In part one of our draft success analysis we looked at lost games played over the course of ten years when you compare a player each team drafted to the two players selected right after them.
I called it the “Hossa Rule” as it always frustrated me that Daniel Tkaczuk was compared to Marian Hossa who was taken 7 selections later. Hindsite has to be reeled in when looking at the past or nothing will be learned for drafting going forward.
The concept was games played was an asset, a determination of an asset, and teams with more assets should be more successful. The results suggest I was wrong, and losing the games played battle is insignificant compared to the right games played. Teams at the top of the list in games played success have been doormats for the past half dozen years, the time frame where 2004 drafting and on should have an impact. Meanwhile teams that have been awful in this measurement have gone on to Stanley Cup success, or at least playoff spots and series wins.
Why is this? Bad teams tend to draft higher, and have easier rosters to crack so players rack of games played on weak teams when potentially better players (or at least equal) are left to percolate in the AHL for longer periods of time. The Detroit Red Wings are a classic example of a team that lets their prospects develop before throwing them to the fire, but in doing so they are missing out on 100s of games played over this time frame.
What we established in part one was that in terms of games played quantity trumps draft acumen as every single NHL team has given up games played when two players after their pick are in competition with their pick over ten years and roughly 70 selections each. However, when measured against on ice success perhaps its a lot more complicated than that.
In this edition we will take the games played ranking (Buffalo first, Calgary 30th) and compare them to different rankings to pull out conclusions. If a team has had the best results with the best situation then that initial “best of class” monicker should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps things will become more clear if we can measure the games played index against other factors and see what the ranking differentials bring to light.
Number of Picks
When trying to accumulate games played, it certainly makes sense to draft more players. To do so though you have to keep your own picks, and then add to that list by acquiring picks from other teams. As we all know this can be done by moving higher picks for more picks, or moving existing players for additional picks. The Flames in 2015 clearly did the latter to give themselves 6 picks in the top 85 at this year’s draft. It will be interesting to see how they do.
The hook in this analysis though is the fact that every team was in a negative position when it comes to the games played comparison so adding more picks should actually hurt the differential, not help.
Below is a ranking comparison, that is performance in games played against number of picks as rankings.
Top 5
1. Carolina – 9th best games played record with the 29th best pick total gives them a +20
1. Vancouver – 10th and 30th for +20 as well
3. San Jose – 4th best gp, 19th best pick total, +15
3. Toronto – 7th vs 22nd, +15
5. Boston – 16th vs 28th, +12
Bottom 5
1. Chicago – 28th rank in games played and #1 rank in total picks (Chicago had 92 picks in this time frame, the next closest was the Islanders with 81), -27
2. NY Islanders – 27th rank in games played, 2nd rank in picks, -25
3. Anaheim – 26th and 4th for -22
4. Los Angeles – 25th and 8th for -17
5. Washington – 19th and 3rd for -16
What can we make of this?
Look at the quality of the teams in the bottom 5, notice anything about them? Cup winners, playoff advancers, and up and comers. Clearly the numbers are saying two things; moving down doesn’t pay in statistics, but adding picks does pay over the long run in finding key players. You can get murdered in 6 picks a year compared to players taken after them, but if you find enough quality you’re still better off.
If you’re a Calgary fan maybe being last in the games played rank doesn’t bother you quite as much. The Flames finished 23rd in this ranking with a middling 16th most draft picks versus that 30th ranking in value for a -14.
I’m going to keep comparing numbers until I make the Flames look good.
Average Draft Position
Digging a little deeper we look at average draft selection. For some perspective some simple numbers … In a normal 7 round draft the top team selecting first in every round would have an average draft position of 91st, the 15th place team would be 105th, and the 30th place team would have 120th.
Obvious, but worth stating, there are two ways to have a low average draft selection; 1) you suck for a long period of time (the Oilers) 2) you move up in the draft or add 1st and 2nd round picks through trades (the Ducks).
