Why Have 32% of 1st Rounders Since 1990 Been Defensemen?
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 8:00 AM EDT
Email
Print
Let me start with a couple of principles, one theoretical, the other a standard fantasy drafting approach. First, the modest (so I think) theoretical proposal:
Amount of physical talent needed to score goals > Amount of physical talent needed to prevent goals
Defense is a game of angles, offense is a game of shots. Defense stresses less movement, but ample awareness to use angles to your advantage. This is true for goaltenders who are cautioned against flashy moves, as well as defensemen cautioned against lunging at close plays on the opposing blue line. It's evident whenever a defenseman skates backward to keep the forward in front of him/her, and the forward has to find a way to get past or get off a shot. The value of preventing goals versus scoring them isn't at stake here, but rather the amount of talent that needs to be there to be good at one versus the other. And that's where the draft comes in.
Secondly, I've used fantasy hockey in the past to show some of its inadequacies and suggest that it might perpetuate hockey fans' emphasis on boxcar statistics (goals, assists, sometimes +/-) as well as the curious inclusion of penalty minutes. Despite this, I think there are redeemable things in fantasy hockey, in particular with the drafting process. It's common nowadays to see people going into a fantasy draft organize the available players into "tiers" of talent, with an idea that it will make it easier to draft on the fly. Often, the players are organized by position; these positions are determined by how your league is identifying them (for instance, in hockey some leagues separate right and left wings and centers, other just identify wings and centers). If you do this, you notice two things: a.) some positions have greater population in their high tiers, and b.) the spread of performance between the top tiers and the bottom tiers is greater at some positions than others.
The fantasy drafting principle that emerges from this is that, in positions where the spread of performance between the top tiers and bottom tiers is less, you don't draft early what you likely can get later.
To a degree, NHL entry drafts are also ordered into tiers, particularly in the reports from the Central Scouting Bureau. As with fantasy drafts, the tiers are separated into positions; also like fantasy drafts, there aren't a lot of useful ways to compare across positions. While I would agree it's not particularly easy, I do think that you can look at the results of 1st round picks versus their non-1st round counterparts and examine the spread of talent, and deduce which positions should be addressed early more frequently than those that can be likely addressed later. Take these numbers from players born in 1970 and sooner (roughly covering the drafts from 1990 to where I placed the cap, at 2008):
| Forwards | Per Game | 82g Season |
| 1st & Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner GVT/G | 0.075 | 6.114 |
| Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner GVT/G | 0.060 | 4.912 |
| 1st rounders 1970-born and sooner GVT/G | 0.104 | 8.525 |
| 1st & Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner ESPPG | 0.372 | 30.511 |
| Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner ESPPG | 0.357 | 29.274 |
| 1st rounders 1970-born and sooner ESPPG | 0.402 | 32.994 |
| Defensemen | ||
| 1st & Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner GVT/G | 0.072 | 5.941 |
| Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner GVT/G | 0.069 | 5.679 |
| 1st rounders 1970-born and sooner GVT/G | 0.079 | 6.502 |
| 1st & Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner ESPPG | 0.219 | 17.946 |
| Non-1st rounders 1970-born and sooner ESPPG | 0.232 | 19.012 |
| 1st rounders 1970-born and sooner ESPPG | 0.191 | 15.668 |
