As the season start disappears in front of us, why not rekindle a great topic?

http://houseofpuck.com/?p=513#more-513

So according to that list 26.67 per cent of the goalies playing in the NHL at the time that list was made were drafted in the first round.

For comparrisons sake here's my question - what percentage of skaters currently playing in the NHL were drafted in the first round? If the number is similar percentage wise, than would the argument not be moot?

This post has been removed.

I don't have the patience or time to go through every team in the league, but let's take the Bruins for example. 35 players suited up for the Bruins last year at some point. Of those 7 were first round picks, or 20 per cent of the year long roster. Limiting it to just skater and not goalies then the percentage was 19.35 per cent.

Hamill, Horton,Paille, Pouliot, Seguin, Rask, and Rolston. 5 were full time players for the whole season when not injured - so for the 23 man roster, that's 21.73per cent. For the last half of the season that goes to 26.08 per cent with the addition of Rolston. This season three of those players won't be returning, with one more first rounder, Hamilton expected to make the team at the start of the season, leaving the team 21.73 per cent for opening day.

If this is percentage consistent, or at least close to average, around the league, then a goalie playing in the NHL is as likely, if not more likely, to have been picked in the first round than any other player. I don't see how they're riskier to pick.

You cannot judge picks, using the 1st round as a single determining factor.
By doing so, you are giving equal status to a #1 pick, and a #30 pick.
Using the past 10 drafts, only 3 goalies have been chosen in the top 5 (Lehtonen, Fleury, and Price). That is a 100% success rate.
There were 15 other goalies picked in the 1st round over the last 10 years. They ranged in picks, from #6 to # 30, averaging out to #20 overall.
I have no idea how to determine mathematically, the success rate of drafting goalies over skaters, with the #20 pick, with there being only 2 goalie positions against 18 skater positions.
Judging from the Bruins lack of success, drafting late in the 1st round, I don't think it is a bad idea to pick the #1 or #2  rated goalie, rather than the #13 rated forward or d-man.

In response to red75s comment:


Red, you're given the same weight to the goon as you are to the first line center.  Obviously that's incredibly flawed.

Here's something else from that same writer:

"First round talents are essential. Everyone knows that Detroit pulled Datsyuk and Zetterberg from the depths of obscurity, but this is rare. Of the top-30 point producers in the NHL last year, 5 of them were 1 ^st overall picks, 4 went 2 ^nd overall, 3 went 3 ^rd overall, and another 11 were first round picks. Far more dumbfounding is the following stat: of the top-20 goal scorers in the NHL last year, ONLY ONE (Patrick Sharp) was not drafted in the first round."

In response to biggskyes comment:


Gotta draw the line somewhere, Big. 

IMO, draft position means everything. I don't have a problem with Boston taking Subban at #24. If they had had a pick in the top 10, and used it to draft Subban, I would have been upset.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:


So let's change the weighting, and look only at the top two lines and the top two  D pairings. Only two players - Horton and Seguin - are first rounders. 20 per cent.

In response to red75s comment:


Sure, then let's look at the Kings top six:

 

Kopitar, Brown, Williams, Stoll, Carter, Richards

Stoll is the lone player outside of the first round.

Both stats are irrelevant.  We're not talking about drafting a team, we're talking about drafting players.  If most of the top forwards are first round picks, and very few of the top goaltenders are first round picks, I think I'd prefer to see the Bruins take a forward.

Then let's limitthis  even further. Of the top 100 point producing forwards last year in the NHL 26 were taken in the first round. Of the top 60 point producing D, 16 were taken in the first round. The odds of a successful first round pick are the same, or within reasonable statistical difference, regardless if they're a forward, D, or keeper.

In response to red75s comment:


If someone is in the Top 60 for points for a defenseman, he's successful? 

Joe Corvo is #60 on the points list.  Doughty is #27 while Jack Johnson is #20.  Red, if you believe point totals make a defesnseman successful, you can turn in your "I'm A Girl But I Know Hockey" hall pass.

I'll give you a little while to think about this angle and to retract it if you please.

Let's move onto the real topic, however. 

The Top 100?  That's not limiting it, it's expanding it.  We're talking first round picks.  Premium players, not guys who finished two points ahead of Kyle Wellwood.  Can you imagine if that was the plan?

MacKenzie:  So, Peter, what are you hoping for with this first round pick?

 

Chiarelli:  Well, Bob, if we can get a guy who can get a few more points than that Kyle Wellwood, we'll consider it a great draft.

