dumb again, I'll just never have to listen to your BS for the rest of my life and I'll sleep easy.

I'll repost the post here.

God, I was so steamed from that interaction that I went back to the tool to look a little deeper. Maybe people will find this interesting. All grades 7 years post-draft, here's the tool.

• 2003-21: Sharks #1 (top contributors in order: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Pavs)
• 2004-21: Sharks #1 (top: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro)
• 2005-21: Sharks #1 (top: same as last)
• 2006-21: Sharks #4 (top: Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto)
• 2007-21: Sharks #4 (top: same as last)
• 2008-21: Sharks #8 (top: same as last)
• 2009-21: Sharks #12 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Coyle)
• 2010-21: Sharks #6 (top: same as last)
• 2011-21: Sharks #10 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Hertl)
• 2012-21: Sharks #9 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Hertl, Gambrell)
• 2013-21: Sharks #20 (top: Labanc, Ferraro, Gambrell, Gregor Balcers)

If that doesn't paint a pretty clear picture of a great drafter at the beginning of his tenure, especially for role players with the two home runs (edit: grand slams) of Vlasic and Pavs, who got a lot worse as time went on, I don't know what else to say.

I don’t want to pour gas on the fire but saying DW is 3rd quartile in drafting during his entire tenure which is what was stated in the beginning then citing a tool as evidence that clearly states DW was #1 during his entire tenure really doesn’t help your argument.

Like most arguments this one is entirely about semantics.

This is almost as bad as the annual offseason discussion @OrrNumber4 has about Playoff Thornton. Not saying I want to go down that road.

 

[OrrNumber4]

• 2003-21: Sharks #1 (top contributors in order: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Pavs)
• 2004-21: Sharks #1 (top: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro)
• 2005-21: Sharks #1 (top: same as last)
• 2006-21: Sharks #4 (top: Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto)
• 2007-21: Sharks #4 (top: same as last)
• 2008-21: Sharks #8 (top: same as last)
• 2009-21: Sharks #12 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Coyle)
• 2010-21: Sharks #6 (top: same as last)
• 2011-21: Sharks #10 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Nieto, Hertl)
• 2012-21: Sharks #9 (top: Labanc, Tierney, Ferraro, Hertl, Gambrell)
• 2013-21: Sharks #20 (top: Labanc, Ferraro, Gambrell, Gregor Balcers)

1) If you are looking at 7 years post draft, I don't think it is fair to look at 2018-2021, since you don't yet have 7 years (even though the typical standard is 5 years; not sure why the author used 7 as the default)

2) With this sample size, you can't be a lazy gardener. I'm guessing that Norris is missing from these lists because of his freak injuries; it's pretty clear to me that he was a slam-dunk winner where he was drafted, and the numbers should bear that out since he's recovered from his injuries. Jeremy Roy is the same way; not saying that he is a winner, but he had terrible injury luck so I'm not sure if it is fair to count him.

3) IMO, much of what makes drafting critical is your ability to draft superstar players. Those are the most valuable assets that are almost impossible to get otherwise. Hitting on a Demers or a Tierney or even a Justin Braun is very nice, but missing out on a Ryan Getzlaf or an Anze Kopitar are the misses that haunt you. On the flip side, you look at a bad miss like Ty Wishart; DW turned him into Dan Boyle and hence it is hard to get too upset. Put another way, if Celebrini turns into a ho-hum 2nd liner, it will still be considered a disappointing draft even if everyone else (save maybe Dickinson) hits their 90th% percentile.

 

[Star Platinum]

God, I was so steamed from that interaction that I went back to the tool to look a little deeper. Maybe people will find this interesting. All grades 7 years post-draft, here's the tool.

• 2003-21: Sharks #1 (top contributors in order: Vlasic, Demers, Labanc, Tierney, Pavs)

Question for the board - I'm not super invested in the answer, but curious how people feel.

Personally I think that's kind of a sad Top 5 out of 19 years of drafting that probably is giving too much weight to getting quality players in the later rounds, but others may disagree. But curious whether you think Wilson getting Pavelski was more skilled drafting or good luck?

 

[coooldude]

Let me try and desescalate.

