What's a Draft Pick Worth?
by eye on the island on Feb 20, 2011 2:46 PM EST
Email
PrintCriticizing a general manager for not getting a high enough draft pick when dealing an NHLer is all too common. And debating whether player A is worth a 1 or a 2 makes for great Monday morning quaterbacking. The question always on my mind is, how do we know how much more valuable a 2 is then a 3, or a 4 is then a 5 or even a 4 is then a 7.
In order to answer this question, I compiled the total number of games played for every player drafted in rounds 1-7 from the 2000 through 2003 drafts. I started with 2000 as that is when the league expanded to 30 teams and cut if off at 2003 in order to give each player enough opportunity to work their way into the NHL. I normalized the data across the years by making games played a percentage of possible games played. So any player drafted in the 2000 season would have had an opportunity to play 10 seasons of 82 games (minus the 30 yet to played this year), a player drafted in 2001 nine seasons and so on.
I also broke the rounds up into thirds to provide context within the rounds themselves, as it is reasonable to assume where an acquired draft pick will be within each round. Just a note, the last third of each round has more total number of picks as it also contains the compensatory picks. If anyone has a better idea of how to incorporate that data pass it along.
The most obvious conclusion is that 4th rounders are no more valuable then 7th rounders in terms of extracting NHL talent from the draft. And more often times than not, when a specific tier of a round has an outlier percentage of games played it is usually because of just one drafted player becoming a bonafide NHLer.
Two last notes: 1) It is really painful going back through the drafts of those years and seeing the players the Islanders passed over. And 2) In no way do I believe this to be a fool proof evaluation method, just something to move the conversation forward and contextualize draft pick compensation. I'm really interested to see what everyone here has to say about the data and if we can find ways to make it more revealing.
On to the Data:
| Round | GP 2000 Picks | Pick Numbers | % of Games Played | GP 2001 Picks | Pick Numbers | % of Games Played | GP 2002 Picks | Pick Numbers | % of Games Played | GP 2003 Picks | Pick Numbers | % of Games Played | Avg % of GP by Round | Avg % of GP Within Each Round | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.00 | 3503 | 1-10 | 44.3 | 3584 | 1-10 | 50.6 | 3776 | 1-10 | 60.4 | 4192 | 1-10 | 77.1 | 45.35 | 58.10 | |
| 1.00 | 2113 | 11-20 | 26.7 | 3463 | 11-20 | 48.9 | 2522 | 11-20 | 40.3 | 3456 | 11-20 | 63.5 | 44.85 | ||
| 1.00 | 3316 | 21-30 | 42 | 2034 | 21-30 | 28.7 | 755 | 21-30 | 12.1 | 2696 | 21-30 | 49.6 | 33.10 | ||
| 2.00 | 1877 | 31-40 | 23.8 | 1513 | 31-40 | 21.3 | 762 | 31-40 | 12.2 | 888 | 31-40 | 16.3 | 17.81 | 18.40 | |
| 2.00 | 1220 | 41-50 | 15.4 | 1011 | 41-50 | 14.3 | 934 | 41-50 | 14.9 | 1599 | 41-50 | 29.4 | 18.50 | ||
| 2.00 | 1768 | 51-65 | 14.9 | 1461 | 51-63 | 13.8 | 1718 | 51-63 | 21.1 | 1594 | 51-68 | 16.3 | 16.53 | ||
| 3.00 | 381 | 66-75 | 4.8 | 825 | 64-73 | 11.7 | 961 | 54-73 | 15.4 | 743 | 69-78 | 13.7 | 9.29 | 11.40 | |
| 3.00 | 801 | 76-85 | 10.1 | 246 | 74-83 | 3.5 | 106 | 74-83 | 1.7 | 575 | 79-88 | 10.6 | 6.48 | ||
| 3.00 | 856 | 86-96 | 9.9 | 1343 | 84-97 | 13.5 | 1002 | 84-96 | 12.3 | 306 | 89-101 | 4.3 | 10.00 | ||
| 4.00 | 628 | 97-106 | 7.9 | 1046 | 98-107 | 14.8 | 189 | 97-106 | 3 | 482 | 102-111 | 8.9 | 5.06 | 8.65 | |
| 4.00 | 0 | 107-116 | 0 | 25 | 108-117 | .4 | 126 | 107-116 | 2 | 109 | 112-121 | 2 | 1.10 | ||
| 4.00 | 865 | 117-130 | 7.8 | 443 | 118-131 | 4.5 | 611 | 117-131 | 6.5 | 234 | 122-136 | 2.9 | 5.43 | ||
| 5.00 | 367 | 131-140 | 4.6 | 709 | 131-141 | 10 | 308 | 132-141 | 4.9 | 94 | 137-146 | 1.7 | 5.81 | 5.30 | |
| 5.00 | 122 | 141-150 | 1.5 | 582 | 142-151 | 8.2 | 1 | 142-151 | 0 | 803 | 147-156 | 14.8 | 6.13 | ||
| 5.00 | 1454 | 151-167 | 10.8 | 228 | 152-165 | 2.3 | 306 | 152-166 | 3.3 | 455 | 157-167 | 7.6 | 6.00 | ||
| 6.00 | 400 | 168-177 | 5.1 | 762 | 166-175 | 10.8 | 73 | 167-175 | 1.2 | 263 | 168-177 | 4.8 | 6.33 | 5.48 | |
| 6.00 | 467 | 178-187 | 5.9 | 886 | 176-185 | 12.5 | 425 | 176-185 | 6.8 | 678 | 178-187 | 12.5 | 9.43 | ||
