Stat watcher’s NHL draft guide 2016–2024

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Part 1: introduction

Hi! I haven’t posted here since 2010. I lost most of my interest in competitive sports for a while and focused on the life outside of the HFBoards. But ever since I regained my passion during the 2016 WJC, I have been lurking here a lot. And it was only fitting that I especially followed the NHL entry draft. That is how I got here (well, the predecessor of here – Hockey’s Future) in the first place. First, to follow news on a recently drafted Mikko Koivu way back in the late summer/early fall of 2001. Second, to hype a draft eligible goaltender by the name of Kari Lehtonen. The Koivu family has been a particular hockey interest. As a kid I accidentally saw Saku Koivu play for my favorite SM-liiga team in his draft year (Jokerit–TPS 1–0 in January 1993, the first ever live hockey game I witnessed). Back then I didn’t even acknowledge him, but in the following season he became my favorite Finnish athlete. And now, in a year when his son happens to be draft eligible, my draft project has finally come to an end. It is time to share what I’ve learned.

My inspirations have been numerous, but the Blue Bullet Report by Brad McPherson is undoubtedly the most fundamental in the literal sense of the word. It has taught me that stat watching is underrated because sample size matters. Don’t get me wrong – a more in-depth and personal viewing experience (aka the eye test) is a critical part of scouting. As are player interviews and medical reports us fans (should) only get a glimpse of. But scouting should begin from a more general and surface-level point of view. And career/season stats offer us the biggest sample size possible. They then eliminate the risk of catching the wrong games and getting a completely wrong picture of a player. No one has the time to watch every single player in every single game. But we all have the same facts of goals/assists/save percentage ahead of us. And much like the pro scouts’ player rankings, these facts correlate with future NHL success. They fall way short of guaranteeing it, but they do improve the odds.

In particular, whereas pro scouts excel at recognizing red flags and pro habits, stat watching helps you recognize the raw talent and upside. This is especially important for the entry draft. In the salary cap era, the draft is the cheapest way of acquiring a Stanley Cup worthy player core. The rest of the roster can be acquired via other means. The stars however will cost you. My focus for the draft then is on player quality over player quantity. It makes no sense to aim at hitting with your every pick, since every hit means you must pay your guy. And eventually you run out of cap/roster space anyway. Why not rather fill that space with more gifted players that you love to pay? This is where the draft year/career stats come in handy. They are all about swinging for the fences. You may miss more often, but when you hit, you hit big. There is no better foundation for drafting in my opinion.

Don’t believe me? Check out the Blue Bullet Report for a more math heavy explanation.

Part 2: the method

My approach to the NHL draft is simple. I first organize the skaters into tiers based on their production. Then I both adjust the tiers somewhat and rank the skaters within a certain tier based on scouting reports, eye test, advanced stats, and Bob McKenzie’s rankings. The goal is to get maximum (NHL playoff) value out of a draft. If you think two players are equally good, it makes sense to draft the higher ranked first and hope you can trade up for/get the other one later. The rest depends on team needs which can be freely applied to all players within the same tier. But value is always more important than positional needs that can change surprisingly quickly! The minimum value I’m personally looking for is anything between a third line center, a #4 defenseman, a high-end backup goalie or a complementary top 6 winger. If your ceiling is a bottom 6 winger, a checking line center, an average backup goalie or a bottom pairing defenseman, I’m not interested. Certainly not in the first round anyway.

Over the years I have worked out several point production per game thresholds for skaters depending on the league and position in question. They come in two forms. First, guarantee thresholds guarantee a certain minimum rank and so are the equivalent of sufficient conditions. Second, minimum thresholds are necessary conditions for a certain rank range. The stronger the league, the less you need to score to cross a certain threshold. The thresholds are not linear but based on hockey history and so subject to change. I also avoid setting minimum production thresholds for men’s leagues: the usage of junior players vs men is simply too random. But in junior leagues things get much more straightforward.

For forwards, the correlation between junior and NHL production is clear. For defensemen, junior production correlates less with NHL production than with NHL ice time (only 6 out of the 50 and 23 out of the 100 biggest minute eaters in the NHL in 23–24 produced less than half a point per game in a junior league in their draft year). So I give them a bit more leeway. But the elite defensemen were typically big point producers at junior levels. The production thresholds (think of them as guidelines rather than strict rules) for 1st year eligible skaters are as follows:

Elite European league (wartime KHL, SHL, NL, Liiga, Extraliga):

• point per game for Fs guarantees top 5 (KHL, SHL, NL) or top 10 (Liiga, Extraliga) rank
  • Top 5 examples: #1 A. Matthews 36.24+22; #2 D. Sedin 50.21+21
  • Top 10 examples: #9 M. Granlund 43.13+27; #2 A. Barkov 53.21+27; #2 K. Kakko 45.22+16
• half a point per game for Fs guarantees top 20 (KHL, SHL, NL) or first round (Liiga, Extraliga) rank
  • Top 20 examples: #7 M. Michkov 30.9+11
• half a point per game for Ds guarantees top 10 (KHL, SHL, NL) or top 20 (Liiga, Extraliga) rank
  • Top 10 examples: #2 V. Hedman 43.7+14; #1 R. Dahlin 41.7+13; #5 D. Reinbacher 46.3+19
• full pro season regardless of production guarantees top 224 if not top 3 round (top 96) rank

Allsvenskan & VHL:

• point per game for Fs guarantees top 10 rank (examples: #5 E. Pettersson 43.19+22; #7 M. Michkov 12.10+4)
• 0.75 points per game for Fs guarantees first round rank
• half a point per game for Fs guarantees top 2 round (top 64) rank (examples: #36 J. Boqvist 19.3+9)
• 0.75 points per game for Ds guarantees top 10 rank
• half a point per game for Ds guarantees first round rank

NCAA (roughly on par with Allsvenskan/VHL, but more junior focused and higher scoring):

• 2 points per game for Fs guarantees top 5 rank (examples: #4 P. Kariya 39.25+75)
• 1.5 points per game for Fs guarantees top 10 rank (examples: #3 A. Fantilli 36.30+35; #2 J. Eichel 40.26+45)
• 1 point per game for Fs guarantees top 20 rank (and is arguably a minimum threshold for top 10)
• 1 point per game for Ds guarantees top 10 rank (examples: TBD Z. Buium 42.11+39)
• half a point per game for Ds guarantees first round rank

Mestis & SL/NLB:

• 1 point per game for Fs guarantees top 2 round (top 64) rank
  • Mestis examples: #73 P. Puistola 22.15+11; #33 R. Järventie 36.23+15; #49 J. Nyman 34.18+17
  • SL/NLB examples: #14 M. Riesen 38.16+16; #3 M. McTavish 13.9+2; undrafted R. Stüssi 42.20+31
• 0.667 points per game for Ds guarantees top 2 round (top 64) rank
  • Examples: #57 J. Siegenthaler 10.1+7

WHL/OHL/QMJHL & USHL/USDP (USHL is a bit worse than CHL, but usually lower scoring):

• 2.5 points per game for Fs guarantees top 5 rank (practically #1 overall)
  • Examples: S. Crosby 62.66+102; P. Kane 58.62+83; C. McDavid 47.44+76; C. Bedard 57.71+72
• 2 points per game for Fs guarantees top 10 rank (examples: #3 J. Drouin 49.41+64; #9 D. Guenther 12.12+12)
• 1.5 points per game for Fs guarantees top 20 rank (and is arguably a minimum threshold for top 10)
• 1 point per game for Fs is a minimum threshold for first round rank and guarantees top 224 rank
• 0.667 points per game for Fs is (with some exceptions) a minimum threshold for top 224 rank
• 1.5 points per game for Ds guarantees top 10 rank (examples: #11 R. Ellis 57.22+67; TBD Z. Parekh 66.33+63)
• 1 point per game for Ds guarantees first round rank
• 0.75 points per game for Ds guarantees top 2 round (top 64) rank
• half a point per game for Ds is a minimum threshold for first round rank and guarantees top 224 rank

MHL is roughly on par with USHL, but the style is so different and the league so uneven that you need more leeway:

• half a point per game for Fs is (with some exceptions) a minimum threshold for top 224 rank

Elite European U20 league (J20 SuperElit, U20 SM-sarja) & elite Canadian junior A league (BCHL, AJHL):

• 2 points per game for Fs guarantees first round rank (even top 20 for J20 SE & BCHL)
• 1.5 points per game for Fs guarantees top 64 rank (top 50 for J20 SE & BCHL)
• 1 point per game for Fs is a minimum threshold for top 96 rank (unless offset by production in other contests)
• 1 point per game for Ds guarantees top 64 rank
• half a point per game for Ds is a minimum threshold for first round rank (NOTE: same threshold as CHL/USHL)

For the future drafts I’ve considered raising the guarantee threshold (= lowering the guaranteed rank) for CHL forwards with 1.5 points/game. Occasionally, there are first year eligible CHL Fs (such as Parascak this year) who get to play with elite talent and so have inflated stats. Perhaps 1.5 points per game for Fs should be the equivalent of 1 point per game for Ds and thus “only” a first round guarantee instead of a top 20 guarantee? But as I will explain in part 3, while my current system guarantees Parascak a top 20 rank, I won’t need to pick him that high. There’s a solid chance that I can get him with a second-round pick. That’s not all that pricy for a guy who just put up 105 points in a single season.

Goaltending is trickier from a stats’ perspective. Even save % needs to be contextualized in terms of league scoring and high danger chances: a save % of 92 is a lot easier to achieve in the MHL than in the CHL. But fortunately, the pro scouts are surprisingly good at recognizing goalie talents. These days NHL teams are in fact a bit over reluctant to select goalies in the first round. This makes the typical top goalie prospects *better* draft picks for the 2nd and 3rd round than skaters! Just make sure to draft them early enough, because the rest of the goalie crop is rarely worth much. And don’t count save % completely out. Out of the 31 goalies who played in at least half (41) of the games of the 23–24 NHL regular season, only ca. half a dozen had a sub 90 save % in a junior league in their draft year. And those who did mostly hovered around 89 percent. I highly recommend drafting goalies who can stop the puck!

For the overaged players, the thresholds are naturally higher and depend on the player’s age. Last year eligibles are prime candidates for free agency immediately after the draft, so I rarely rank them super high. But a barely overaged forward who produces at 1.5 points per game pace at the CHL level? That’s a solid late first/early second round rank for me. You can often get these more proven types very late in the draft and the return is good in comparison to first-time eligibles. But if you change the thresholds for first time eligibles, remember to do the same for the overagers as well.

Beyond basic stats I pay particular attention to even strength primary production. It often tells you who the real play drivers are. I also expect a forward to produce roughly two thirds of his points at even strength and one third on the power play. Short-handed points are a nice bonus. If a player’s production relies a lot on PP points, it’s often a sign that his style may not translate at the next level where PP time is mostly limited to the NHL stars. But I don’t want to overemphasize these issues. If a player hardly produces on the PP, I try to check if it’s due to usage or a sign of a limited skillset. Power forwards for instance tend to produce a lot of primary points at ES without necessarily being all that gifted offensively. They may also produce poorly on the PP due to their role despite having the talent to do better. And playmakers naturally tend to have relatively worse primary point production than goal scorers.

The rest can be explained much better by those who do wonderful work on tracking individual players: the likes of Mitch Brown, Lassi Alanen, and Will Scouch. Their work allows us to see finer, more intricate details and habits in a player’s game. This is the perfect kind of stuff to help you separate players within a tier. Lately I’ve also found Jason Bukala’s player evaluation methods very helpful. The way he emphasizes/weighs different aspects of a skater’s attributes feels similar to how I’ve learned to do it (more of this in part 4). But he gives an actual number for these weights (see here: Scouting Reports FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps).

Still don’t believe in stats? In part 3 I will show what a simpleton stat watcher who never watches hockey could achieve on draft day.

Part 3: the benefits of pure stat-watching 2005–2015

I’ve never been a pure stat watcher. I’ve watched hockey since 1991 and I do take all the available information into consideration. But let’s assume I didn’t. How well would pure stat-watching (looking only at goals/assists/save %) work on draft day?