The Ducks have an average draft position of 91.6, which is very close to the number a team would have for finishing last every year for ten years. How did they do this? A combination of being bad for a stretch and acquiring a number of additional top 60 picks. They appeared on the list above for a large number of picks but a bad differential when it comes the lost games played, but have clearly built a winner on getting it right by adding top 60 picks and drafting well where it counts, the first two rounds.
The Oilers are the bad for a long time example as they had the 2nd best average draft position with the 8th most top two round picks in that time range. Darryl Sutter clearly miscalculated by dealing away all those 2nd round picks (and a 1st for Jokinen) as the Flames had only 15 top 60 picks in these ten years, tied for third worst with Philadelphia and Toronto leading the way.
Don’t move high draft picks!
The Blackhawks by the way, had the most top 60 picks in this time frame, it seems to be working for them. Did I mention the Flames have four in the top 60 this year? Put that in perspective, four in one year versus 15 in the last 10 years. Amazing.
With that we have two more sets of ranking lists …
Top 5 By Avg Draft Position
1. San Jose – 4th best GP loss rank vs 30th best draft position average, +26. San Jose’s average draft position is 126.8 which is well worse than if they had drafted last every single year of the ten years. They have a low pick count (68), and a low top 60 pick count (15).
2. Toronto – 7th and 29th for +22
3. Nashville – 5th and 25th for +20
4. Vancouver – 10th and 28th for +18
5. Buffalo – 1st and 16th for +15
Once again a slew of terrible hockey teams with favourable ranking comparisons between games played lost and average draft position. All five teams are in the top ten for performance in a games played lost perspective, but rank low for average draft position.
Bottom 5 By Avg Draft Position
1. Anaheim – 26th in GP Lost and 1st in average position, -25
2. Florida – 24th and 4th, -20
3. Islanders – 27th and 8th, -19
4. Rangers – 21st and 7th, -14
4. Chicago – 28th and 14th, -14
Once again some good hockey teams that have brutal games played lost stats, but very high average draft position. They may be losing the overall war in this study, but they are clearly getting it right when they get it right.
Calgary had the 17th lowest average pick value and the 30th ranked games lost rank for a -13 differential, just out of that bottom five.
How about games played lost versus number of top 60 picks?
Top 5 # of Top 60 picks
1. Toronto – 7th in games played lost vs 29th in top 60 picks (with only 14), +22
2. San Jose – 4th and 25th for +21
3. Vancouver – 10th and 25th, +15
4. Nashville – 5th and 18th, +13
5. Ottawa – 11th and 23rd, +12
Bottom 5 # of Top 60 picks
1. Chicago – 28th in games played lost vs 1st in top 60 picks, -27
2. Anaheim – 26th and 4th, -22
3. Florida – 24th and 6th, -18
4. Washington – 19th and 4th, -15
4. Wpg/Atl – 29th and 14th, -15
Again, games played lost doesn’t matter when it comes to the true test – on ice success. The Hawks, Ducks, and Caps have all been contending teams in recent years despite getting hammered in lost games played. Does anyone want to emulate the Leaf model that has them picking in the first two rounds only 14 times in 10 years? Clearly not.
If I’m a GM of a Western Canadian hockey club in Southern Alberta I’m paying attention to Anaheim, L.A. and Chicago, and I’m accumulating top 60 picks, and spending money on scouting to make sure I get these picks right. Meanwhile I’m assuming I’ll still lose the Hossa Test in the later rounds but I couldn’t care less.
A very good sign that Treliving has accumulated 6 picks in the top three rounds as it gives him the option to do two things, both of which seem to be proven as astute statistically;
1) Pick 4 guys in the top 60 and play the odds
2) Use some of these picks to move up and draft more quality.
Either route seems to be a more reliable way to venture, compared to the Darryl Sutter method of trading down to get more picks and take your chances.
Add this year’s set up to last season where the Flame’s had three picks in the top 60 or the year before when the Jay Feaster led club had three first round picks and you get the sense that this organization is going in the right direction.
Ranking 30th in games lost is certainly an indication of some brutal drafts, but it may not be the strongest indication overall of where clubs are heading.
Games Played Lost Top 60 Picks Only
Join us again tomorrow when we look at pick value, and back at the Flame’s picks in the past and the total value for each draft year.