| 6.00 | 51 | 188-197 | .6 | 1008 | 186-196 | 12.9 | 493 | 186-197 | 2.8 | 11 | 188-197 | 0 | 4.08 | ||
| 7.00 | 382 | 198-207 | 4.8 | 277 | 197-206 | 3.9 | 110 | 198-207 | 1.8 | 502 | 198-207 | 9.2 | 5.68 | 4.93 | |
| 7.00 | 472 | 208-217 | 6 | 332 | 207-216 | 4.7 | 121 | 208-217 | 1.9 | 425 | 208-217 | 7.8 | 5.10 | ||
| 7.00 | 870 | 218-229 | 10 | 1115 | 217-227 | 14.3 | 279 | 218-229 | 3.7 | 63 | 218-229 | .1 | 7.03 |
Submitted FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog or SB Nation. If you're reading this statement, you pass the fine print legalese test. Four stars for you.
13 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
if you have good scouting
2nd and 3rd rounders can be very productive starts only a year or 2 after the draft. So it is hard to figure th value of a draft pick. what type of player warrants a trade for a 1st rounder compared to a 3rd.
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
and then there are the Red Wings
1994—Holmstrom 10th round
1998—Datsyuk 6th round
1999—Zetterberg 7th round
but,
be real. Take a look, at second/third round picks ALMOST always they take several years to end up in NHL…very few make it in 2 to 3 years.
by Nobody77 on Feb 20, 2011 4:54 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
the only exception that I know of
Ryan Reilly Av 2nd round pick 2009 made the roster that Fall and has been great ever since.
so what, that is ok in my opinion
I am fine with a guy taking a year or 2 to learn at a lower level and then coming in a being physically ready to play at the NHL level along with skillfully ready.
I have seen this is baseball too, I like a college guy over a high school phenom. they seem to be more ready to handle the season, and the same is true for a guy who plays at Bridgeport or elsewhere.
I look at Nino, and De haan and Cizikas and think we have a nice future.
Any task BIG or small, Do it well or not at all
by Rickfansince76 on Feb 23, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
i think they still have the rule, whereas 18 year olds can only be drafted in first three rounds, after that they can not be drafted until following year? I think that weights the first three rounds. If a player is not drafted in first three as an 18 year old, and the following year still is not drafted in top three rounds as a 19 year old….
by CanadianIsleslifer on Feb 20, 2011 5:29 PM EST reply actions
wow
I actually did this same thing last year sometime using the 90s into the early 00s, but yours looks a lot better and is easier to read.
The only issue I see is that it depends on the perceived talent pool. I think the last two years have clearly been very deep and talented. In comparison this years draft is considered one of the weakest since the Stefan draft. Teams might be more willing to part with earlier picks then normal in an attempt to win this year.
"LHH gives me a chance to vent my spleen. The NHL never took my calls anyway.." ~ Hockey1919
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
by Mark D on Feb 20, 2011 7:30 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
talent pool
definitely has an effect, and its reflective in a year like 2003 where the first rounders played a lot more games and it carries over into the third. Still though, the 4-7th trend of extremely limited returns
by eye on the island on Feb 21, 2011 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
I like it. This is a lot of work. It does make sense. Players chosen in fourth round through seven, have all been passed over twice in the first three rounds. Once as 18 year olds the previous year, and again the following year – when the best 19 year olds not drafted in first three rounds the previous year have a second chance to crack top three rounds.
There are variables, as Webbard points out, talent level varies from year to year. Obviously draft positioning is weighted as well but have to draw line somewhere. I.E., An Edmonton 3rd round pick is much closer to a Detriot 2nd rounder than it is to a Philly 3rd rounder, which is only one or two picks prior to an Edmonton 4th. It is a rationale for accumulating bottom picks to package up and move up into higher rounds, top 3 rounds at least.