Before I answer, we must first understand that rankings and actual draft day selections are completely different things. Teams typically rank the players in different order, especially from roughly the middle of the first round onwards. Each team has a slightly different set of players ahead of a certain player. This means that the total number of players ranked ahead of him is larger than the number of players ahead of him on a single team’s list. He won’t get drafted until a team making their pick thinks he’s the best choice. So, the further down the draft we go, the more likely a player everyone ranks the same will fall on draft day.

Another way to understand this is to look at the two extremes. If all teams have the exact same rank order, a team drafting 224th overall will need a list of 224 players to go through the draft. And conversely, if no player is ranked top 224 by more than one team, each team will get all the players they want: their list only needs to include as many players as they have picks (7 on average). The reality is somewhere in between these extremes. Teams usually need a list of 75–100 players to go through the entire draft. And the more they go off the board (or the less picks they have), the shorter that list needs to be. So, if everyone considers you a mid-4th rounder, you won’t get drafted! But if at least 1 or 2 teams rank you in the second round, you probably will even if no one else likes you.

In other words, outside of the consensus top 15 or so, NHL teams only get the players they have ranked exceptionally high compared to everyone else. Literally everyone walks out of the draft feeling good about their mid/late rounders! And the same applies to the stat watcher: he/she gets the guys whose production is abnormally high for their draft pick number. Which means that the stat watcher must rank these players much higher than where he/she is picking. And conversely, just because you rank someone in your first round, doesn't necessarily mean you have to use your first-round pick to draft him. Your first rounder could be available in the third round, and your second rounder as late as the seventh round. This is why knowing the consensus order helps bring value. You don’t need to use a high pick on someone if you’re certain to get him later in the draft.

Second, we should start from the 2005 CBA that eliminated player opt-ins/-outs to get a fairer picture. All sufficiently old/young players have only been automatically eligible from the 2005 draft onwards. And third, let’s ignore the first round. Any fool can draft well that high most of the time. So only players that were actually drafted on day 2 (or went completely undrafted) count.

Our stat watcher starts rather poorly. No steals from day 2 of the draft in 2005 (I will ignore the 2004 opt-outs Paul Stastny and Anton Strålman). And the same goes for 2006. Maybe stat watching gets you Jamie McBain (if you emphasize his USDP/U18 WHC production over the modest NAHL one), but Brad Marchand’s stat line isn’t quite impressive enough. I also assume that stat watcher won’t rank P.K. Subban quite high enough in 2007, though it’s a close call (by now we know that Montreal must have ranked him way higher than #43, probably top 15–25). Ditto for Alec Martinez and Jamie Benn. Stat watcher will instead pick the overaged Jori Lehterä (sigh). Similar story in 2008 – just missing out on Roman Josi at #38 but getting to choose from a whole bunch of less gifted Ds in the later rounds (Philip Larsen, Mark Barberio, Zach Redmond, Jason Demers, Kevin Connauton). Maybe the stat watcher gets interested in the overaged Sergei Bobrovsky, but his stats in relation to his colleagues are not great enough to guarantee it.

So going into the 2008–09 season, the stat watcher looks to be in danger of getting fired. But the trust in stats gets rewarded from 2009 onwards. Tomas Tatar is an easy choice in the second round, albeit there is danger of wasting that pick (or even the first rounder) on Toni Rajala instead. Fortunately, overaged Mike Hoffman, undrafted Torey Krug and possibly even the last time eligible Bobrovsky make up for it in the later rounds. And soon the Rajala pick will be forgotten entirely.

In 2010 the stat watcher gives at worst a 2nd round rank for both Brendan Gallagher (#147) and Artemi Panarin (undrafted). And in 2011 stat watching is almost guaranteed to give you Nikita Kucherov (#58) before Tampa Bay. Plus maybe Johnny Gaudreau (#104) a round later. In 2012 you have a solid chance of getting Esa Lindell before #74 or the re-entry Frederik Andersen before #87. And you will certainly get Nikita Gusev before #202. In 2013 the stat watcher has Tristan Jarry (#44) ranked in the first round and has a solid chance of drafting either Pavel Buchnevich (#75) or Jake Guentzel (#77) before they go. There’s also a chance to pick Juuse Saros before #99. But even if you just miss on all these guys, giving Brayden Point’s stats a deserved late first round rank in 2014 basically ensures getting him before #79. Sorry again Tampa! And in the next round you can choose between the overaged Victor Arvidsson (#112) and a goalie with incredible stats in Igor Shestyorkin (#118). And finally in 2015, stat watching gives you a solid chance to get Rasmus Andersson (#53), the overaged Conor Garland (#123), and especially Kirill Kaprizov (#135).

Not a bad core, huh? And that’s assuming you don’t hit on any of your first rounders. But before moving on to 2016 and my drafting story, I’ll elaborate a bit on the non-statistical side of my drafting philosophy.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Part 4: what I’m looking for in a player

For me, competitiveness is the most important ability for a skater. I personally lack it for the most part, but I must respect the fact that hockey is supposed to be a competition. And in order to win, you first need the motivation.

Hockey is also so physical that it’s tough for me to see a player having Forrest Gump type success like e.g. Garrincha had in football (soccer) between 1953 and 1962. Like me, Garrincha had difficulties remembering the score on the pitch (I’m pretty good at math but I would always lose track of the score by the second goal of the game at the latest). Yet very much unlike me, Garrincha peaked as arguably the best player on the planet in the biggest sport on the planet. And his main competition was peak Pelé, the greatest footballer if not athlete of the 20th century. Not to mention that while having fun on the ball, Garrincha only lost *once* in his entire national team career. And that was his very last match when he was years past his prime. He didn’t defend or care for tactics. He just helped his team score more goals than the opponent by humiliating defenders time and time again. Resulting in 43 wins, 6 draws, 1 loss, 141 goals for, and 36 goals against. I absolutely don’t see these carefree success stories (albeit Garrincha's life outside of football was tragic) happening in hockey, ever.

This is not the beautiful game (even football isn’t these days), this is one of the fastest and most physical games on the planet. No matter how gifted you are, you must put the competition ahead of having fun. You can’t apologize for accidentally tackling someone like I did when I tried American football for the only time of my life. You must have the will to battle and the dedication to improving yourself as a team player. Especially for the playoffs.

But hockey is a competition in the etymological sense of the word: “competition” comes from the Latin verb “competere”, meaning “to rush/fly/strive/attack together”. In a team sport where time and space are of the essence, you need to be aware of where everyone is and what they are going to do next. And since the puck will always travel faster than any player, I will always emphasize hockey sense over any individual skill in hockey. Hockey sense is a combination of awareness, creativity and decision-making; the ability to recognize or imagine all the available options and then choose wisely between them. It goes hand in hand with your skills in that you must be able to handle the puck in motion while keeping your head up to scan the ice (something I never learned). But while skills merely buy you time and space, the ability to use your skills helps you achieve the actual goal of the game. The older I’ve grown, the more I’ve come to appreciate intelligence on the ice. Not that it means I'm good at recognizing it...

Wisdom in hockey however can often be a virtue out of necessity. When the game is on the line, it’s usually smart to avoid trying the things you can’t do. But those who keep trying (preferably in practice though) may eventually learn to do things better until they *can* pull them off. And out of all the individual skills you can develop, skating is the most important. Unlike in football (soccer), where elite close control is often a prerequisite of going end-to-end, in hockey you can carry the puck at high speeds with merely competent handling abilities. And since the defender is allowed to hit you or pin you instead of just stealing the puck, it's very helpful to keep your feet moving and create some separation first. But that's not enough. Before you can pass the puck, your teammate needs to move into space and then you must find a pass lane. Before you can shoot, you must move to either get a shooting lane or to get as close to the net as possible. All this points to the conclusion that skating buys you more time and space than any other skill. It is only eclipsed by being both willing and able to use your skills.

Then we get to the question of puck skills vs. physicality. From this particular fan’s perspective, stickhandling and manipulation are probably the most fun aspects of hockey, but to my great disappointment circus tricks are nowhere near the most useful aspect of the game. I really wish they were. This is probably why I became a better freestyle footballer than an actual footballer (not that I was any good at either, but I was even more awful at playing the game), and why I never learned to skate properly. Whereas the puck skills I never bothered to train, like shooting and passing, are far more useful. You of course need to have good enough puck skills all-round, but an elite stickhandler who can’t shoot or pass just doesn’t put up a lot of points: in a 1 vs. 5 setting, I would bet on the team to beat the one guy more often than the one guy beating the entire team. And as I said before: the puck travels faster than any player.

But are shooting and puck-moving more important or less important abilities than physicality? If you ask the scouts, they will usually answer “more”. And yet time and time again the undersized players with exceptional puck skills drop like a stone on draft day. It seems to me like this is a surprisingly complex question. The answer seems to depend on the context. A smart and skilled big guy who can’t skate can use physicality, range and leverage to protect the puck. A smart and skilled small guy who can’t skate can only use leverage (low center of gravity in his case). Physicality, much like competitiveness, becomes especially important come playoff time. So, to criticize Jason Bukala’s weighting system a tiny bit, I feel like physicality is a much more critical aspect of the game than his other 4 % weight categories (DZ starts, OZ starts, PK, PP). I also feel that we need to either include range and size in physicality or count them as a separate factor. If not on par with either shooting or passing, physicality should at least be closer to them in importance. And I’m saying this as someone who loves puck skills, emphasizes production over size and has never cared much for hits.

On the other hand, I’m also grateful for Jason Bukala for introducing his weighting system for goalies. People often seem to consider them completely unpredictable and impossible to understand. Well, we’ve already seen that staring at save % can have its benefits. But while I feel like I’ve learned *something* about goalies over the years, I still struggle to list their most important traits as confidently as I just did for skaters. The fact that Bukala lists compete and consistency as his most important goalie traits made perfect sense as soon as I read it. But before I read it, “competing” for goalies had sounded more to me like trying to cover up your technical flaws. I understood the word too narrowly. Instead, it’s that same dedication to improving your game as I described for skaters. And more. Compete and consistency (e.g. recovering mentally from mistakes) form the foundation that shows as impressive save percentage. It’s about being “in the zone”, reading the game, calming and optimizing your movements. Being both willing and able to use your skills, just like in the case of competitiveness and hockey sense. Is the most important goalie skill then the equivalent of skating – mobility/explosiveness? I’ll leave that for you to answer.

Next, I will tell you my own drafting story.

 

[Dempsey]

I'm interested in reading more.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Part 5: my first draft rankings in 2016

The 2016 draft where I began my journey was a learning experience. First, I didn’t yet form the initial tiers purely based on stats. Second, my understanding of the relative strengths of the less known leagues was so hazy that I needed to rank each league/country separately before making my final rankings. Third, I made far too little scouting notes, thinking I could just memorize them. Fourth, I listened to the wrong scouting reports. And fifth, my own eye test turned out to be inconsistent and unreliable due to my fan’s bias on puck skills and highlights (something I’ve never really managed to avoid).

Because of inconsistent tier formation, I ranked Tage Thompson (#41 on my final list) well below Luke Kunin (ouch) despite almost identical stats in the same league. Because of listening to the wrong reports, I ranked Charlie McAvoy (my #18) lower than average despite impressive stats and personally liking what I saw. And because of my own eye test bias, I ranked German Rubtsov far higher than his stats warranted (#17). At the top of the draft, I ignored the red flags on Jesse Puljujärvi because I considered him a similar player to Olli Jokinen – someone I had doubted in his draft year, but who had eventually proven me wrong. My top 5 was Matthews/Laine/Puljujärvi–Dubois/Tkachuk. Using the statistical thresholds I now use; it should have been roughly Matthews–Laine/Tkachuk– Puljujärvi/Dubois/Keller. That would have also made me rank DeBrincat higher than I did (#26).

