Drafting Success (06-16) All 30 Teams

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

[kickazz 5,459]

Did we do good or bad? If it's not corsi or fenwick then I don't understand it. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by kickazz

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

24 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Did we do good or bad? If it's not corsi or fenwick then I don't understand it. 

We do a very good job finding good players in rounds 2 - 4

San Jose is extremely good at picking in rounds 5 - 7

St. Louis does the best at selecting in the first round.

Arizona is god awful at drafting across the board.

My only problem with this graph is the first round should take into account what number pick you have. It doesn't, and this skews a lot of the data, making teams like Detroit, who always had low picks, appear worse than they are in the 1st round.

 

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

It's interesting to see that we've had the least 1st round picks in the entire league in that time frame. There seems to a problem with the data, though, if I'm reading it right. It shows that we had 6 1st round picks, I think we've had 7:

Cholo (16), Svech, Larkin, Mantha, Sheahan, McCollom, Smith (07)

I think it shows that our reputation for getting late round steals (round 5-7) should be retired, since we're in the bottom 9 for games played there.

[kickazz 5,459]

58 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I think it shows that our reputation for getting late round steals (round 5-7) should be retired, since we're in the bottom 9 for games played there.

But Datsyuk and Zetterberg = 20 players on their own. 

I agree, I've  thought of us being strong in the middle rounds picks lately. 

[Echolalia 2,961]

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

We do a very good job finding good players in rounds 2 - 4

San Jose is extremely good at picking in rounds 5 - 7

St. Louis does the best at selecting in the first round.

Arizona is god awful at drafting across the board.

My only problem with this graph is the first round should take into account what number pick you have. It doesn't, and this skews a lot of the data, making teams like Detroit, who always had low picks, appear worse than they are in the 1st round.

 

yup.  In my draft thread last year, evaluating the draft from now 6 years ago, there was roughly an equal chance of drafting an NHL caliber player from 15th pick to 60th pick, while 1-15 was obviously much higher odds

[Buppy 1,720]

For the Wings at least, it doesn't seem to include 2016. Didn't look that close though.

Late-round success was largely a myth anyway. That's all luck. Even the teams that look good on this graph look good mostly because of just a few players, and often because those few successes came in the early years of the range allowing those players to get in a fair amount of games. If Marchenko had been a 2007 pick and thus now had an additional 300 games, it would almost double our average games, but wouldn't mean we had actually drafted any better. 

Also, average games is just one metric. St.Louis looks great in the first round not only because they had a good success rate, but also because most of their picks came early in the range. This info is interesting, just not a complete picture. 

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I'm not smart enough to make sense of this.  Fire Kenny or not?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

It does disspell the "Wings pull gems late in the draft" narrative. I think it persists because we pulled two legit superstars late and in succession. Combined with drafting a lot role players in the middle rounds.

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Even if we are drafting late in the 1st round, the average number of games they play should be high.  It's disturbing if your 1st rounders are not averaging big minutes.  Having 2nd and 3rd rounders get bigger minutes than your first rounders means you are failing to select quality and winning out by guessing.  But we aren't winning at all, so it looks like our guessing isn't a good plan.

Several things wrong with this:

1. Average games doesn't mean much of anything. it just favors picks made earlier in the measured range. Three of the Wings 6 picks were from 2013-15. They simply haven't had time to accumulate the number of games as players drafted in the early years. 2 of the other 3 went to college, which also often means getting to the NHL later. 

Percentage of possible games would be slightly better, but still has the same problem since most prospects won't start in the NHL right away. 

2. Not sure how you're getting minutes from average games.

3. If you pay attention to the scale of the charts, our 1st rounders are averaging more games than the other groups.

4. Your "guessing" angle is just you making up stupid s*** to be critical. 

5. Having success with later round picks has no bearing on the success of earlier round picks.

 

[kickazz 5,459]

23 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

#3 - you are right.  I couldnt see the numbers changing on the axies from my phone until you said that.  But Holland just guesses.  You know this.

#6 -Hodor

[Keep Your Stick On the Ice 67]

I dont find these graphs to be entirely accurate, more so confusing as well and perhaps even misleading.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

6 minutes ago, Keep Your Stick On the Ice said:

I dont find these graphs to be entirely accurate, more so confusing as well and perhaps even misleading.

I'd like to see these graphs with games played, minutes played, and points scored factored in on the player side, and in the first round height of draft selection factored in. Obviously that's a lot of work though and I'm not gonna do it.

[kickazz 5,459]

It's the type of graphs Hodor would look at, think about and respond with "Hodor"