In other words, the difference between the average 1st-round forward versus non-1st round forward that made the NHL was the difference between Andrew Ladd and Blake Wheeler this year GVT-wise, or basically the difference between a good 2nd-line forward (lower-end 1st-line forward) and a 3rd-line forward. The almost-four point difference in even-strength points per game should be tempered with the knowledge that 1st rounders get a bit more time in special teams situations, at least initially in their careers. Either way, that's a pretty strong line between one and the other. In terms of defensemen, it's a much finer line. In terms of GVT, the difference is roughly the difference between Andrew MacDonald (upper-end GVT) and Kevin Shattenkirk (lower-end GVT) this year. Once again, the even-strength points difference should be viewed with the knowledge that 1st rounders will initially get more special teams time. The difference in distribution becomes even more disparate if you consider the ceiling of a 1st round forward versus the ceiling of a 1st round defensemen. Even the 1st round defensemen with the best-case results (players like Drew Doughty, or Chris Pronger) will struggle to get into the same GVT company as the best-case results of 1st round forwards (Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin) and even some with good, not great results (Patrick Marleau, Jeff Carter). In fact, we've seen just as many non-1st round defensemen (Zdeno Chara, Duncan Keith, Nicklas Lidstrom, Kris Letang, Dustin Byfuglien, Christian Ehrhoff) compete at the highest level league-wide as 1st round defensemen in recent years. Yet here are the drafting numbers:
| Draft Year | D | F | G | %D | %F | %G |
| 1990 | 6 | 13 | 2 | 28.6 | 61.9 | 9.5 |
| 1991 | 6 | 16 | 0 | 27.3 | 72.7 | 0.0 |
| 1992 | 9 | 15 | 0 | 37.5 | 62.5 | 0.0 |
| 1993 | 7 | 18 | 1 | 26.9 | 69.2 | 3.8 |
| 1994 | 8 | 14 | 4 | 30.8 | 53.8 | 15.4 |
| 1995 | 9 | 13 | 4 | 34.6 | 50.0 | 15.4 |
| 1996 | 13 | 12 | 1 | 50.0 | 46.2 | 3.8 |
| 1997 | 7 | 16 | 3 | 26.9 | 61.5 | 11.5 |
| 1998 | 10 | 15 | 2 | 37.0 | 55.6 | 7.4 |
| 1999 | 8 | 17 | 3 | 28.6 | 60.7 | 10.7 |
| 2000 | 9 | 20 | 1 | 30.0 | 66.7 | 3.3 |
| 2001 | 8 | 18 | 4 | 26.7 | 60.0 | 13.3 |
| 2002 | 8 | 19 | 3 | 26.7 | 63.3 | 10.0 |
| 2003 | 7 | 22 | 1 | 23.3 | 73.3 | 3.3 |
| 2004 | 9 | 17 | 4 | 30.0 | 56.7 | 13.3 |
| 2005 | 12 | 16 | 2 | 40.0 | 53.3 | 6.7 |
| 2006 | 9 | 17 | 4 | 30.0 | 56.7 | 13.3 |
| 2007 | 11 | 19 | 0 | 36.7 | 63.3 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 12 | 16 | 2 | 40.0 | 53.3 | 6.7 |
| 2009 | 12 | 18 | 0 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 |
| 2010 | 7 | 21 | 2 | 23.3 | 70.0 | 6.7 |
| Totals | 187 | 352 | 43 | 32.1 | 60.5 | 7.4 |
To a degree this is understandable: it is much easier to evaluate offensive ability than defensive ability, and so we see a lot of 1st-round defensemen being projected pretty well offensively or as big hitters, but frequently turning out to have dubious defensive reputations or weaker-than-expected offensive numbers (or both). But part of the reason I used GVT was to move a bit away from a primarily offensive comparison, because it is pretty clear that defensemen will not, on average, match forwards in that capacity (which has always been the case). What is clear is that there's a gap in scouting, but I would argue that with the theory I proposed above, and considering the draft is focused on projected talent, you still shouldn't be seeing more than 3, maybe 4 defensemen being drafted in the 1st round in any season.
I find it no small coincidence that what many view as one of the better drafts in recent history was 2003, where a large number of forwards were taken in the 1st, and the defensemen from the 1st did not pan out particularly well. Maybe we'll look similarly on the 2010 draft. Don't even get me started on goaltenders in the 1st round, though I'd like to point out that that is one area where the market has come around to this fantasy hockey-like understanding. If the difference between the tiers of goaltending are small, the market for average and slightly-above average goaltenders should not be too high...and that was the case in the offseason (though there have been some crazy counter-developments).
If I'm a GM drafting, I'm taking forwards in the 1st and maybe 2nd rounds, and defensemen nearly every round after that. Not doing that in the 1st round is kind of like buying a lottery ticket to win $750,000 when a ticket with similar (maybe even better) odds could win you $1 million.
Oh, and I'd get my goalies via tryouts offered to 25-to-30 year olds from the Elitserien, SM-liiga, KHL, and Czech Extraliga.
80 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
and the defensemen from the 1st did not pan out particularly well
Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf and Seabrook didn’t pan out particularily well?
Regardless, you make an interesting point.