But some things I did get right. Immediately after the draft I made a list of players I personally would have selected for each team (or at least some teams). So now I can avoid the benefit of hindsight and speak more honestly about my own rankings. As a Penguins fan, I will use their picks for an example (they are one of the few teams I made selections for in every single draft). To start, I would have wasted their first pick (#55) on Vitali Abramov – though at least he had the stats to back me up. The Pens however did a lot better than me by drafting Filip Gustafsson, one of the few goalies in the NHL with a sub 90 save % in a junior league in his draft year (though he did have better stats in his half a dozen SHL games). But my finest moment came with the next Pens pick at #61, which they used on Kasper Björkqvist. I absolutely loved Björkqvist’s attitude, but the BPA on my list was none other than Adam Fox.

Like many others on these boards and elsewhere, I had Fox ranked in my first round (29th overall). I figured he had a solid chance of developing into a #3 D despite mixed reviews on his skating, defensive game, shot and confidence. And I think I remember hoping he could reach a Kimmo Timonen like ceiling (I can’t say for sure since I didn’t make a note on it). I had no idea I had accidentally drafted a genius, but that’s the NHL draft for you. There’s no guarantee that Fox would have actually played for the Pens, but I don’t care. I also don’t care that I wasted all the other picks (as did the Pens). I count this as a home run draft.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Part 6: ignoring stats at my peril in 2017 and 2018

In the next two drafts I started experimenting by emphasizing the scouting reports more and making a tiny bit more notes. As a native Finnish speaker, I had the benefit of being able to follow the HIFK fans’ takes at the Jatkoaika boards. Based on their views I knew very early on that Miro Heiskanen was going to be drafted in the top 10. I expected him to be ranked there by the end of the WJC, but he happened to play his worst hockey of the season around that tournament. It took until the U18 WHC before the rest of the world caught on. But on the flip side, my experimentations failed miserably for the other leagues.

I did rank Hischier ahead of Patrick, but I was too consensus driven to drop Patrick further despite his health issues. So, I had Heiskanen exactly where the consensus did. I knew Pettersson had one of the highest upsides in the draft and I ranked him a bit higher (#5) than average. But I also had Vilardi just ahead of him, not knowing a thing about Gabe’s health problems. And my biggest mistake was Cale Makar. I was far too concerned with his unproven defensive game and quality of opposition despite realizing that he was the most skilled defenseman in the draft. I had Makar as low as #8, behind Cody Glass and Casey Mittelstadt (ouch).

And to make matters worse, I would have wasted every single Pens' draft pick (much like the Pens themselves did). Oh well. At least I had a good hunch on Necas (#9) and Suzuki (#10). But a stat watcher would have had Jason Robertson higher than I did (#33). High enough to draft him? Who knows.

For the 2018 draft I kept expanding my notes and making the same kind of mistakes (beyond the consensus top 2). At times I would emphasize upside, at times I would forget about it due to perceived red flags. The red flags on Quinn Hughes (defensive game, declining testing and measurement at the Combine) and Evan Bouchard (defensive game/IQ, skating) turned out to be not so red after all. Whereas the guy I ranked third overall (Adam Boqvist) throughout the season hasn’t translated as well. On the plus side Noah Dobson, who kept rising on my list and peaked #4 in my final rankings, has now turned into a 70-point 2-way defenseman. But ranking Zadina and Wahlström ahead of Brady Tkachuk was a less bright idea.

Behind Tkachuk was Kotkaniemi, who I thought was underrated for a good portion of the season. But then he and Hayton suddenly started to get top 5 hype. I had no idea why aside from the center drought, but I still ended up ranking Kotkaniemi ahead of Hughes and Bouchard (double ouch). In fact, I had Bouchard as low as #13. Ranking K’Andre Miller (#19) almost on par with Hayton (#18) brings little comfort in comparison. The Rangers must have had him even higher than I did to pick him at #22. Maybe Jonatan Berggren (my #16) can still help save my face….

My picks for the Pens have amassed a whopping total of 2 NHL games so far. The Pens themselves did better with Calen Addison (4 NHL seasons, a stat watcher would have gotten him) and Filip Hållander (3 NHL games). But hey, I still have Adam Fox.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Part 7: back to basic(stat)s in 2019

In the 2018–19 draft season it was time to get back to basics and emphasize scoring more. But I kept my skill bias. Behind the consensus top 2, I loved Kirby Dach (my #3) and was less impressed with the statistically superior Byram (#5) and Turcotte (#4). My bet on Dach’s upside hasn’t paid off so far, but we had seen some promising progress from him before his unfortunate injury. Zegras didn’t impress me at first but ended up #6 on my final rankings. Behind him to close my clear top 7 tier was Boldy, who received plenty of criticism at the time but has now proven his doubters wrong.

On the minus side I kept getting it wrong with otherwise gifted forwards whose hockey IQ was in question: after Puljujärvi’s struggles I wanted to steer clear of Dylan Cozens, who then became another Olli Jokinen case for me. So, if you want to rank these types well, always do the opposite of what I’m doing. Or maybe it’s the fact that I ranked Cozens #13 just like Bouchard? While both Jokinen and Puljujärvi played with #13.... yes, that must be it.

But at least I did OK for the Pens. With the 21st pick I would have chosen Arthur Kaliyev ahead of Philip Tomasino. Neither has set the NHL on fire, but so far both are ahead of the Pens’ actual draft pick Samuel Poulin in development. And with the 74th pick I would have taken Pavel Dorofeyev, who currently leads all 2019 third rounders in points per game. The next pick I would have wasted, while the jury is still out on the Pens’ choice. And in the 7th round I would have drafted two NHLers in Brayden Pachal and Dustin Wolf, while the Pens drafted two Finns in Valtteri Puustinen (NHL) and Santeri Airola (Liiga). Not exactly earth-shattering stuff as of right now, but I don’t feel too bad. Plus I still have Adam Fox.

And now it’s time to talk about the real elephant in the room: my favorite Finnish prospect within the 2016–2024 time frame, Kaapo Kakko. He had the stats, the size, the hands, the quick cuts/stops, the mistake free on-puck game, the proactive contacts, the puck protection, the stick checking, everything a forward can ask for in the offensive zone. Except that he stopped developing offensively the second he got drafted. Precisely when I started to stat watch more, he became the first ever player to score nearly a point/game in Liiga in his draft year and yet fail to score 65+ points in an NHL season. Defensively it’s a very different story, but I didn’t rank Kakko first overall to get a defensive forward. Ranking him ahead of Jack Hughes is easily the most embarrassing off the board draft decision I ever made.

Here’s hoping Kakko can still turn it around. But watching him in the World Championships last year, I didn’t see a lot of progress. Yes, he could control the puck on a poor ice surface much better than any other Finn in that tournament, including Mikko Rantanen. But as soon as Rantanen got the puck settled with his far longer hockey stick, you could see the massive difference in imagination. And as soon as Kakko got nearer to the net front, his composure and puck control totally failed him. It’s like the guy who broke the all-time Liiga goal record for draft eligibles is now allergic to finishing. He still shows flashes and has a great game from time to time, but that’s all he’s done offensively for years now. I’m beginning to see shades of Joel Armia.

Another Finn I really liked at first was Matias Maccelli, who was a late 2nd/early 3rd rounder for me going into the season. But the scouting concerns made me drop him more and more, until he was basically a DND at #118 on my final list. Once again, I ignored the stats right in front of me in favor of listening to strong opinions. Huge mistake. These days he just might be my favorite Finn in the NHL. So much fun to watch. And by missing out on him I got so irritated that I started to emphasize the stats more and more.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Part 8: 2020 – when stat watchers and scouts see eye to eye

For the 2020 draft I was at first confused to find a top 10 candidate who was completely unproven outside of German juniors and lower tier international hockey. But as soon as I watched a highlight package of Tim Stützle, I knew I had found my favorite player in the draft. I ranked him #6 on my pre-season list and felt like he might even challenge Lucas Raymond at 3rd overall by the end of the season. Well, he did one better – he was my #2a as opposed to Byfield’s #2b on my final list. Raymond was #4 followed by Rossi, Drysdale, Perfetti, and Lundell. I was never too concerned about Lundell’s skating, but I liked the offensive potential of the players ahead of him a bit more. My new production bias showed first and foremost by ranking Jake Sanderson as low as #12. But aside from that, this was the most boring draft day one I’ve experienced: my entire top 13 went in the top 13. Yet tragically, my 14th guy – who went #15 – lost his life a few years later. My late condolences to Rodion Amirov’s loved ones. Incredible kid.

My first pick for the pens at #52 was precisely the same guy they drafted – Joel Blomqvist. Loved that pick. But he was more of a need-based goalie choice, as my BPA was the unicorn D Joni Jurmo. I managed to get Jurmo with the #77 pick, which the Pens used on another goaltender. So far their choice Calle Clang is a bit closer to the NHL than Jurmo, who will head for NA in 24–25. But the jury is still out on him, as it is on pretty much all the players drafted this decade. Of my later Pens’ picks Samuel Johannesson has had two very productive seasons in the SHL and some international games to his belt. Transitioning to the NA style is now the main question. Dmitri Rashevsky meanwhile is a top 6 forward in the KHL, with the same question marks (his contract ends in 2025). The other Johannesson I would have picked, Anton, looks like a longshot to avoid the swing-to-miss category for me right now.

Part 9: feeling individualistic in 2021

The 2020–21 season was, of course, hugely affected by Covid. This shortened the statistical sample size for many players and made scouting more video footage based. But I had chosen my production heavy method and would not budge. So, you won’t see Wyatt Johnston with his 4 points in 7 games high on my list – I had him #71 overall!

And transitioning from my consensus driven 2020 list to an off the board approach didn’t end there. I now acknowledged that I had mistreated the Tkachuk and Hughes brothers in the past and refused to do it again. Instead, I ranked the biggest Hughes brother first overall against all the experts’ opinions. But that wasn’t the craziest thing I did. Next, I had the giant goalie with video game numbers, Cossa, second overall. I usually don’t like drafting goalies in the first round, but if an exceptional one (or two in this case – I had Wallstedt #9) comes along, I won’t hesitate to gamble on upside. And right there and then my hypothetical draft day one strategy would have been set: try to get both Hughes and Cossa by any means possible. Compared to them, the rest of the class seemed quite pedestrian to me – both on the ice and on an Excel spreadsheet. And so far, it has been pretty pedestrian, hasn’t it? We’ll see whether Hughes and Cossa will make me look like an idiot or a genius, but at least you can’t blame me for playing it safe.

Based on my Pens’ picks, though, I do look like an idiot. Colton Dach (my choice at #58) will need to improve quite a bit to make the NHL. Peter Reynolds’ (#154) development seems to have stalled. Jacob Guevin (#194) put up good points at USHL but took a step back offensively in the NCAA this season. David Gucciardi (#215) seems to be settling for a less offensive role in the same league. And Simon Motew (#221) just failed to produce in the OHL. But at least stat/game watching made me rank Logan Stankoven 15th overall. If only he had been available for the Pens…did I mention that I have Adam Fox?

Part 10: feeling boldly conservative in 2022

For the 2022 draft I added sources to my player notes but no longer bothered to make a pre-season list. The year was supposed to be about Wright, Savoie, and Lambert – and for me, it almost was. I ultimately followed the consensus and ranked Wright #1 despite a slightly disappointing draft season. He was supposed to be able to avoid the transitioning issues of Patrick/Kakko/Lafreniere and all that… and yet here we are. He’s still adjusting while my close #2 Cooley and #3 Slafkovsky are contributing in the NHL. But then I also had Savoie (#4) and Lambert (#8) high on my list.

The jury is still out on a lot of these players, but at least Lambert is looking a bit better now than he did on draft day. He was my choice for the Pens’ 21st overall pick of course, though I didn’t mind their bet on Owen Pickering’s upside. With the Pens’ #118 I would have selected Vladimir Grudinin, who later went to the Carolina Hurricanes. This was by no means a surprise – Carolina has tended to draft either my BPA or my second BPA with at least half of their picks. The only difference between me and them is that I emphasize stats a bit more than they do and they emphasize skill a bit more than I do. Grudinin just had his first full season in the KHL and is looking promising. My third pick for the Pens was Jack Devine, who just put up 56 points in the NCAA. Last up were two LHDs in Hudson Thornton (back-to-back point/game seasons in the WHL after I selected him) and the overaged Luke Mittelstadt (back-to-back 20-point seasons in the NCAA since then). So far so good.

