Draft Success

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Draft Success

    We spend a lot of time blasting the Bruins' drafts.  And why not?  I'd say it's the weakest element of the Chiarelli tenure, as his only first round pick who will be making a significant contribution to the big club in 2013-14 is Hamilton.  Caron is on his last leg; Kessel, Hamill, and Colborne are gone; and he has dealt two first picks. The best thing you can say so far is that he has never had a first rounder = nothing. Even Hamill was swapped for Bourque.  And you can give him credit for Kessel turning into Seguin and Hamilton, and Seguin turning into Eriksson etc.  Not a total waste of time, but when you look at last year's final four, the Penguins were built around first round picks; Chicago the same; LA less so, but Brown and Kopitar are huge contributors.  So it seems fair to hope the Bruins will make a first round pick at some point who is worth more in Boston than on the trade market (in the way Hamilton might be; not the way that the "Bruins Daily*" piece suggests Caron is - you know, Boston likes him but no one else wants him?).

    I thought about a project, just to kill time while there's no hockey: who had the best first decade of the millenium when it comes to the draft?  You could do it fairly simply, and I'm pretty sure I've seen that done where someone talks about Datsyuk and Zetterberg and how great Detroit's drafting has been (between '98 and '05, they drafted Datsyuk, Fischer, Zetterberg, Kronwall, Kopecky, Hudler, Fleischmann, Filppula, Howard, Franzen, Kindl, Helm and Abdelkadr - 14 guys who will play for them next year and a superb defenseman with a heart condition).  There's also this, which, somewhat surprisingly, shows the Bruins as having been the 7th best team in terms of average games played per draft pick: http://www.topcornerhockey.com/module_1-7yrs.html 

    Neither is what I want, though.  Pittsburgh has done fantastically in the draft since, and not just because of the series of first and second overall picks they've made.  Letang was a 3rd rounder, and they got Moulson, Kennedy and Goligoski past the second round, too. Still, that's nothing compared to that Wings list, and Detroit rarely had a first rounder; when they did, it wasn't top 20 most years.  How would you design a rating to really get at the effectiveness of a team's drafting?  I'm thinking you'd want to downplay successes at the top of the draft and weight late gems a little higher relatively speaking.  You'd want to look at production as well as overall games played so that you get credit for drafting an NHL player, but more credit for drafting as he produces more for the team.  You might even want to add a "bust" metric that reflects top 10 picks that were wasted on players like Zach Hamill.

    Anyone heard of something like this that has a bit of complexity to it?  Anyone good at this sort of thing?  Olsonic?  If I were an owner, or a President/GM, I'd be looking for something like this the next time I was doing what the Bruins have done - revisit the scouting and development department.

     

    *Dear Boston Globe: if this garbage is not written by, endorsed by, or in any way affiliated with the Boston Globe, why is it featured prominently on BDC?  Pollutes your brand, if you ask me.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    I can't remember who it is, but we do have a statistician among us...?

    asmaha? DrCC? Isla?  Who was it...?

    Someone could set up a model up pretty easily with all of those variables.  I took statistical modeling in grad school...and can recall about 3.7% of it, with a +/-2% degree of error...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    I thought Olsonic...  DrCC is the chemist.  He'll be busy watching the end of Breaking Bad.  isla...for some reason I thought isla teaches.  Don't know if I've ever caught a hint of career path from asmaha.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    I think they are trying to address the issue with the changes in the scouting staff.

    And it might be more of a reflection of the overall quality of players drafted, but the fundamental skills I saw at training camp was up a notch from other years.

    Maybe when I retire I can go to some other teams' rookie camps and compare talents, that would be fun.

     

     
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    This is how I would start to think about this.

    First, you would need some kind of quality formula.  Perhaps using whatever method the folks at TSN use for coming up with their fantasy rankings, and applying it to a player's career would work.

    That's the reward for drafting a good player.  I wonder if you would want to somehow track value through trades too?  Or should this just be a valuation of the scouting and drafting, only rewarding a team for drafting players it wants to keep?

    Now, here's where the fun begins.  Come up with some kind of decay function.  I would think an exponential would do, but that might decay too quickly.  You would take the value of the player picked, minus the values of the players picked after him reduced in proportion to the number of picks after by using the decay function.  The idea is that if player B is outperforming player A, and was picked 2 picks later, then the team that picked A should have known better.  If player B was picked 60 picks later, it suggests that the difference is a surprise, as a lot of scouting departments were wrong.  The initial value of the player would probably have to be weighted too.