Suter and Seabrook, yes, Phaneuf and Coburn, no.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Contract aside, Phaneuf is a top 4 defensman in the NHL. So is brayden Coburn. While 2003 was stacked, that is still a good result from a draft pick in that range ( 8&9 ). Its a weird year, 16-30 is probably better than 1-15.
Anyway, this might be semantics. When I read “not particularily well” I take it as “not good” or “bad” players, which I now think isn’t what you meant.
Phaneuf has yet to show he can contribute both ways in tough minutes in Toronto (he had very soft minutes in Calgary), and Coburn is the worst of the top 4 D-unit in Philly (I guess at least he isn’t worse than Sean O’Donnell and Nick Boynton…Boynton another former 1st rounder) and doesn’t even play on the powerplay anymore. Don’t tell me your goal is to get that kind of return in the 1st round.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Not at all, and I’m well aware of Phaneuf’s history. I stand by my statement that, Phaneuf’s anchor of a contract aside, both guys are top 4 D in the NHL (which isnt really saying much).
But even in the first round you often get nothing. Phaneuf and Coburn are a poor return for 2003, but not in a normal draft.
by samspade on Mar 28, 2011 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry, I know this isnt the point of your article.
I get what you are saying about Dmen in the first round, I’d be interested to know what you would do in the case of a highly touted (say like Hedman or Larsson, or even a less 2way guy like Fowler) Dman dropping 5-10 spots do you stick with this principal? I guess it would depend on a lot of factors.
I’d pass on them. They’d have to be once-in-a-lifetime talents for me to consider them, like Bryan Berard or Chris Phillips…and then I’d still pass. I’ll throw four or five picks at defensemen later.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions
The term “top 4 D” carries a lot more associated value with it than it deserves.
When teams always use the same two D as a pairing for long stretches, someone that is a below median D on the team is going to have to pick up ~20 minutes of ice time per game – not due to their quality, but due to the strategy the team plays.
Top 6 forward means something for a player’s quality because it’s essentially stating the player is better than the median forwards on his team. The equivalent term for D from a quality perspective would be top 3 D.
And back to the post, when talking about the return on a first round draft pick, I’d think teams would be aiming for players that are above median NHL quality.
To a degree this is understandable: it is much easier to evaluate offensive ability than defensive ability, and so we see a lot of 1st-round defensemen being projected pretty well offensively or as big hitters, but frequently turning out to have dubious defensive reputations or weaker-than-expected offensive numbers (or both)
I don’t disagree with your premise, primarily for the reason you stated in the quote above. In addition, I think defensemen usually take longer to develop, so you’re less likely to get elite production out of their cheap years.
But I think the rest of the post hinges on the fact that defensemen have earned less GVT. Is that because defensemen are less productive, or because GVT is better at measuring offense?
Amount of physical talent needed to score goals > Amount of physical talent needed to prevent goals
Presumably, the defensemen drafted in the first round are drafted for more than just their goal-prevention skills.
Offense is production, defense is prevention. But you’re right, defensemen drafted in the 1st round should be expected to contribute offensively and defensively, but even if their defensive prowess is a given they aren’t producing offense to near the levels that should be expected from the 1st round.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
A low level analysis is that teams dress 12 forwards, 6 dmen and 2 goalies per game. I would expect any group of NHL players to be in approximately that ratio. That gives us 30% defencemen. Is 32% really a significant difference?
Nope, with that level of analysis it makes sense.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Given that one of the key abilities of defensemen is to play tough minutes effectively (eg. versus strong competition) and that GVT doesn’t measure strength of opposition nor icetime, is GVT a good measure at all for this? I mean, it seems to me like GVT will tilt the evaluation towards heavily offensive D-men that are terrible at 5-on-5, Marc-André Bergeron say, over strong 5-on-5 tough minutes performers without good offensive numbers, like say Robyn Regehr.
Given that one of the key abilities of defensemen is to play tough minutes effectively (eg. versus strong competition) and that GVT doesn’t measure strength of opposition nor icetime, is GVT a good measure at all for this? I mean, it seems to me like GVT will tilt the evaluation towards heavily offensive D-men that are terrible at 5-on-5, Marc-André Bergeron say, over strong 5-on-5 tough minutes performers without good offensive numbers, like say Robyn Regehr.
yeah this is a great point.
+1 Indeed.