 

[FliegerKorps]

Appreciate those read ups!

 

[Seb]

I just barely started reading the thing so I can't comment on it yet but I am impressed by the effort and commitment it took you for this.

Then I both adjust the tiers somewhat and rank the skaters within a certain tier based on scouting reports, eye test, advanced stats, and Bob McKenzie’s rankings.

What do you mean by somewhat? It's vague.

How do you adjust the tiers?

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Part 11: solidifying my identity in 2023

For the 2023 season I followed my production thresholds more consistently than ever before. Behind Bedard my rankings went Fantilli–Michkov–Karlsson, then a small tier of Smith–Benson, followed by a tier of Leonard–Reinbacher–Perreault. My next tier (#10–17) represents the typical situation in the middle of the first round: the safe core player projections are gone, and you’re forced to choose between hoping for the best and settling for the second best. Boom-or-bust types included Cristall (#13), Musty (#14) and Nadeau (#16), while Moore (#11) and Dvorsky (#12) exemplified more projectable ones. I really had to bend my rules (read: guidelines) to include the poor-producing unicorn D Simashev in the first round. I ranked him at the top of the next tier at #18 and was certain that someone will take him before me. Such is life – you’ve got to choose your draft philosophy and stick to it.

My choices for the pens were Perreault at #14 (60 points in the NCAA in 23–24), Perron at #91 (naturally drafted by the Hurricanes at #94), Mania at #142 (OHL production looks to have stalled), Fink at #174 (point/game in the NCAA in 23–24), Leslie at #217 (WHL production looks to have stalled) and Klimovich at #223 (split 23–24 between KHL and MHL). A typical collection of undersized but well-producing players.

And that’s the thing: I never *aim* to draft small players. Given the choice between two equally gifted prospects, I always prefer the bigger guy. But unlike many NHL teams, I don’t avoid small draftees like the plague. I still think they’re better than less gifted but bigger prospects. That’s why these types tend to fall into my hands (or in the actual draft, the hands of Carolina). Remember, production/save % is a better foundation for tiers than size (ask Connor Bedard or Juuse Saros).

Part 12: a look into the past and the present

And now we’re here. How many picks did I need to go through the drafts? In 2016, the highest undrafted player on my board was Simon Stransky at #42. The lowest ranked undrafted player I considered for any team’s pick was Brayden Burke at #84. In 2017, they were Artyom Minulin at #62 and Austen Keating at #89. In 2018: Kyle Topping at #80 and Nando Eggenberger at #103. In 2019: Billy Constantinou at #53 and Ryan Siedem at #117 (I did consider my #121 Nikola Pasic before he went 189th overall). In 2020: Dmitry Rashevsky at #60 and Marko Stacha at #103. In 2021: Peter Reynolds at #60 and Cameron Rowe at #116. In 2022: Hudson Thornton at #63 and Hugo Hävelid at #137 (only due to being a goalie; the lowest ranked skater was German Tochilkin at #71). And finally in 2023: Yegor Klimovich at #62 and Jacob Guevin at #102.

If you think you’re seeing a pattern, you’re probably right. Some of my production thresholds guarantee a top 64 rank, and I don’t want to waste a high pick on players no NHL team seems interested in (there’s often a good reason they’re uninterested). So, I tend to rank these players near the bottom of whatever tier they happen to fit in. If the guideline holds true, that means the bottom of the second round. But sometimes that tier extends into third round. And sometimes the cut is nearer to 50th overall.

For this year, I decided to make a separate pre-WJC list (based on pure production) and then the final list (based on every info I have access to) just before the draft to better track changes. I will also emphasize poorly producing but well-defending defensemen more. They do have a solid chance of becoming perfectly fine #4 Ds in the NHL, and an outside shot at making the top pairing as #2s. But I still don’t feel like I must change my minimum first round production threshold for Ds. Historically speaking, half a point per game at CHL level is roughly what it takes – and incidentally, it is exactly the rate Jaccob Slavin produced at in his draft year. And Slavin was taken 120th overall. Plus it’s a guideline rather than an absolute rule. But beyond the first round I might consider top defensive Ds almost in the same class as top goalies: they give you sneaky good value in the 2nd and 3rd round. This will likely extend the tier in the second round so that you’ll see some “top 64 guarantees” fall into the third round.

One final reminder. Draft mathematics can feel weird. For instance, if you want to target a top goalie or any specific player in the second round, you’d better be ready to rank him in the latter half of your first round. Otherwise, you probably won’t get him. Top goalies make for excellent 2nd rounders, so forget about the supposed risk: *you* might have him in the first round, but you will only need to use a second rounder for him. And historically, those successful second round goalies mean that it was a great idea for the NHL teams to rank them in the late first round. This year, though, I’m not sure there is such a top goalie…

Stay tuned for my last draft rankings before the 2024 NHL entry draft!

What do you mean by somewhat? It's vague.

How do you adjust the tiers?

Good question! It's deliberately vague, because the reality is always more complicated than our attempts at describing it. Production is a useful thing to look at, but it doesn't tell you everything. That's why I give myself a bit of leeway to reorganize things based on more detailed info.

To give you an example, this year there are four draft eligible players who have more or less crossed the top 10 guarantee mark: Celebrini, Demidov, Parekh, and Buium. Or only two if you want to get technical (Celebrini & Buium), but Demidov and Parekh got close enough (Demidov just met the mark in the regular season). On the other hand, there are players who are universally considered top 10 prospects despite failing to cross the top 10 minimum threshold. Anton Silayev is a prime example. Cayden Lindstrom and Tij Iginla also fell a bit short (by a slightly bigger margin than Parekh did from the top 10 guarantee mark).

Let's assume I consider Silayev, Lindstrom and Iginla extremely pro translatable players with sky-high potential. Let's also assume that I want to follow my guidelines as logically as possible. How do I solve the apparent contradiction between these assumptions? I guess there could be many ways to do it. But I usually prefer not to rank a player who failed to cross a minimum top 10 threshold over a player who did cross the top 10 guarantee threshold.

So in this case, I must rank at least Celebrini and Buium ahead of Silayev/Lindstrom/Iginla. And if I like Demidov and Parekh over either one of Celebrini/Buium, I must do the same for them. That's no problem for me, because I strongly feel that these four players have *earned* a high ranking for producing as well as they did. I'm glad to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But must I then also rank the other players who met the top 10 minimum requirement over those who didn't? I don't think so, since none of these players have a guaranteed place in the top 10. Plus the thresholds are partially arbitrary anyway: there is no statistically significant difference as such between 1.5 and 1.49 points per game. I just pick a convenient number based on hockey history and later adjust this threshold based on how well the younger draftees do. If you want a more statistically significant production threshold though, check out the Blue Bullet Report! Brad gives a very specific number based on his statistical analysis. Whereas I like to keep things simple.

So, let's assume I want to rank the relatively poorly producing players as high as possible. I will then allow myself to create a larger tier consisting of those players who a) I like and who have met a lower minimum threshold, in this case the top 20; or b) have met the guaranteed threshold for top 20. I can then place both Lindstrom and Iginla in this tier, because their production is good enough for it. I can even place them at the top of the tier, 5th and 6th overall, if I really like them.

In Silayev's case I would have to emphasize his production in the KHL, however, since his junior production has *never* been first round worthy. It's even worse than Simashev's. So, if I took both the KHL and the MHL production into consideration, his ranking would fall roughly somewhere in between top 20 and top 32 (depending on how many players I have in the preceding tier that includes Lindstrom and Iginla). Or in this case, at the top of that tier (exactly where I had Simashev). He's going to be a very interesting case to follow.

 

[EXTRAS]

When will we be seeing you rankings?

 

[Golden_Jet]

When will we be seeing you rankings?

I kept scrolling thinking I’d see them near the end.
Oh I see coming before the draft .

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

When will we be seeing you rankings?

I always use Bob Mckenzie's final draft rankings as an aid for ordering the players within the tiers I've created to maximize the value I could get from a draft. Hence, you won't see my full list until a) Bob publishes his list on June 24 and b) I've updated my own list based on it. Sorry for the wait!

For now, the top tiers look as follows (tier 5-17 may still change):

1. Celebrini
2. Demidov
3.-4. Buium, Parekh (tough choice; I prefer Buium's ceiling, but Parekh is more likely to reach his IMO)
5-17. Lindström, Iginla, Levshunov, Catton, Dickinson, Helenius/Sennecke, Yakemchuk, Eiserman, Connelly/Greentree, Hage, Parascak (great top half of the first round!)
18-x. This tier is topped by Silayev and Brandsegg-Nygård. Stay tuned for the rest!

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Final 2024 draft rankings part 1: top 41

Thanks to Bob McKenzie, I can now publish my final rankings with the knowledge of how a significant part of the NHL teams think. While waiting for his consensus list I went through my own rankings and made some final adjustments. The most significant change in my top 41 was Beckett Sennecke, who surged from tied 10th overall all the way to 7th overall. I’m now beginning to think that the statistical anomaly in his production is not this spring but the late spring and fall of 2023. This was exactly the time he experienced the brunt of his massive growth spurt from 178 cm (5’10) to 190 cm (6’2.75) over the summer. Granted, correlation isn’t causation. But he was the 8th overall OHL pick for a reason, put up 8 points in 5 games at the OHL Cup and scored at almost a point per game rate in his draft minus 1 season. That’s a legit top 10 candidate, to say nothing of his 1 ES point per game pace in this year’s playoffs. And most importantly, the eye test matches the production. I think he’s only scratching the surface of his potential.

I also broke my 5-17 statistical tier further down to three sub-tiers based on non-statistical factors. These sub-tiers represent my willingness to sacrifice the BPA principle in favor addressing team needs. You can think of Konsta Helenius as something of a tweener. I could consider him as high as 7th overall, but I could also consider the players in the 12-17 category over him. Another tweener or perhaps more so a wild card is Anton Silayev. His production prevents me from including him in the 5-17 tier, but from a team needs perspective he’s clearly the draft’s most intriguing defensive defenseman. Player quality wise you can think of him as part of the 12-17 tier and so I would be fine drafting him even over Helenius at 11. Not that he’s going to be available that low…

After Silayev there’s a considerable gap IMO and the draft becomes wide open. This is why I no longer bothered to make small sub-tiers. The huge tier of 18–41 (read: 19–41 after Silayev) is partially the result of my production thresholds. This year there are a few players with impressive production that nonetheless seem to generate zero interest among pro scouts. I’m a swing for the fences kind of guy so I don’t mind betting on these players, but I also know I can get them much later in the draft. This is why I ranked them at the very bottom of this tier and added a couple of my poorly producing/performing eye-test favorites ahead of them. Namely Aron Kiviharju, Aatos Koivu and Harrison Brunicke.