    I think the result of this would be that late-drafted players that turn into stars would have a higher assigned value than stars drafted in the first round, simply because the number of quality players drafted afterwards would be less.

    Doing this would require assigning a quality value to every person drafted during the selected time span.  Sure, there'd be a ton of zeros, but that's still no trivial task.

     

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    Thanks, Doc, that sounds like what I'd be into.  A couple of things:

    Could you do it so the comparison for decay is with players picked within 30 picks/one round?  That way, theoretically, every team has also had a chance to pass on the players picked more than 30 picks later?

    I was thinking of an arbitrary cut-off in terms of games played so you'd only evaluate players who made it and not all players selected.  200 games?  164?

    Is just pure performance of your drafted player not sufficient as a proxy for trade value as well?  That is, it doesn't matter that Matt Moulson hit it big with the Isles, Pittsburgh still drafted him.  If they got a lot or a little for him before letting him go as a separate GM function (not totally divorced, but a different transaction).  Ditto if you deal an Angelo Esposito and get an NHL player for him - Esposito is still el busto.

     

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    The other thing that's occasionally diverting is to sort the drafts just by points or goals to see who leads in scoring from each draft year.  In the last 15 years or so, teams at the top of the draft have been right more than wrong, it seems.  And it's fun to see that Bergeron is the sixth leading scorer in that much lauded 2003 class behind Staal, Getzlaf, Vanek, Perry and Parise.  Ahead of guys who get far more credit as scorers like Horton, Richards, Carter, Brown, Michalek, and all-around guys like Kesler and Pavelski.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    ...and, after Ovechkin and Malking, you know who's #3 in points from the '04 draft?  Krejci.  In '06, Kessel is second and Lucic 6th.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    Interesting topic book and DrCC,  it has been discussed but only in a general way.  OatesCam is an engineer if I remember correctly.  I am a social science....ap history teacher....no real help. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    I thought asmaha was a statistician?

    I'm no help as a reporter/political scientist - I've spent a lifetime reading stats, but I sure as hell can't compile them.

    Maybe we should send this idea to statistician par excellence Nate Silver. No joke - the guy is a numbers genius and a diehard hockey fan. It could interest him.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    Seems that the first order of business would be determining what success looks like, then work backwards. I know this is a bit out there, but I'd love to see something like this tied to average playing time. Every team defines success diferently, and it's otherwise impossible to compare value of pick in a guy like Bergeron when technically he's not a 1st line center nor would his valuation be accurate when comparing point totals only. However, stack his PT up against others at the Center position and it's clear where he falls in the pecking order. Works the other way, too. Bruins fans might not see Callahan as the end all and be all of wingers, but the guy averaged 21:30 a game last year and that deserves to be noted even though his 31 points puts him in the middle of the pack. Not his fault the Rangers stink.

    Plus, it gives draft analysis a "hit" or "miss" quality.

    Perhaps baseline expected playing time for a 1st rounder, 2nd, 3rd, etc and then see where the deltas are.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    In response to red75's comment:

    I thought asmaha was a statistician?

    I'm no help as a reporter/political scientist - I've spent a lifetime reading stats, but I sure as hell can't compile them.

    Maybe we should send this idea to statistician par excellence Nate Silver. No joke - the guy is a numbers genius and a diehard hockey fan. It could interest him.



    Nope. Event Director / Producer. Talk to me about NESN's broadcast quality. Also an expert on the effectiveness of fly paper around television cameras, but this stuff is waaaaay over my head.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    I sort of like DrCC's suggestion that you use the TSN Fantasy system, or some modification of it.  It's really hard to assess the realtive value of a shut down D who rarely scores vs. a blazing winger who scores 50 but has to be introduced to his goalies at the season wrap up party.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kivvak. Show kivvak's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    The Bruins biggest problem at the draft is their philosophy of always taking the best available player. When your basing your pick on the most skilled player available at the time, it is usually a center. This is why we always have a glut of centers in the system and barely any wings. The Bruins are constantly trying to turn natural centers into wings instead of drafting wings. The Bs will have all four center positions locked up in Boston as well as Providence and go out and go out and draft all centers in rounds 2-6 when we have no wings in the system ready to play. when you try to pick up a winger who can score via trade or free agency it cost to much. You need to find those players in the draft.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    There has to be some kind of formula out there to judge this. I'm not smart enough to even know where to look or what I'd be looking for. But, there has to be something for games played/production after the 3rd round that would be a good rating system for any teams draft success. I've always been of the thought that a team could fire their entire scouting staff and still be on the same page as the other teams as far as picking rounds 1 through 3. Come draft day, most educated fans know something about those players. The scouts earn their money after that.