While the top D-Men do tend to have nice GVT values (usually), it’s very likely their value is deflated due to GVT not being able to take into account QualComp measures.
Meanwhile worse D-Men will have inflated GVT values due to low-quality-of-competition.
The end result is that the gap between top and bottom tiers becomes smaller since a major factor is ignored by GVT.
What does it mean to play tough minutes “effectively”? I think you need to define that for yourself, but in lieu of a better measure I used GVT, which does well to reward two-way defensemen more than strictly offensive or defensive defensemen. And really, you shouldn’t be targeting the latter two in the first round anyway.
I guess I’m confused as to how that would really mess with the numbers…are you suggesting that there were a bunch of defensive defensemen taken in the 1st round that were slighted in favor of a bunch of offensive defensemen in the later rounds? I’m usually sceptical about goal-based data myself, but this is a 20-year compilation of tens of thousands of games with offensive and defensive defenseman represented in both groups. If anything, the 1st-round group would have disproportionately offensive defensemen, as it’s the easiest part to evaluate pre-draft.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
What I am saying is that strength of opposition is a key factor in evaluating the performance of a defenseman. And while GVT attempts to measure defensive contribution, it doesn’t factor in who you do it against, nor how many minutes a player plays — leading to situations where players with the same GVT will have different “real” values. Since the foremost qualities of a top defenseman would be the toughness of the opposition they can face and the amount of icetime they can eat up (at least, that’s what I think!), that would seem to be a pretty big shortcoming. That said, it may be that there isn’t a better measuring stick out there.
GVT thinks Marc-André Bergeron is a much more useful player than Robyn Regehr (double the GVT last season), because it is very impressed with MAB’s power-play prowess and doesn’t measure that Marc-André Bergeron is being systematically sheltered by his coaches. He’s the extreme example, of course, but…
Here’s the conundrum that I alluded to a bit in the post: scouting is still pretty far behind when it comes to evaluating defensive ability (even stats folks are behind), so evaluating how well a defenseman (or forward, for that matter) will play defensively has fallen on “proxies” for good defense. Most notably, you’ll see big hitting/big-bodied defenseman taken in the first round on the premise that they might not contribute offensively but we know they can lay a good hit and must therefore be good in their own end. I’m thinking about guys like Regehr, Dylan McIlrath, Bryan Allen, Vitali Vishnevski, Christian Backman, Mark Stuart, Luke Schenn, Colten Teubert, Mark Mitera, David Fischer, Ladislav Smid, Boris Valabik, Jeff Schultz, Mark Fistric, Andy Rogers…none of these guys showed two-way capability before they were drafted (NHLE’s of maybe 10 points a year, maybe), and their “success” defensively has been seriously questionable. Even with a “success”, you can’t expect more than tough minutes and 15-20 ES points out of these guys in a year. Do you draft for that over a forward with the upside to put up point-per-game offense? I wouldn’t, because I think you can find that kind of talent later, or even outside of the draft. That’s particularly the case in a league where teams don’t scout defensive ability particularly well. I think it’s harder to find that kind of offensive talent later.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 29, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
en with a "success", you can’t expect more than tough minutes and 15-20 ES points out of these guys in a year. Do you draft for that over a forward with the upside to put up point-per-game offense?
show your work re: upside to put up a point per game. i mean, let’s not forget that NHLE is itself a flawed metric, so now we’re using NHLE pre and GVT post to evaluate drafts? this is like using painting over my windshield and using GPS alone to drive my car.
i think the problem is with your use of ‘always’. i agree that i probably wouldn’t use a 1st round pick on a guy with no offensive upside from the D side, but i don’t think i would pick a forward every year, either. also, if every team figures out that D are available in places other than the draft, that’s a market inefficiency that’s going to get closed up pretty quickly.
you also left out marc staal and anton volchenkov, fyi, but they might’ve had higher NHLEs.
Teams draft for a top-line forward in the 1st round. It’s what they do every year, because they typically only have one pick. In terms of upside, what do you hope to gain from a top-line forward? What is the ceiling of that expectation? In the same way, they draft for a top-pairing defenseman in the 1st round. In the case of those defensemen I listed (and Staal and Volchenkov, sure) what was their expected ceiling? Does it matter that people don’t scout defensive ability particularly well?