Tier 1: flawless victory
1. Maclin Celebrini
(probably the most flawless prospect I’ve followed since 2016; average size is his worst trait)

Tier 2: risky production monsters part 1 – Nikita Kucherov edition
2. Ivan Demidov
(the most skilled playmaker in the draft with some skating & playing style concerns)

Tier 3–4: risky production monsters part 2 – 4th forwards edition
3. Zeev Buium
(has an Adam Fox type of ceiling, but you must bet on upside to rank him this high)

4. Zayne Parekh
(has an Erik Karlsson type of ceiling, but really must learn to protect himself)

Tier 5–6: projected playoff monsters
5. Cayden Lindström
(has all the tools and the physicality to be a #1 center; the results thus far are less impressive)

6. Tij Iginla
(has the toolset, the mentality *and* the resume of a playoff beast, but plays wing)

Tier 7–11: hope for the best or settle for the second best
7. Beckett Sennecke
(project pick, winger version of Jason Spezza type of ceiling)

8. Artyom Levshunov
(athletic 2-way D with somewhat inflated stats and yet nonetheless intriguing potential)

9. Sam Dickinson
(tremendous skater, high upside, some worrying flashes of puck skill/processing limitations)

10. Berkly Catton
(fantastic in transition, superior puck skills & hockey sense, weak speed & physicality combo)

11. Konsta Helenius
(skating is much better than initially meets the eye, playmaking creativity might be the opposite)

Tier 12–17: controversial swings for the fences
12. Carter Yakemchuk
(offensive D who loves to shoot & dangle, defensive game gets highly mixed reviews)

13. Liam Greentree
(on paper has everything but skating, transitioned mid-season from a cerebral to a mobile game)

14. Cole Eiserman
(by far the best shooter in the draft, some concerning playmaking/processing/mobility limitations)

15. Trevor Connelly
(elite skillset but a highly individualistic character with a problematic past)

16. Michael Hage
(elite puck skills, determined, lacks quickness, is the playmaking good enough for a top 6 role?)

17. Terik Parascak
(ingenious support game at both ends, PK expert, weak skating+physicality, poor in transitions)

Tier 18–41: hope for the second best or settle for the third best
18. Anton Silayev
(monster skating+size combination, elite #2 D ceiling IF DZ/NZ decision-making improves a ton)

19. Stian Solberg
(the most physical player in the draft, proved himself as a defensive D at the IIHF WHC)

20. Michael Brandsegg-Nygård
(very impressive complementary winger today, but lacks creativity and is near his physical peak)

21. Andrew Basha
(skilled and creative winger who plays fast, lacks physicality, very inconsistent game-to-game)

22. Jett Luchanko
(cerebral & athletic PP QB, energetic & competitive, must improve shooting & stickhandling)

23. Marek Vanacker
(warrior mentality, expert stick lifter, must vary his high-pace game more & refine his skillset)

24. Igor Cernyshov
(smart complementary winger, jack-of-all-trades master of none skillset, lacks quickness in tight)

25. Sacha Boisvert
(competitive, physical, and cerebral shoot-1st center with skating issues and raw physique)

26. Adam Jiricek
(considered a top prospect pre-season, struggled vs pros, physical despite raw physique)

27. Alfons Freij
(mobile puck-moving D with inconsistent defensive game and some physicality concerns)

28. Jesse Pulkkinen OA
(supremely confident & physical puck-moving giant, must improve quickness & decision-making)

29. Matvei Gridin
(highly skilled & creative double threat, low-paced perimeter game, very inconsistent engagement)

30. Cole Hutson
(small yet highly skilled offensive D, excels in transition but struggles to defend cycles and rushes)

31. Teddy Stiga
(terrific complementary winger, but lacks high-end puck skills, athleticism and size)

32. Nikita Artamonov
(smart and hard-working complementary winger, lacks high-end skills, must improve skating)

33. Ryder Ritchie
(versatile skillset, smart & energetic winger, struggles to find consistency & truly drive the play)

34. Yegor Surin
(gritty pest-like playmaker, great playoffs, individualistic and undisciplined, must improve skating)

35. Aron Kiviharju
(the best breakout passer in the draft, great pivots, lacks athleticism/size, must develop PP QBing)

36. Aatos Koivu
(competitive, team-oriented, smart, athletic, versatile skillset, raw physique & game processing)

37. Harrison Brunicke
(impressive puck carrier for above average size, improving defensively, raw on-puck game)

38. Anthony Romani OA
(smart subtle 2-way winger, tremendous goalscoring progression, must further improve quickness)

39. Justin Poirier
(short but mean goalscoring machine, stocky build, must improve defensive game & playmaking)

40. Oskar Vuollet
(goalscoring machine, junior-like vs juniors & pro-like vs pros, lacks strength, must pass more)

41. Mac Swanson
(short playmaking genius, lacks physicality & explosiveness & long range shot, low-paced game)

Part 2 should include the rest of the top 224, but I probably won’t have the time to write these short player descriptions before draft day. I will however explain why some of my favorite players did not make this top 41. Stay tuned!

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

Final 2024 draft rankings part 2: 42–224

As always, I cut it pretty close to the deadline! But here’s the rest of my final rankings. The biggest victim of my production thresholds was Emil Hemming. I feel bad for ranking him lower than pretty much anyone, since I enjoy watching him play. Plus he’s playing for my favorite Liiga team. He was a first/second round tweener for me throughout the spring and I kept moving him up & down. But while I think he does have the skills for a 2nd line NHL ceiling, I don’t think his style makes reaching that upside particularly likely. And as a bottom 6 winger, he should be very good but probably not elite. So, he just missed the cut. Sorry Emil! He will still play in the NHL though, I’m sure.

Tier 42–65: players I would love to draft
42. Dominik Badinka (smart, poised, mobile 2-way D, physically raw, must improve puckhandling)
43. Cole Beaudoin (playoff style smart bottom 6 C, must improve skating & diversify offense)
44. Emil Hemming (shoot-1st W, slick puck skills, projectable defensively, perimeter offense)
45. Lucas Pettersson (skilled high-pace 2-way dual threat, inconsistent engagement & physicality)
46. Julius Miettinen (complementary 1-touch F, simple yet ingenious 2-way/HD anticipation)
47. Sam O’Reilly (smart playoff style 2-way C, must improve skating & puck skills)
48. Henry Mews (smart, poised puck-moving D, low-paced subtle style, lacks defensive intensity)
49. E. J. Emery (athletic defensive D, finally showed offense at U18s, must improve passing)
50. Charlie Elick (mobile defensive D, simple on-puck game, must improve breakouts)
51. Spencer Gill (project pick, intriguing 2-way potential, raw physique, must improve skating)
52. Ben Danford (athletic defensive D, improving on-puck game, lacks creativity, no PP QB)
53. Miguel Marques (high-pace skill game, must improve defensively & physically)
54. Luke Misa (high-pace forechecker, effective offense for a bottom 6 energy W projection)
55. John Mustard (deceptively speedy goalscorer, skilled, tunnel vision limits playmaking)
56. Maxim Massé (skilled complementary PF, fast forward acceleration, some IQ & skating issues)
57. Linus Eriksson (smart defensive C, pro habits, must shoot more, tunnel vision playmaking)
58. Leo Sahlin Wallenius (mobile puck-moving D, low-pace game, must speed up 2-way thinking)
59. Tanner Howe (Brendan Gallagher *style*, complementary 3rd line F unless puck skills are refined)
60. Ilya Nabokov OA (excelled in the KHL, good mobility & anticipation, average size = small for G)
61. Matvei Shuravin (toolsy defensive D, must improve puck movement, raw physique)
62. Evan Gardner (technically sound G, rarely tested in a strong team, must improve athleticism)
63. Ryerson Leenders (athletic G, consistent results despite mixed reviews on technical issues)
64. Pavel Moysevich OA (big high upside G, inconsistent skating & lateral movement)
65. Alexandre Blais (skilled feisty playmaker, improving skating & shot, lacks strength/physicality)

Tier 66–91: players I would like to draft
66. Adam Kleber (huge defenseman with intriguing yet inconsistent 2-way game)
67. Tarin Smith (puck-moving D, top 4 upside, must improve skating, style requires high-end tools)
68. Tomas Galvas (mobile & skilled puck-moving D, lacks strength & physicality big time)
69. Clarke Caswell (smart playmaker, lacks strength, must refine skating & stickhandling)
70. Noel Fransén (puck-moving D, mobile in all ways except backwards, off-puck habits need work)
71. Daniil Ustinkov (2-way D with 3-way mobility, lacks strength, must improve backwards skating)
72. Dean Letourneau (huge center with decent skills he must refine, game processing is an issue)
73. Lukas Fischer (mobile & physical D, intriguing 2-way potential, must improve decision-making)
74. Leon Muggli (smart D, > average mobility, risk averse style, raw physique, uncertain NHL role)
75. Max Plante (smart & intensive high-pace playmaker, weak shot, must improve defensively)
76. Luca Marrelli (versatile 2-way D, inconsistent DZ physicality/activeness, uncertain NHL role)
77. Carter George (consistent G, excellent puckhandler, must improve athleticism to overcome size)
78. Melvin Fernström (skilled & creative W, double threat, low motor in defense/transition)
79. Brodie Ziemer (smart & versatile complementary F, leader, yet uninvolved at times)
80. Nathan Villeneuve (intensive & toolsy high-pace PF, faceoff expert, must use his tools better)
81. Luke Osburn (highly intelligent 2-way D, raw physique, must further improve OZ play)
82. Simon Zether (smart defensive C, must fill out & improve skating/speed)
83. Timur Kol (mobile 2-way D, strong shot arsenal, must improve stickhandling, inconsistent)
84. Ondrej Becher OA (pro ready 2-way C, must work on quickness & pushing pace)
85. Tory Pitner (physical defensive D, textbook defensive game, skating gets mixed reviews)
86. Artyom Shchuchinov (puck-moving D who played a full KHL season despite raw physique)
87. Alexander Siryatsky (smart & mobile 2-way D, low pace game, defense gets mixed reviews)
88. Alexander Zetterberg (short but smart double threat, lacks explosiveness & strength)
89. Dalyn Wakely OA (versatile F, now consistently engaged, must further improve skating)
90. David Green (offensive D, > average size, CJHL D of the Year, improving skating & defense)
91. Andrei Krutov (skilled F, flashes 2-way game, low-pace game, must improve skating)

Tier 92–153: players I would consider drafting
92. Eemil Vinni (smart & mobile G, seals the bottom of the net well, lacks strength)
93. Mikhail Yegorov (huge athletic G playing for a terrible USHL team, raw technique)
94. Kamil Bednarik
95. Jacob Battaglia
96. Kim Saarinen (big skilled G, mostly outstanding throughout the season, relatively unproven)
97. Will Skahan
98. Kevin He (skilled high-pace goalscorer, volume shooter, tunnel vision limits playmaking)
99. Topias Hynninen (high-pace energy F with skill, lacks the final touch/decision in the OZ)
100. Veeti Väisänen
101. Tomas Mrsic
102. Adam Jecho
103. Colin Ralph
104. Carson Wetsch
105. Sebastian Soini
106. Kasper Pikkarainen
107. Ondrej Kos
108. Jack Berglund
109. Tomas Lavoie
110. Colton Roberts
111. Raoul Boilard
112. Eriks Mateiko
113. Nicholas Kempf
114. AJ Spellacy
115. Javon Moore
116. Jack Pridham
117. Hagen Burrows
118. Herman Träff
119. Oliver Josephson
120. Fyodor Avramov
121. Ilya Protas
122. Nate Misskey OA
123. Gabriel Eliasson
124. Heikki Ruohonen
125. Alexis Bernier
126. James Reeder
127. Christian Humphreys
128. Logan Sawyer
129. Jakub Fibigr
130. Ilya Pautov
131. Frans Haara OA
132. Miroslav Satan Jr
133. Matyas Melovsky
134. Nikita Surayev OA
135. Chase Wutzke
136. Chase Pietilä OA
137. Austin Burnevik OA
138. Marcus Kearsey
139. John Whipple
140. Jiri Tichacek OA
141. Kirill Zarubin
142. Mitchell Young OA
143. Félix Lacerte
144. Tanner Adams OA
145. Marcus Gidlöf
146. Jakub Milota
147. Anthony Cristoforo
148. Beau Jelsma OA
149. Gavin Hodnett
150. Jacob Oster OA
151. Francesco Dell’Elce OA
152. Charlie Forslund
153. Eric Bürger

Tier 154–224: players that deserve to be drafted (but not by me)
154. Ethan Procyszyn
155. Niilopekka Muhonen
156. Noah Powell OA
157. Martin Haronik
158. William Zellers
159. Maxmilian Curran
160. Darels Uljanskis
161. Riley Patterson
162. Hiroki Gojsic
163. Kieron Walton
164. Ludvig Johnson
165. Daniel Nieminen
166. Dawson Cowan
167. Kam Hendrickson
168. Lukas Matecha OA
169. Landon Miller
170. Xavier Veilleux
171. Viggo Gustafsson
172. Tanner Henricks
173. Lucas van Vliet
174. Gabriel Frasca
175. Matvei Babenko
176. Karl Sterner
177. Aidan Park
178. Mitja Jokinen
179. Lucas Ellinas
180. Joona Saarelainen
181. Joona Väisänen OA
182. Vladislav Bryzgalov
183. Yegor Graf
184. Christopher Thibodeau
185. Josh Fluker
186. Arvid Bergström OA
187. Brittan Alstead
188. Hugo Lejon OA
189. Thomas Desruisseaux
190. Flip Sitar OA
191. Markus Loponen
192. Daniil Anatsky
193. Jan Golicic
194. Samuel St-Hilaire OA
195. Tyler McInnis Thorpe OA
196. Kaden Shahan OA
197. Joseph Connor OA
198. Luke Mistelbacher
199. Petteri Rimpinen
200. Luke Ashton OA
201. Benjamin Rautiainen OA
202. Finn Harding OA
203. Noa Vali OA
204. Frankie Marrelli
205. Joel Svensson OA
206. Louka Cloutier
207. Danila Sysoyev
208. Sebastian Gatto
209. Roman Luttsev
210. Brayden Edwards OA
211. Charlie Cerrato OA
212. Erik Påhlsson OA
213. Vojtech Hambalek
214. Nathan Free
215. Paul Mayer
216. Adam Belusko
217. Gian Meier
218. Matyas Marik
219. William Felicio
220. Tuomas Suoniemi
221. Jere Lassila OA
222. Tommaso de Luca OA
223. Valter Lindberg
224. Sam Hillebrandt OA

Not ranked: tons of other overaged players that deserve a camp invite

Have fun watching the draft! I know I will.