     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    In response to kivvak's comment:

    The Bruins biggest problem at the draft is their philosophy of always taking the best available player. When your basing your pick on the most skilled player available at the time, it is usually a center. This is why we always have a glut of centers in the system and barely any wings. The Bruins are constantly trying to turn natural centers into wings instead of drafting wings. The Bs will have all four center positions locked up in Boston as well as Providence and go out and go out and draft all centers in rounds 2-6 when we have no wings in the system ready to play. when you try to pick up a winger who can score via trade or free agency it cost to much. You need to find those players in the draft.



    First round, perhaps even second, since these players might be able to contribute much sooner I could see the argument for drafting to address a need. After that, I'd take the best player available.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    Cunningham will up his goal totals this season like he has the past two seasons. He was the hardest forward in Providence for opposing teams handle, other than Bourque, in the Calder Cup playoffs.

    What does he get for his hard down on the farm ?

    Craig has to wait behind a player who has never even sniffed at a 20-25 goal pace season in the AHL. Perhaps it is not the drafting that is the problem but the philosophy of giving more of chance than a shift or one game. But then again it's allot of fun watching your teams coach scratch his head when his defensively responsible forwards get walked on in crucial games.

    Muck, grind, muck, grind, grind, muck repeat....spin...recycle...spin...muck...

    "Meh...two cups in two seasons dude!"

    "Yah but Pandawful and Daugvins looked good in that one game"

     

    Its Chiarelli's approach to the prospects after the draft that is amiss, not necessarily the players.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    I think we all know how you feel about prospects having a right to play in the NHL if they show anything in the AHL, SanDog, but this is balloonacy.

    Let's start with "other than Bourque."  What that says to me is that, while choosing the best evidence you could think of to say Cunningham deserves a shot in the NHL, you still couldn't find evidence that he's better than Chris "18g 1-3-4" Bourque?  How does that suggest he's earned a shot?  Bourque was the better player in the A and got a shot.  It didn't pan out.  How does that equate to a guy who wasn't as good in the A being better in the NHL.

    The wait behind Caron argument goes something like this: Cunningham - 25 goal season in the AHL.  Caron - 11 NHL goals and 25 NHL points in 88 NHL games.  All that means is the team is more familiar with Caron's ability to play the role they need him to play.  How do they know Cunningham could play a 3rd line role?  (They don't.)  Look at all the other goals leaders in the AHL and tell me how many of those guys you expect to be solid offensive producers in the NHL?  Tyler Johnson has much better numbers than Cunningham and had a decent stat line for the non-playoff Lightning.  Maybe Brett Connolly makes the leap as a former top 10 pick?  Tardif won't.  Toffoli maybe.  Neiderreiter...the jury's out.  In other words, the guys who were high picks look most likely to make the leap.  They small undrafted free agents who excel in that league are touch and go at best.

    Blaming the Bruins system because it doesn't favour the development of guys who were passed over twice and then drafted in the fourth round?  That's not the cart before the horse, that's ... I don't know ... I'm at a loss for how backwards that is.  You want them to change their roster philosophy - particularly the preference for responsible, low-maintenance veterans in bottom six roles - because some guys who've scored less than a point/game at the AHL level deserve to be in the NHL?  And you think in "crucial" games, rookies who, for the most part, weren't even first round picks are better options than NHL veterans with hundreds of games including long playoff runs under their belts?  This makes no sense to me, especially when the franchise has made moves to mirror the style of the NHL team in the AHL so the kids are better prepared to play under Julien.  That's a smart development move, if you ask me.

    I can't help it, SanDog.  This sounds like you're putting the "rights" of a few marginal prospects ahead of the franchise.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Draft Success


    A really  interesting thread for me.  There are multiple criteria to consider when coming up with a model to realistically trend anything of substance.  The problem is, the more categories defining the criteria, the smaller the sample size.  Small sample sizes aren't a good thing.

    As someone already stated, "success" first has to be defined, and as simple as that sounds...it isn't.  Trying to incorporate everyones opinion of success into the equation will result in the above, so success, has to be tightly nailed down. 

    It's better to have multiple surveys, as opposed to multiple criteria, then do some cross referencing, and analytical thinking.

    All of the contributions I've read here are important when determining whose good at the draft table, and who isn't.  There are many more out there too.