Everyone always knew the deeper you get into the draft, the less chance of a prospect panning out as obviously in rounds 4 through 7, all prospects have multiple flaws to their game. But what your research seems to demonstrate, as you have stated, is that the success rate of players taken after 3rd round, regardless of round, is nil or marginal. That I think is very significant research. Would like to see a sampling from longer period of time – say ten or more years – and up to 2006 (there will still be more prospects from 2006 draft year entering NHL as it is, we would have to be cautious about such a study with more recent drafts as we have no idea yet who will be a bonafide NHLer and who will not other than those who have already made it).
by CanadianIsleslifer on Feb 20, 2011 8:47 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
and up to 2006
2006 is still too early. High schoolers are just starting to graduate from College and play in the AHL now
"LHH gives me a chance to vent my spleen. The NHL never took my calls anyway.." ~ Hockey1919
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
i hear you
and actually agree with you Web. which is why I would hesitate with even more recent drafts. 2006 would be the earliest we could use, and it would still need an asterik. Other then top prospects, most seem to make the NHL somewhere between 5 and 8 years after being drafted.
by CanadianIsleslifer on Feb 21, 2011 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
now that
i have this data, i’ll keep a running list and see if we can find some more patterns
by eye on the island on Feb 21, 2011 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
another interesting stat...
Todd Bertuzzi just became the 263 guy to ever play 1000 games (33 are active). That is a hair over 12 seasons, barring injury. I would have thought that number would have been a lot higher…from what I’ve read, a bonafide NHLer is 5 seasons…
by CanadianIsleslifer on Feb 20, 2011 9:28 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lighthouse Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Islanders Schedule
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
- Dodger Stadium Winter Classic; 10 worst NHL fans; ‘While The Men Watch’ debate (Puck Headlines)
- Lightning GM Yzerman suggests he won’t be trading for Luongo, strengthens position for Luongo trade
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Ron Hextall, Luke Richardson and Rangers/Devils
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Cataractes romp to 6-1 win, eliminate Oil Kings from Memorial Cup
- Despite loss, Phoenix Coyotes build solid foundation in the desert with run to West finals
- Coyotes finish off best season ever
- Maple Leafs sign defensive prospect Petter Granberg to entry level deal
- Talented Sea Dogs show they can defence as well as attack at Memorial Cup
SBNation.com Recent Stories
1979-80
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 24, 1980: Tonelli to Nystrom. At long last, the steady build of the New York Islanders from expansion doormat to surprise semifinalist to annual contender reaches the promised land: Buoyed by a late season trade for Butch Goring that gave the team the depth up the middle GM Bill Torrey had been seeking, the Islanders knock off the Philadelphia Flyers in six games.
The victory justified the faith in coach Al Arbour who guided them from their second season to their first Stanley Cup seven seasons later. The Islanders would not be the first expansion team to win the Stanley Cup, but they would be the only one capable of a dynasty.
1980-81
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 21, 1981: This time it was much easier. After falling to "only" 91 points in the 1979-80 season, the Islanders returned to their division title tradition, piling up 110 points -- a whole 13 points over second-place Philadelphia.
Between the quarterfinals (where they beat the upstart Oilers in six games) and the finals, the Islanders reeled off eight consecutive wins -- with a four-game sweep of archrival Rangers in between. As they defeated the Minnesota North Stars in five games for their second Cup, their goal difference in the final was a combined +10.
1981-82
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 16, 1982: Another year, another landslide title. The Islanders won the Patrick Division by a whopping 26 points over the second-place Rangers, and were seven points clear of their nearest competition for the President's Trophy, the still-not-quite-ripe Edmonton Oilers.
A first-round scare against the Pittsburgh Penguins turned in the Isles' favor thanks to John Tonelli's heroics, and a true dynasty was on its way: Past the Rangers in six games, then an eight-game sweep of the Quebec Nordiques and Vancouver Canucks to run away with the Stanley Cup.
1982-83
Source: Uploaded by user via NYIslanders on Pinterest
May 17, 1983: Not so fast, whipper-snappers. The Edmonton Oilers' steadily rising challenge for league supremacy took them all the way to the finals for the first time, where the New York Islanders summarily dispatched them in a four-game sweep. For the Islanders, the Dynasty was secured. For the Oilers, it was a powerful lesson in where talent ends and the demands of playoff hockey begin.
Four years, four Cups, 16 consecutive playoff series wins (a record that would grow to 19 until the rematch with the Oilers the following year). Mike Bossy scored 60 goals yet again, and Wayne Gretzky became acquainted with Billy Smith's crease.