EDIT: descriptions added for all the players I actually considered for different NHL teams.
EDIT 2: corrected a mistake where #89 Wakely was accidentally ranked #90 behind Green.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

The 2024 NHL Entry Draft recap

What a fun 2 days that was at the most spectacular draft arena we have ever witnessed! Perfect way to end my draft project. Here’s a short summary. But first I should note that under deadline pressure to construct my final list I made a careless error: Dalyn Wakely should have been ranked #89 ahead of David Green at #90 and not the other way around. I have now corrected this mistake.

The first half of Day 1 was even crazier than I anticipated, starting from pick #3. I get why Sennecke was surging on (almost) everyone’s list, but I did *not* expect him to go before (almost) everyone’s favorite playoff projection Cayden Lindström. Once again Bob McKenzie was much better informed and knew his consensus list wouldn’t hold. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, I almost had to eat crow for expecting Silayev to be gone by pick #11. Wow. I also did not expect Helenius to be my BPA at #13 as I ranked him slightly lower than average (and we know that at least a couple of teams had Helenius 3rd overall). But on the other hand, that was also a sign that the consensus top guys were now gone. The draft day was becoming less and less crazy.

By the Liam Greentree pick at #26, all the fun was over for me. My entire top 20 was gone. Clearly, the same guys dominated most teams’ lists – it’s just that their order was wildly different. And no one ultimately made a truly off the board pick on Day 1. The rest of the fun had to wait for the second day. That day never disappoints. Yet this year my list seems to have been closer to the consensus than on average. The highest ranked undrafted player on my list was Tomas Galvas at #68, meaning that all the players I had ranked in the top 2 rounds were drafted. The lowest ranked player – drafted or undrafted – I considered for any team’s pick was Topias Hynninen at #99.

Combining statistical thresholds, consensus rankings and personal preferences is not always straightforward. I noticed this a couple of times before, during, and after the draft. First, just before the draft I realized that I could have broken my statistical tier of 18–41 into sub-tiers the same way I did for the 5–17 tier. In this case the gap would have been between 27th (Freij) and 28th (Pulkkinen) overall. Or actually, between 26th and 27th overall: had I made these sub-tiers I probably would have flipped Jiricek and Freij, since I personally prefer the latter. I only had Jiricek ahead of Freij because virtually everyone else did as well. Jiricek properly belongs to the top of the lower part of the tier anyway. The gap between the sub-tiers of 18–26 and 27–41 does not represent a decrease in upside but an increase in risk. Jiricek certainly has the upside, yet a disappointing draft year makes him risky. But in any case, my strategy of maximizing the value by exploiting the knowledge of the consensus rankings paid off. Jiricek was taken well ahead of Freij so I theoretically could have gotten them both. No harm done here.

Second, I ranked Aron Kiviharju ahead of Aatos Koivu because the McKenzie list had him going a full round earlier than Koivu (#52 vs. #83). Normally a difference this big almost ensures that the higher ranked guy goes first. AFAIK only Gabriel Foley of Recruit Scouting had ranked Koivu (his #33) a) even higher than me, and b) ahead of Kiviharju (out of his top 100). Yet on day 2 the actual selections revealed very different preferences (unless you’re Gabriel Foley). There are three options: 1) the 10 teams Bob interviewed did not represent Kiviharju’s rankings all that well, 2) Kiviharju’s ranks were consistently near the 52nd place, or 3) Kiviharju had dropped further during the time between Bob’s work and the draft itself. Most likely none of the teams had him in their first round, as teams probably wouldn’t have waited until late fourth round to pick him. In any case, I noticed my own preferences from the *disappointment* I felt when I realized Koivu was picked ahead of Kiviharju. I did not want Kiviharju before Koivu! My effort to maximize draft value had backfired in this case.

Third, after the draft I felt somewhat unsure of a few players on my list. In some cases, I feared I had overrated them. In other cases, my fear was the opposite.

Players I may have overrated
#37 Harrison Brunicke. As much as I like his puck carrying ability, I’m not sure his style translates as safely as I want it to. His ES production is good enough for first round but nowhere near good enough to guarantee it. He might properly belong 1 tier lower. Except that the Penguins drafted him at #44, so I’m now obliged to consider him a steal!

#57 Linus Eriksson. I made a late pre-draft adjustment to rank him one tier higher mostly due to McKenzie’s list. But while I still had him lower than the consensus, looking at the players immediately behind him makes me hesitant. He has a projectable style, played well at Allsvenskan and could prove valuable enough for this range as a 3rd line center. But that upside doesn’t exactly scream my kind of pick and there may be too much risk of him settling as a #4 C for my liking.

Players I may have underrated
#42 Dominik Badinka. He was a late riser on my list and my favorite of the 42–65 tier, but I still ended up ranking him lower than average. The fact that Carolina of all teams drafted him at #34 made me question myself. And as I was writing his player description the hesitation intensified. There’s a lot to like about Badinka’s ability to handle SHL minutes even if the puck skills don’t stand out. The J20 production isn’t super impressive but it’s good enough for first round, so he might properly belong one tier higher.

#66 Adam Kleber. In my effort to look for Ds with a clear defensive or offensive profile, I may have overlooked Kleber’s 2-way potential. The size + toolset combination is very interesting and should be right up my alley. His ES production is not first round worthy, but I’m less picky for Ds in the second round. And the PP production is a nice bonus. Just like Badinka and Brunicke could switch places in the 27–41 and 42–65 tiers, the same could be said for Eriksson and Kleber in the 42–65 and 66–91 tiers.

#81 Luke Osburn. Another late riser like Badinka. I ranked him in the 66–91 range because he failed to make McKenzie’s list, but revisiting his scouting notes made me struggle to justify such a low ranking. The production isn’t first round quality, but the potential is too tantalizing to ignore much longer than that. I believe Will Scouch (Scouching), David Saad (DobberProspects), and the Buffalo Sabres are onto something. Moving him up a tier changes the tiers into 42–66 and 67–91.

#92, 93, 96 Eemil Vinni, Mikhail Yegorov, and Kim Saarinen. The numbers of Vinni and Yegorov don’t justify a second-round rank, but the upside is too good to ignore beyond that. Besides, Yegorov in particular was playing for a bottom-feeder. Saarinen, thanks to his superior stats and good size, should then at least be moved up into the same tier with them, if not ahead of them. Expand the 3rd round tier into 67–94.

#98 Kevin He. Writing the player descriptions made me realize how similar John Mustard at #55 and He at #98 sound. And I like them both. While I still prefer Mustard, I don’t think you can fit *two* tier gaps between them. Expand the 3rd round tier into 67–95.

#99 Topias Hynninen. Judging by how often I considered Hynninen as a late round pick for the stronger teams in the league I clearly thought of him as part of the same tier as the other available candidates one tier higher. Expand the 3rd round tier into 67–96.

But hindsight is hindsight. Using my original tiers as well as team preferences as the basis, which players would I have picked for the NHL teams? More of that in the next part.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

My draft grades and my own picks for the NHL teams

Let’s start with my best players available. This year these A+ picks turned out to be the following (note that once I start picking them for an individual team, other players can at times briefly inherit the BPA designation):

Range #1: Maclin Celebrini
Range #2–5: Ivan Demidov
Range #6–12: Zeev Buium
Range #13–14: Konsta Helenius
Range #15–26: Liam Greentree
Range #27–41: Andrew Basha
Range #42–54: Jesse Pulkkinen OA
Range #55: Teddy Stiga
Range #56–70: Aron Kiviharju/Aatos Koivu (Kiviharju strategically, Koivu in terms of preferences)
Range #71–122: Aron Kiviharju
Range #123–162: Anthony Romani OA
Range #163–207: Mac Swanson
Range #208–219: Ryerson Leenders
Range #220–225: Tomas Galvas

As I mentioned, the (sub-)tiers on my list represent either production or my willingness to sacrifice the BPA principle in favor of addressing team needs. In the previous years I tried to figure out team needs by going through the HFBoards forums. This year I decided to first let the teams reveal their preferences via their selections. If the selected player was in the same tier as my BPA, I was ready to accept their choice. If I had players in a higher tier available, however, I chose one of them instead while trying to consider the team’s situation. At times I did allow myself to emphasize my own preferences over my exact value-maximizing rankings. But moving the “underrated” players up a full tier to take them higher than where they went was out of the question for this exercise.

If the team took a goalie in the draft, I took it as a sign to draft one myself – within limits. I wasn’t comfortable drafting a goalie until Kiviharju and Koivu were gone. You could then further divide the sub-tier of 27–41 into sub-tiers of 27–36 and 37–41/G. In practice, that goalie turned out to be my #63 Ryerson Leenders. The other goalies in his range went before I was comfortable drafting them. If the team selected a goalie before I was comfortable doing so, I tried to select Leenders as soon as possible (not having a crystal ball to tell me he would remain available until #219). If the team did not draft a goalie, I wouldn’t draft Leenders until he was my BPA.

Using these principles, I will of course start with the Pittsburgh Penguins. They used their first pick at #44 to draft RHD Harrison Brunicke. He was *almost* in the same tier as my BPA, overaged LHD Teemu Pulkkinen – but I must still go with Pulkkinen. Next, after getting my BPA, I had a specific draft target in mind for the 46th overall pick: C Aatos Koivu. The Penguins would not have another pick until #111 and I suspected (correctly) that Koivu would be gone by then. Ironically the Pens went with a Brendan Gallagher type Tanner Howe instead. Both are skilled and gritty forwards. And then with the #111 pick I would have been delighted to select my third Finn, LHD Aron Kiviharju. The Pens went with the overaged RHD Chase Pietilä, the similarities now limited to a Finnish surname. With the 175th overall I would have chosen the guy the Pens ultimately took at #207, winger Mac Swanson. My favorite Penguins pick in years! Before that they went with another overaged RHD – but this time an actual Finn, Joona Väisänen. And with the 223rd overall they took one more overaged RHD in Finn Harding – their third “Finn”, sort of. My choice? Yet another LHD in Tomas Galvas.