    My choice would be 1st rounders only for discussion 1.   Go back 20 years by team.  A simple list of who was taken, compared to who was available, then let the debate begin.  That, in my opinion, will generate the most clarity. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    That might be a place to start.  It would eliminate what I think of as the conversation killer of draft discussions: the 7th round Hart Trophy candidate.  That deteriorates into "team is brilliant for finding gems deep in the draft" vs. "your brilliant team picked 6 dogs before they lucked into that gem, so how good are they really?"  Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    Would it work if you had a few different measures of success for different surveys?  So one is players who played over X number of NHL games (XX for goalies)?  Then three others for performance in those games, one for forwards, one for D and one for goalies?  You could use two metrics per survey for each position, maybe - minutes and points?  Or set a scoring system for minutes (for defensemen 25+=100, 20-25=70, 15-10=40 to mirror first, second, third pairing)? That might let you anticipate some of the cross-referencing with scores that attempt to "mean" something similar for each position.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    Some of the variables that would be considered in evaluation of a successful drafted player would be connected to the "Tyler vs. Taylor" debate from a few years ago.  The Bs really did not choose Tyler, he was left after the Edmonton pick.  Another thought would be a team that needed a goalie, ie.  M. Suban draft pick.  The goalie postion was a need position in the organization at that time.  I tend to think the model would not have to be too complicated at first. Given the constraints of the time period (last ten years), and strength of the class of draft picks (2003) would have to be factored into the final analysis.  BTW I noticed today that NHL.com had Taylor above Tyler on the top fantasy picks.  Nonetheless I would love to debunk the Detriot concept of being successful as well as the Pittsburgh concept of having top picks for several years.  Both of those concepts I use often, without proof. I look at hockeyanalysis.com at times.  It does use metrics but seems to me it would an interesting subject for that site to explore even in it's simplist form.  Generally speaking, I would love to sit down with some one at the "war room" during draft day.  Now that would be interesting to see why and who has the last say in the draft. 

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    Alberta's babbling brook thinks he has a point. You should know that PC and Providence's coach Cassidy have said time and time again "you need to score in the AHL, to be considered for a call up", the quotes have been pasted on here dozens of times. Wasn't my only point and never has been, just one point. Everyone knows Ray Jr. was a favor from a President to a former teammate. Maybe your one of the few that thinks if Chris had a different last name PC still would have traded for him. Anyone who saw Chris play for Washington already knew he didn't have "IT". My point was Cunningham did well in the AHL playoffs, nothing to do with who was better.

                             "How do they know Cunningham could play a 3rd line role?"

    Evidence ? Lets start with you only considering Cunninghams' stats. Maybe you have seen Craig...what ? once or twice when he was with Portland. He has played on every line in Providence, that's how he could play the 3rd or 4th. Where as you haven't seen him once in the AHL. You look at a stat line on AHLs website or a nightly scoresheet.

    "doesn't favour the development of guys who were passed over twice and then drafted in the fourth round?"

    You have no idea if Cunningham is marginal or not. You also make it sound like no one has ever made it to the NHL picked outside the 1st two rounds.

    Keep drinking the Whitfield-Pandolpo-Daugvins KOOL AID!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    That's all very nice, SanDog.  But in this conversation, I'm not pretending to know a ton about Cunningham (though I do have relatives who have Giants season tickets and can tell me a few things about his junior career).  I'm looking at what you're saying as you're ripping the way the Bruins are developing players and wondering what possible reason you have to believe that the only thing Craig Cunningham needs is a "real" chance. 

    Your first sentence is about Cunningham increasing his goal totals.  You compare him to Caron based on goal totals.  I responded based on stats about goal totals.  If you think you've made an argument about how good Cunningham is all-around, you haven't.  Case in point - if you have a case for how they know Cunningham could play the 3rd line, like "he's played a third line role for them on a number of occasions in Providence", then make that case.  Telling me I'm only looking at stats isn't making the case, and, as I said above, you started down this path talking about what a great scorer he is based on his stats.  The only other thing you've done is criticize the Bruins' style - muck muck, grind grind - as though that's the problem.  As though the Bruins should change the way they play the game so that Cunningham fits in better.  Or whoever.

    You're right, I don't have a crystal ball that tells me whether or not Cunningham is ever going to be a real boy.  But you don't have clue one that he's going to be some regularly contributing NHLer either, and you're the one with the regular patter about how these prospects have a right to bump veteran NHL players just because of AHL performance.  My point has always been that I think the coaching staff and Sweeney's department are better able assess whether a guy has what it takes to play at the next level or not.  And right now, with every cap dollar vital, if a guy like Cunningham can make a veteran expendable, I'm betting they'll give him a chance.