I'm not calling you stupid; if you were stupid then that would explain the bad analysis. But...and maybe you find it condescending, I maintain that your initial analysis was unfair. And I think it was unfair not because you are dumb, but because you are too smart for your own good...you saw an analysis that agreed with your conclusion (that DW is a bad GM) and ran with it, no questions asked! Look at what happened the moment I pushed back: an in-depth analysis where you're scrutinizing every year and outlier (Pavelski and Vlasic) to prove me wrong...and again I'd argue unfairly; you are too reluctant to give DW any credit.

Let me add that I've been as critical of DW as anyone...but I am still obligated to acknowledge that the team's drafting under his tenure has been well above average. It's why I still have a lot of respect for Tim Burke and am skeptical of diminishing his influence.

I'll add by saying that I am likely twice if not three times your age...I have the right to condescend and lecture a little.

• You spelled de-escalate wrong
• You condescended again
• You said it was my original analysis - I was summarizing someone else's analysis
• You put words in my mouth by saying I concluded DW is a bad GM, I said no such thing, and many times I said what I meant, which is that DW was a great drafter early in his tenure (first 4 years, but even some other good years in the first 10) and fell off, which the data readily shows, which you ignored (both the data, and my clearly written conclusions, instead creating a strawman out of me)
• I am 40, I am betting you are not 80-120 years old, although that would explain a lot of things, and you are getting blocked. Sorry bro. I don't need this shit.

1) If you are looking at 7 years post draft, I don't think it is fair to look at 2018-2021, since you don't yet have 7 years (even though the typical standard is 5 years; not sure why the author used 7 as the default)

2) With this sample size, you can't be a lazy gardener. I'm guessing that Norris is missing from these lists because of his freak injuries; it's pretty clear to me that he was a slam-dunk winner where he was drafted, and the numbers should bear that out since he's recovered from his injuries. Jeremy Roy is the same way; not saying that he is a winner, but he had terrible injury luck so I'm not sure if it is fair to count him.

3) IMO, much of what makes drafting critical is your ability to draft superstar players. Those are the most valuable assets that are almost impossible to get otherwise. Hitting on a Demers or a Tierney or even a Justin Braun is very nice, but missing out on a Ryan Getzlaf or an Anze Kopitar are the misses that haunt you. On the flip side, you look at a bad miss like Ty Wishart; DW turned him into Dan Boyle and hence it is hard to get too upset. Put another way, if Celebrini turns into a ho-hum 2nd liner, it will still be considered a disappointing draft even if everyone else (save maybe Dickinson) hits their 90th% percentile.

• If only you had just responded like this, but you didn't. You did the first part first.
• And even so, in this response, you don't acknowledge the plain to see dropoff after DW's amazing first 4 years from 2003-2007.
• You once again accused me of being a lazy gardener when I used someone else's tool to do the analysis.
• You're moving the goalposts because now you're talking about drafting superstar players, of which DW only did beyond expectation arguably three times - Vlasic, Pavs, and Hertl. Otherwise, he failed pretty miserably.
• I addressed this very problem with Celebrini being a ho-hum 2nd liner in the first post of this entire exchange where I noted that there are those in the thread (me included) who would like to see this version of the analysis with cumulative WAR or some other stat vs games played. But no, it's your smart idea.
• Again -- blocked, sorry man, have a nice sharks fan life

I don’t want to pour gas on the fire but saying DW is bottom quartile in drafting during his entire tenure which is what was stated in the beginning then citing a tool as evidence that clearly states DW was #1 during his entire tenure really doesn’t help your argument.

Like most arguments this one is entirely about semantics.

This is almost as bad as the annual offseason discussion @OrrNumber4 has about Playoff Thornton. Not saying I want to go down that road.

No it wasn't. I said this: "tl;dr Doug Wilson's tenure was in the 3rd quartile (aka worse than average, around 30-40%, but not bottom 25%)."

Question for the board - I'm not super invested in the answer, but curious how people feel.

Personally I think that's kind of a sad Top 5 out of 19 years of drafting that probably is giving too much weight to getting quality players in the later rounds, but others may disagree. But curious whether you think Wilson getting Pavelski was more skilled drafting or good luck?

This is why it would be really cool to see the analysis redone with cumulative WAR or really anything other than games. Games are a good start, you'd learn more by cutting the data some other ways.

He really crushed it with Vlasic and Pavs, he did an incredible job finding depth with Demers, Tierney, Wingels, Nieto, Ferraro, but the numbers kept getting worse and worse as you cut the data with a later start year - AKA, he got worse as he went on. The WAR-style approach would potentially accentuate this problem other than Vlasic and Pavs.