Why did I insist on drafting LHDs when the Penguins clearly targeted RHDs? Because due to my rankings I experienced a serious RHD drought. I rarely ranked the RHDs high enough to draft them. By going BPA over need I ended up with a ton of LHD choices. This was simply a better year for LHDs IMO. That said, this was also my favorite Penguins draft since I started my project. Not only did they take my BPA at #207, but none of their picks was a huge reach with limited upside. And overaged players are often smart picks in the later rounds. I would grade their 6 picks as A– (Brunicke), B (Howe), C (Pietilä), C– (Väisänen), A+ (Swanson), and C– (Harding). That’s a solid B– overall grade point average on a scale of 0–4.33 (2.721667 GPA = 7th best in the league).

Next up, the team whose drafting philosophy I love: Carolina Hurricanes. They started with #34 RHD Badinka, the one first/second round tweener I may have underrated. I’ll give them an A– for that pick. I would have taken LW Basha or LHD Freij, let’s say Freij. Their next choice was my 3rd BPA, RW/LW Artamonov. He was in the same tier as my BPA so I’m happy to pick him here. Solid A. Next up is Noel Fransén at #69. I had him at #70 but you could certainly argue that he’s 2nd round worthy – I’ll give them a B. My choice of course would have been Aatos Koivu, just one pick ahead of Montreal. At #124 Carolina took LHD Siryatsky (my #87), a B– pick. I would have taken the overaged RW Anthony Romani. And with the next two picks we would have taken the exact same players, only in different order: C/LW Oskar Vuollet and RW Justin Poirier. I’ll give an A for the former and an A+ for the latter pick. In round 6 Carolina chose LHD Timur Kol at #168 (my #83; B+ grade), LHD Roman Shokhrin at #184 (under my radar, but the size is intriguing and the production decent, so a C– for now), and LW Fyodor Avramov at #188 (my #120, C+). My picks would have been Swanson, Leenders, and Galvas. They finished the draft at #220 by picking LW/RW Andrei Krutov, who was in the same tier as my BPA, so once again I’m happy to oblige and give another A grade. Let’s see now: A–, A, B, B–, A, A+, B+, C–, C+, A. That’s 5 x A, 3 x B, 2 x C. Solid B+ (3.3 GPA) with 10 picks, and I probably underrate the Shokhrin pick! Perhaps further from my board than usual, but the best in the league as always.

For the rest of the teams, I’ll keep it short
(note that my GPA system emphasizes the longer day 2 more than day 1):

2. Minnesota Wild (6 picks): 2.941667 GPA = top-heavy B
Grades: A+ (#12), A (#45), A+ (#122), C+ (#140), C+ (#142), E+ (#174)
My picks: Buium–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Leenders–Swanson

3. Anaheim Ducks (9 picks): 2.88778 GPA = consistent weak B
B+ (#3), A– (#23), B+ (#35), B+ (#66), D (#68), B+ (#79), A– (#100), C+ (#182), C (#214)
My picks: Demidov–Greentree–Basha–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders

4. Buffalo Sabres (8 picks): 2.835 GPA = consistent B/B–
A+ (14), B– (42), B– (71), A– (108), C– (123), C– (172), C– (204), A+ (219)
My picks: Helenius–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders–Galvas

5. San Jose Sharks (9 picks): 2.8144 GPA = strong top-heavy B–
A+ (1), A– (11), A (33), B+ (53), C (82), C– (116), C+ (131), C (143), C– (194)
My picks: Celebrini–Buium–Chernysov–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

6. Los Angeles Kings: (4 picks) 2.7475 GPA = top-heavy B–
A+ (26), B (57), D+ (164), C+ (198)
My picks: Greentree–Koivu–Leenders–Swanson

8. Calgary Flames (10 picks): 2.701 GPA = B–
A (9), A– (28), A+ (41), C– (62), B+ (74), C– (84), C– (106), A– (150), D+ (170), C– (177)
My picks: Parech–Basha–Ritchie–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Pitner

9. Vegas Golden Knights (4 picks): 2.6675 GPA = top-heavy B–
A (19), B+ (83), C– (180), C– (197)
My picks: Connelly–Kiviharju–Leenders–Swanson

10. Chicago Blackhawks (8 picks): 2.625 GPA = top-heavy B–
B+ (2), B+ (18), A (27), B+ (67), C– (72), C (92), C– (138), C– (163)
My picks: Demidov–Greentree–Vanacker–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

11a. New York Islanders (6 picks): 2.61167 GPA = top-heavy B–
A (20), A+ (54), C– (61), C (115), C (147), C– (179)
My picks: Eiserman–Pulkkinen–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Swanson

11b. Columbus Blue Jackets (6 picks): 2.61167 GPA = B–
A– (4), B– (36), B+ (60), B (86), D+ (101), C– (165)
My picks: Demidov–Freij–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Swanson

13. Seattle Kraken (8 picks): 2.5825 GPA = consistent B–
A– (8), B (40), C+ (63), D+ (73), B– (88), C (105), B+ (141), C+ (202)
My picks: Buium–Basha–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

14. Washington Capitals (8 picks): 2.5425 GPA = borderline B–
A– (17), A (43), C+ (52), C– (75), C (90), C+ (114), C– (178), B– (212)
My picks: Greentree–Hutson–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Leenders–Swanson–Krutov

15. Winnipeg Jets (4 picks): 2.4175 GPA = strong top-heavy C+
A (37), B– (109), D+ (155), C– (187)
My picks: Freij–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson

16. Florida Panthers (6 picks): 2.333 GPA = top-heavy C+
B (58), A– (97), B (129), D+ (169), D+ (193), C– (201)
My picks: Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson–Leenders–Hynninen

17. Nashville Predators (8 picks): 2.29125 GPA = C+
B+ (22), A+ (55), D (77), A– (87), D+ (94), C– (99), D+ (127), C– (213)
My picks: Greentree–Stiga–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Leenders–Vuollet–Krutov

18. Montreal Canadiens (10 picks): 2.267 GPA = top-heavy C+
A+ (5), A (21), A+ (70), C– (78), D (102), C– (130), D+ (134), C– (166), C (210), D– (224)
My picks: Demidov–Hage–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Leenders–Swanson–Galvas–Hynninen

19. Vancouver Canucks (5 picks): 2.267 GPA = C+
B+ (93), C– (125), A+ (162), C– (189), E+ (221)
My picks: Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson–Leenders–Ustinkov

20. Detroit Red Wings (8 picks): 2.20875 GPA = C+
B+ (15), B– (47), C+ (80), C– (126), C (144), C+ (176), C– (203), C– (208)
My picks: Greentree–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Swanson–Galvas–Krutov

21. Philadelphia Flyers (7 picks): 2.19 GPA = weak C+
B+ (13), D+ (51), B+ (59), C– (107), C– (148), C+ (173), C– (205)
My picks: Helenius–Pulkkinen–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson–Leenders

22. Dallas Stars (3 picks): 2.1133 GPA = strong C
B (29), C– (158), C– (222)
My picks: Basha–Romani–Hynninen

23. Colorado Avalanche (9 picks): 2.0744 GPA = C
B+ (38), D+ (76), D (121), C (132), D+ (137), C– (161), A– (185), B– (215), C– (217)
My picks: Basha–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Pitner–Krutov–Hynninen

24. St. Louis Blues (9 picks): 1.9633 GPA = C
B (16), C– (48), C+ (56), C– (81), C+ (95), C+ (113), C– (145), D (209), C– (211)
My picks: Greentree–Pulkkinen–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders–Krutov

25. New Jersey Devils (7 picks): 1.9529 GPA = C
B+ (10), C (49), C (85), C (91), D– (139), C– (146), C+ (171)
My picks: Buium–Stiga–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

26. Edmonton Oilers (7 picks): 1.8586 GPA = weak C
B– (32), B– (64), E+ (160), D– (183), A– (192), D+ (196), C– (218)
My picks: Chernysov–Koivu–Leenders–Swanson–Wakely–Galvas–Krutov

27. Utah Hockey Club (11 picks): 1.7582 GPA = strong top-heavy C–
A– (6), B– (24), C– (65), C (89), C+ (96), D– (98), E+ (103), D+ (135), C– (153), D+ (167), C– (190)
Buium–Greentree–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Vuollet–Swanson–Leenders–Pitner–Wakely

28. Tampa Bay Lightning (7 picks): 1.7157 GPA = consistent C–
D+ (118), C+ (128), C– (149), C– (181), C– (195), C– (199), C– (206)
My picks: Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders–Hynninen–Galvas

29. New York Rangers (4 picks): 1.6675 GPA = top-heavy C–
B– (30), C (119), D– (159), D+ (191)
My picks: Freij–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson

30. Ottawa Senators (6 picks): 1.6667 GPA = C–
B (7), D– (39), D+ (104), C+ (112), D (117), C– (136)
My picks: Parech–Basha–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

31. Boston Bruins (4 picks): 1.585 GPA = weak C–
C (25), D (110), C– (154), C– (186)
My picks: Greentree–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson

32. Toronto Maple Leafs (8 picks): 1.2925 GPA = top-heavy D+
Grades: B– (31), D– (120), D+ (151), D (152), D+ (157), D– (200), D (216), C– (225)
My picks: Freij–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Leenders–Swanson–Krutov–Hynninen


NOTE: the E+ grades may be too harsh – not only was every pick legitimately made, but no one drafted a complete beginner.

And yes, many of these grades will look hilarious within a few years!

 

[The Old Master]

My draft grades and my own picks for the NHL teams

Let’s start with my best players available. This year these A+ picks turned out to be the following (note that once I start picking them for an individual team, other players can at times briefly inherit the BPA designation):

Range #1: Maclin Celebrini
Range #2–5: Ivan Demidov
Range #6–12: Zeev Buium
Range #13–14: Konsta Helenius
Range #15–26: Liam Greentree
Range #27–41: Andrew Basha
Range #42–54: Jesse Pulkkinen OA
Range #55: Teddy Stiga
Range #56–70: Aron Kiviharju/Aatos Koivu (Kiviharju strategically, Koivu in terms of preferences)
Range #71–122: Aron Kiviharju
Range #123–162: Anthony Romani OA
Range #163–207: Mac Swanson
Range #208–219: Ryerson Leenders
Range #220–225: Tomas Galvas

As I mentioned, the (sub-)tiers on my list represent either production or my willingness to sacrifice the BPA principle in favor of addressing team needs. In the previous years I tried to figure out team needs by going through the HFBoards forums. This year I decided to first let the teams reveal their preferences via their selections. If the selected player was in the same tier as my BPA, I was ready to accept their choice. If I had players in a higher tier available, however, I chose one of them instead while trying to consider the team’s situation. At times I did allow myself to emphasize my own preferences over my exact value-maximizing rankings. But moving the “underrated” players up a full tier to take them higher than where they went was out of the question for this exercise.

If the team took a goalie in the draft, I took it as a sign to draft one myself – within limits. I wasn’t comfortable drafting a goalie until Kiviharju and Koivu were gone. You could then further divide the sub-tier of 27–41 into sub-tiers of 27–36 and 37–41/G. In practice, that goalie turned out to be my #63 Ryerson Leenders. The other goalies in his range went before I was comfortable drafting them. If the team selected a goalie before I was comfortable doing so, I tried to select Leenders as soon as possible (not having a crystal ball to tell me he would remain available until #219). If the team did not draft a goalie, I wouldn’t draft Leenders until he was my BPA.

Using these principles, I will of course start with the Pittsburgh Penguins. They used their first pick at #44 to draft RHD Harrison Brunicke. He was *almost* in the same tier as my BPA, overaged LHD Teemu Pulkkinen – but I must still go with Pulkkinen. Next, after getting my BPA, I had a specific draft target in mind for the 46th overall pick: C Aatos Koivu. The Penguins would not have another pick until #111 and I suspected (correctly) that Koivu would be gone by then. Ironically the Pens went with a Brendan Gallagher type Tanner Howe instead. Both are skilled and gritty forwards. And then with the #111 pick I would have been delighted to select my third Finn, LHD Aron Kiviharju. The Pens went with the overaged RHD Chase Pietilä, the similarities now limited to a Finnish surname. With the 175th overall I would have chosen the guy the Pens ultimately took at #207, winger Mac Swanson. My favorite Penguins pick in years! Before that they went with another overaged RHD – but this time an actual Finn, Joona Väisänen. And with the 223rd overall they took one more overaged RHD in Finn Harding – their third “Finn”, sort of. My choice? Yet another LHD in Tomas Galvas.