    How're things looking for your last AHL crush?  Sauve lighting it up anywhere yet?

     

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    "How're things looking for your last AHL crush?  Sauve lighting it up anywhere yet?"

    Nice burn he is in Germany with Jamie Arneil looking for the St. Pauli Girl.



    "you started down this path talking about what a great scorer he is based on his stats."

    I said he "has increased his scoring", "upping" your totals while not playing on the top line with Bourque-Spooner-Tardif is a significant becuase Craig is doing it with 3rd and 4th line minutes. This says he can put the bisquit in the basket without needing top line minutes which is what will happen in the NHL if he gets there.

    "My point has always been that I think the coaching staff and Sweeney's department are better able assess whether a guy has what it takes to play at the next level or not."

    This is my point in the case of a player like Cunnungham. He is doing everything Neely/Sweeney/PC/Cassidy ask of him and then Julien wants a safe-saftey-net-player instead of giving Richie Cunningham his due shot for a few games to see if he can adjust the fast pace.

    I feel most players in Providence only get a shot if there is an injury in Boston.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Draft Success

    The poster  nailed it, when he said the model shouldn't be "too complicated".  The bad though...is if it's "not" complicated...it means squat.  In fact it's worse than squat, as it usually points in the wrong direction, and makes it difficult to get back on track.  Most people would prefer to have something to hang their hat on, as opposed to thinking.

    Lets consider the question again......  "which teams historically do the best job in the draft".  Assuming minutes played, years played, goals, assists, team needs, players available, where the teams picked and a dozen other considerations are important, but water down results...would the following work?

    What about a simple list of everyones pick, by year, by round, accompanied by the 15 players(pick a number) who were picked directly after.  Isn't "what's available", all that matters? 

      Was Edmonton wicked smart in drafting Messier?  No, they were as stupid as everyone else in that they passed over him twice, so I think that's a common type example that needs to be thrown out.  Was Pittsburgh smart in drafting Lemieux?  No, because they had an opportunity no one else had.  Another example that needs special consideration.  How about the Bruins with Jumbo Joe?  My opinion is it's pretty hard to argue that one(plenty would argue), but Samasonov at #8 is a great example that proves how unworkable it is to expect "data" to provide clarity.  Way too many variables to consider.

      Looking at that year,  the only players the B's can be accused screwing up on during round 1, were Hossa, Dan Cleary and Brendon Morrow.  My debatable opinion is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest the Bruins didn't make a poor decision picking Samsonov over Cleary and Morrow(#12 was as good or better than advertised for at least his first 5 years in the league.  Cleary never got regular NHL employment til 00-01.  Morrow took a couple of seasons of seasoning to get to the NHL too, and by the time the 04 lockout occured, Samsonov had already racked up 7 years of high end service.  It's a reasonable argument that Morrow has had a more complete career, but for 7 years following the draft, Samsonov gets the edge, and I don't think it's fair to expect the scouts to be accountable after that much time has passed.  I realize not everyone will agree with that, but it isn't totally unreasonable.

    That leaves Hossa.  In hindsight, clearly the best choice.  So...is it fair to expect perfection?  To what degree did the B's "screw up"?  How "much smarter" was Ottawa?  How much dumber was Calgary for picking Daniel Tkachuk?  Those are things that must be considered.  First,  about 2/3rds of those first rounders were a bust.  Is that indicative of most years?   Assuming the first 5 picks that year were reasonable(which is debatable), Calgary, Tampa, Washington, Vancouver and Montreal also had a crack at Hossa and passed.  They also passed on Cleary and Morrow, and their picks were way worse than Samsonov.   Therefore, those teams all screwed up much worse than the B's.

    Attempting to plug in enough information to get anything back of substance is basically impossible.  The above illustrates that clearly.  The process needs to be done in steps, and even then, there's still a huge element of debate and interpretation.

    I'm thinking statistically...things couldn't be broken down any more than by pick, by round, by year, with one criteria.(games played, points, years in the league, whatever someone chose to plug in), and that process would only fuel the debate, not settle it. I think the first option above, although more work, would yield a truer end result.

    This topic and "research" has some comparison to research and medicine.  Plugging in the details creates more questions, long before it gives any hint of answers.  

     

     

Share