This is why top 20 is important.

You're the one who brought up point totals, not me. I was simply replying o you idiocy.

My point is, and always has been, scouts' success rate and the team drafting rate in the first round, is similar, in terms of success, regardless of position. Can you disprove my point?

By percentage of players drafted in each round - knowing far fewer keepers are drafted in the first - am I wrong?

Top 20 in goals for the season is important.

Having one more point than Joe Corvo is not.

I no longer have any idea what you are talking about.

btw, on your top 20 argument, how many of those first rounders that are in the top 20 were drafted lower than number 20? Since this deabate is based around the bruins pick this year, that question is relevant.

NAS, you're not stupid. You know exactly what I'm talking about in regards to drafting success. You can always re-read my posts if you're struggling with them, but I doubt you're that illiterate.

The point of the matter is that, position for position, draft ranking for draft ranking, the failure rate and success rate is damn near equal for forwards, keepers and D, regardless of round, but particularly in regards to the first round.

First round.

Can't draw new lines.

The line here is already drawn.

It is at the end of the first round.

If you would like to make a new argument, start a new thread.

How are you judging successful defensemen?

How are you judging successful goaltenders?

Let's look at last year, or the year before, or the year before.

How many top goal scoring forwards were taken in the first round?

How many top performing goaltenders were taken in the first round?

How many top performing defensemen were taken in the first round?

Last year or the year before? We both know that goalies take longer to develop. How does your timeline make sense?

Red, I'm with you... My research has shown that as of the past 7 years, goalies have indeed been a safer pick, % wise,  than the other positions when compared to Top 4 Dmen or Top 6 forwards as we all know that only 1 goalie can play starting minutes.  

How about this NAS?  You pick 3 players (which is generous since most other teams only get ONE shot) that the B's should have picked instead of Subban at 24 and we'll track their careers.  We'll revisit this in 5 years.  I bet one of the 3 you pick will be on an NHL roster but will neither be a Top 6 forward or a Top 4 D-man.  The other 2 you pick will be in the minors or toiling around somewhere in Stockholm, Bonn, or Eurownanus city trying to catch on with a pro team.    If Subban is a starting goalie on an NHL team,  then you give me 24 X 5 X 3 the props I deserve. 

How about this one, I looked at the drafts from 1979 until 1999. I used as my benchmark for being a successful NHL player, playing at least ten seasons in the  NHL.

Of those players drafted in the first round, by a perecntage of position, 30.12 of LWs did this, 27.98 of goalies did this, it was 24.34 of D, 27.22 for centres, and 26.5 for RWs.

How are goalies a bad bet? Maybe, playing the odds, if there was a solid LW left on the board the Bruins should have taken him. Otherwise, in terms of percent, they made the best call.

The question of drafting goalies is essentially answered indirectly in the quote below imo.  Although the only factor is what players were available in the first round at the time the sampling team drafted.  Subban was a risk but not necessarily if the best of the forwards were picked.....a debate with no solution. 


In the 14 years from 1996 through 2009 there were 420 first round draft picks with 61% of them being forwards, 32% of them being defensemen and 7% being goalies.  If you consider a standard 22 man NHL roster to have 13 forwards (59%), 7 defensemen (32%) and 2 goalies (9%), that ratio of forwards to defensemen to goalies in first round draft picks is almost exactly as expected so it isn’t like the absence of first round picks on defense leaderboards is due to a lack of defensemen being drafted in the first round.  It seems more likely that something else is going on here with the most likely explanation being that defensemen take longer to develop and thus drafting them is an even greater crap shoot than drafting forwards.

  http://hockeyanalysis.com/2012/06/12/drafting-defensemen-a-bigger-gamble-than-drafting-forwards/

In response to red75s comment:


That is ridiculous. 

Over the first 50% of your scope, there were only four goaltenders taken.

Fuhr, Barrasso, Muzzatti and Kolzig.

Furthermore, in your list of "successful" NHL careers, did you include Dan Cloutier?  How about Martin Biron? 

In response to islamorada's comment:


The problem here is that the back up goaltender, half of the 9%, doesn't generally play, and isn't someone you go looking for in first round of the NHL draft.  It's also a fact that the seventh defenseman isn't some that is sought in the first round.

The entire premise is flawed.

The entire premise is flawed only for one reason the analysis was concluded with a guess.  You are correct NAS but the argument does support your guess that goalies should be avoided during the 1st round like defensemen.