Why did I insist on drafting LHDs when the Penguins clearly targeted RHDs? Because due to my rankings I experienced a serious RHD drought. I rarely ranked the RHDs high enough to draft them. By going BPA over need I ended up with a ton of LHD choices. This was simply a better year for LHDs IMO. That said, this was also my favorite Penguins draft since I started my project. Not only did they take my BPA at #207, but none of their picks was a huge reach with limited upside. And overaged players are often smart picks in the later rounds. I would grade their 6 picks as A– (Brunicke), B (Howe), C (Pietilä), C– (Väisänen), A+ (Swanson), and C– (Harding). That’s a solid B– overall grade point average on a scale of 0–4.33 (2.721667 GPA = 7th best in the league).

Next up, the team whose drafting philosophy I love: Carolina Hurricanes. They started with #34 RHD Badinka, the one first/second round tweener I may have underrated. I’ll give them an A– for that pick. I would have taken LW Basha or LHD Freij, let’s say Freij. Their next choice was my 3rd BPA, RW/LW Artamonov. He was in the same tier as my BPA so I’m happy to pick him here. Solid A. Next up is Noel Fransén at #69. I had him at #70 but you could certainly argue that he’s 2nd round worthy – I’ll give them a B. My choice of course would have been Aatos Koivu, just one pick ahead of Montreal. At #124 Carolina took LHD Siryatsky (my #87), a B– pick. I would have taken the overaged RW Anthony Romani. And with the next two picks we would have taken the exact same players, only in different order: C/LW Oskar Vuollet and RW Justin Poirier. I’ll give an A for the former and an A+ for the latter pick. In round 6 Carolina chose LHD Timur Kol at #168 (my #83; B+ grade), LHD Roman Shokhrin at #184 (under my radar, but the size is intriguing and the production decent, so a C– for now), and LW Fyodor Avramov at #188 (my #120, C+). My picks would have been Swanson, Leenders, and Galvas. They finished the draft at #220 by picking LW/RW Andrei Krutov, who was in the same tier as my BPA, so once again I’m happy to oblige and give another A grade. Let’s see now: A–, A, B, B–, A, A+, B+, C–, C+, A. That’s 5 x A, 3 x B, 2 x C. Solid B+ (3.3 GPA) with 10 picks, and I probably underrate the Shokhrin pick! Perhaps further from my board than usual, but the best in the league as always.

For the rest of the teams, I’ll keep it short
(note that my GPA system emphasizes the longer day 2 more than day 1):

2. Minnesota Wild (6 picks): 2.941667 GPA = top-heavy B
Grades: A+ (#12), A (#45), A+ (#122), C+ (#140), C+ (#142), E+ (#174)
My picks: Buium–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Leenders–Swanson

3. Anaheim Ducks (9 picks): 2.88778 GPA = consistent weak B
B+ (#3), A– (#23), B+ (#35), B+ (#66), D (#68), B+ (#79), A– (#100), C+ (#182), C (#214)
My picks: Demidov–Greentree–Basha–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders

4. Buffalo Sabres (8 picks): 2.835 GPA = consistent B/B–
A+ (14), B– (42), B– (71), A– (108), C– (123), C– (172), C– (204), A+ (219)
My picks: Helenius–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders–Galvas

5. San Jose Sharks (9 picks): 2.8144 GPA = strong top-heavy B–
A+ (1), A– (11), A (33), B+ (53), C (82), C– (116), C+ (131), C (143), C– (194)
My picks: Celebrini–Buium–Chernysov–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

6. Los Angeles Kings: (4 picks) 2.7475 GPA = top-heavy B–
A+ (26), B (57), D+ (164), C+ (198)
My picks: Greentree–Koivu–Leenders–Swanson

8. Calgary Flames (10 picks): 2.701 GPA = B–
A (9), A– (28), A+ (41), C– (62), B+ (74), C– (84), C– (106), A– (150), D+ (170), C– (177)
My picks: Parech–Basha–Ritchie–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Pitner

9. Vegas Golden Knights (4 picks): 2.6675 GPA = top-heavy B–
A (19), B+ (83), C– (180), C– (197)
My picks: Connelly–Kiviharju–Leenders–Swanson

10. Chicago Blackhawks (8 picks): 2.625 GPA = top-heavy B–
B+ (2), B+ (18), A (27), B+ (67), C– (72), C (92), C– (138), C– (163)
My picks: Demidov–Greentree–Vanacker–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

11a. New York Islanders (6 picks): 2.61167 GPA = top-heavy B–
A (20), A+ (54), C– (61), C (115), C (147), C– (179)
My picks: Eiserman–Pulkkinen–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Swanson

11b. Columbus Blue Jackets (6 picks): 2.61167 GPA = B–
A– (4), B– (36), B+ (60), B (86), D+ (101), C– (165)
My picks: Demidov–Freij–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Swanson

13. Seattle Kraken (8 picks): 2.5825 GPA = consistent B–
A– (8), B (40), C+ (63), D+ (73), B– (88), C (105), B+ (141), C+ (202)
My picks: Buium–Basha–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

14. Washington Capitals (8 picks): 2.5425 GPA = borderline B–
A– (17), A (43), C+ (52), C– (75), C (90), C+ (114), C– (178), B– (212)
My picks: Greentree–Hutson–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Leenders–Swanson–Krutov

15. Winnipeg Jets (4 picks): 2.4175 GPA = strong top-heavy C+
A (37), B– (109), D+ (155), C– (187)
My picks: Freij–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson

16. Florida Panthers (6 picks): 2.333 GPA = top-heavy C+
B (58), A– (97), B (129), D+ (169), D+ (193), C– (201)
My picks: Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson–Leenders–Hynninen

17. Nashville Predators (8 picks): 2.29125 GPA = C+
B+ (22), A+ (55), D (77), A– (87), D+ (94), C– (99), D+ (127), C– (213)
My picks: Greentree–Stiga–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Leenders–Vuollet–Krutov

18. Montreal Canadiens (10 picks): 2.267 GPA = top-heavy C+
A+ (5), A (21), A+ (70), C– (78), D (102), C– (130), D+ (134), C– (166), C (210), D– (224)
My picks: Demidov–Hage–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Leenders–Swanson–Galvas–Hynninen

19. Vancouver Canucks (5 picks): 2.267 GPA = C+
B+ (93), C– (125), A+ (162), C– (189), E+ (221)
My picks: Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson–Leenders–Ustinkov

20. Detroit Red Wings (8 picks): 2.20875 GPA = C+
B+ (15), B– (47), C+ (80), C– (126), C (144), C+ (176), C– (203), C– (208)
My picks: Greentree–Koivu–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Swanson–Galvas–Krutov

21. Philadelphia Flyers (7 picks): 2.19 GPA = weak C+
B+ (13), D+ (51), B+ (59), C– (107), C– (148), C+ (173), C– (205)
My picks: Helenius–Pulkkinen–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson–Leenders

22. Dallas Stars (3 picks): 2.1133 GPA = strong C
B (29), C– (158), C– (222)
My picks: Basha–Romani–Hynninen

23. Colorado Avalanche (9 picks): 2.0744 GPA = C
B+ (38), D+ (76), D (121), C (132), D+ (137), C– (161), A– (185), B– (215), C– (217)
My picks: Basha–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Pitner–Krutov–Hynninen

24. St. Louis Blues (9 picks): 1.9633 GPA = C
B (16), C– (48), C+ (56), C– (81), C+ (95), C+ (113), C– (145), D (209), C– (211)
My picks: Greentree–Pulkkinen–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders–Krutov

25. New Jersey Devils (7 picks): 1.9529 GPA = C
B+ (10), C (49), C (85), C (91), D– (139), C– (146), C+ (171)
My picks: Buium–Stiga–Kiviharju–Leenders–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

26. Edmonton Oilers (7 picks): 1.8586 GPA = weak C
B– (32), B– (64), E+ (160), D– (183), A– (192), D+ (196), C– (218)
My picks: Chernysov–Koivu–Leenders–Swanson–Wakely–Galvas–Krutov

27. Utah Hockey Club (11 picks): 1.7582 GPA = strong top-heavy C–
A– (6), B– (24), C– (65), C (89), C+ (96), D– (98), E+ (103), D+ (135), C– (153), D+ (167), C– (190)
Buium–Greentree–Koivu–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Vuollet–Swanson–Leenders–Pitner–Wakely

28. Tampa Bay Lightning (7 picks): 1.7157 GPA = consistent C–
D+ (118), C+ (128), C– (149), C– (181), C– (195), C– (199), C– (206)
My picks: Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson–Leenders–Hynninen–Galvas

29. New York Rangers (4 picks): 1.6675 GPA = top-heavy C–
B– (30), C (119), D– (159), D+ (191)
My picks: Freij–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson

30. Ottawa Senators (6 picks): 1.6667 GPA = C–
B (7), D– (39), D+ (104), C+ (112), D (117), C– (136)
My picks: Parech–Basha–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Swanson

31. Boston Bruins (4 picks): 1.585 GPA = weak C–
C (25), D (110), C– (154), C– (186)
My picks: Greentree–Kiviharju–Romani–Swanson

32. Toronto Maple Leafs (8 picks): 1.2925 GPA = top-heavy D+
Grades: B– (31), D– (120), D+ (151), D (152), D+ (157), D– (200), D (216), C– (225)
My picks: Freij–Kiviharju–Romani–Poirier–Leenders–Swanson–Krutov–Hynninen


NOTE: the E+ grades may be too harsh – not only was every pick legitimately made, but no one drafted a complete beginner.

And yes, many of these grades will look hilarious within a few years!

even if we don't agree, i am still impressed with the work you put in. good job.

 

[The Old Master]

just out of curiosity; what was your ranking of yager last draft? i had him higher than he was drafted because i thought his biggest weakness was that he need to get stronger (put on some weight) and that would be an easy fix. but at this time, it may not be as easy as i thought.

 

[Sampe from the 2000s]

just out of curiosity; what was your ranking of yager last draft? i had him higher than he was drafted because i thought his biggest weakness was that he need to get stronger (put on some weight) and that would be an easy fix. but at this time, it may not be as easy as i thought.

I ranked him 25th. I wasn't alarmed by his lack of strength, I took it more as a sign of having more developmental runway left than most prospects. My main worries were

a) low ES production (0.57 ES pts/game). Not counting special teams his 67.14+24 would be 2nd round level at best as such (I expect CHL Fs to score at least 1 point/game to make the first round, and 2/3 of that should come at ES; so 0.667 ES pts/game). This year the comparable is my #22 Jett Luchanko, who scored 68.16+23 at ES. Now both players finished top 2 on their team in points, so part of it may be lack of quality players around them. And I don't think PP/PK production is nothing. I do think both players are first round quality overall. In fact, all the forwards in comparable leagues that I ranked ahead of Yager had superior ES production. Oliver Moore, who was given 2nd line minutes for the US NTDP, came closest with 0.65 ES pts/game at USHL.

In 23-24 Yager's production was once again heavily special teams based: ES 17+29; PP 15+29; PK 3+2. The numbers are better overall, which is to be expected, but normally older players start to really dominate at ES at CHL level. He has yet to do that. The worry is that ES production is often a better indication of NHL future as most PP minutes are reserved for the elite players in your team.

b) that he projects as a better winger than a center. Despite the impressive assist numbers his playmaking wasn't all that advanced in his draft year (Luchanko for instance is better here). I project him as a complementary player instead of a line driver at NHL level, so his upside as a center is limited to bottom 6 duties.

On the plus side however the shot is definitely a big strength and the skating should become above NHL average. The 2-way effort is also there, and he excels on PK. Plus I really like that he manages to score when it matters. If he hits his ceiling he's absolutely worth the 14th overall pick.