If we existed in a vacuum where people scouted defensive ability effectively and were able to derive better projections (offense-wise, they’ve actually come a long way) based on numbers that they trusted, yes the market inefficiency would work its way out. But we don’t live in that world; draft to the real one.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 29, 2011 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
If we existed in a vacuum where people scouted defensive ability effectively and were able to derive better projections (offense-wise, they’ve actually come a long way) based on numbers that they trusted, yes the market inefficiency would work its way out. But we don’t live in that world; draft to the real one.
I’m sure there’s a fancy latin term for what you’re doing here, but in your scenario, you are putting us in the role of GM/head scout/whatever, then you’re telling us that we can’t predict defensive ability. i’m not sure that you can say that with certainty – that there are no teams able to draft defensemen with similar accuracy to predicting forwards. the sample sizes are too small to ever say yes or no with any certainty, but that’s true of a lot of stuff at the draft, no? we can guess that in the aggregate, this is true (although with GVT, i’m not ready to say you’re right).
my claim is that at a certain point a defenseman can be the best pick even in spite of what you’ve found here.
I acknowledge your last point; there might be 3 or 4 defensemen worthy of a late 1st round pick (last 10 picks or so). I just wouldn’t be the one to make the pick.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 29, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Nailed it
When a statistical measure like GVT doesn’t match the actions of GMs, I would be very careful before taking the discrepancy as an indictment of GMs, rather than the stat.
In this case, we know that GVT misses a factor that causes it to systemically underrate the spread of contribution among defencemen, so the conclusion is particularly off.
Yeah, I should’ve probably controlled for GMs always making the best decisions.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 29, 2011 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If I’m a GM drafting, I’m taking forwards in the 1st and maybe 2nd rounds, and defensemen nearly every round after that. Not doing that in the 1st round is kind of like buying a lottery ticket to win $750,000 when a ticket with similar (maybe even better) odds could win you $1 million.
I realize this is probably coming across more deliberate / absolute than intended, but it’s too simplistic to think of the draft in this way. It’s similar to the playoff odds post that was on here a few days ago. I can’t remember the specifics of that article, but it was attempting to extrapolate the success rates of 8th playoff seeds historically to determine the expected success rate today. The problem is that the 8th seeds (and 1st seeds) are different from year to year and the discrepancy in team quality is similarly different. The odds should reflect the actual quality of the team, not the team’s ranking.
The same holds true in the draft. The draft position should reflect the quality of the player, not the quality of the draft slot. This is a good guideline / benchmark for GMs to challenge their scouts if they really think one year’s draft is all that different from other year’s, but can’t / shouldn’t be used to make absolute decisions.
by Bourque77 on Mar 28, 2011 1:24 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Frankly, the only way I’d consider a defenseman in the 1st round would be if they displayed a once-in-a-generation combination of skill and performance results. And then I would think of Jay Bouwmeester and still pick a forward. I agree that a few defensemen can play the two-way game to the level of an elite forward, but the dearth in sound scouting of defensive capability means two things: 1. I’m sceptical of projections that talk about “two-way” ability or “hockey sense”, and 2. I’m positive that players with those skills slip through the cracks, so why not throw a bunch of picks at defensemen later rather than a lot of money at one defensemen at the expense of choosing a better-scouted forward?
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Frankly, the only way I’d consider a defenseman in the 1st round would be if they displayed a once-in-a-generation combination of skill and performance results. And then I would think of Jay Bouwmeester and still pick a forward
i know this isn’t your point, but alex semin is the only forward taken after bouwmeester in the 2002 draft who turned out to be a better player.
i agree that defensemen are much harder to evaluate than forwards – looking at most of the top d men in the league, a surprisingly low number of them were 1st rounders. but i think to unilaterally say that you would take a forward over a d seems silly. some teams have been rewarded for drafting defensemen early.
Duncan Keith went in the 2nd round that year.
To be fair, 2002 was a poor draft year, period.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair, 2002 was a poor draft year, period.
but you cited him as something to be wary of, as if the panthers had made a mistake drafting him, when they almost certainly did not.
No, of course, who’s going to argue with the Next Bobby Orr?
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 29, 2011 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
why not throw a bunch of picks at defensemen later rather than a lot of money at one defensemen at the expense of choosing a better-scouted forward?
You would draft a defensemen because the average GVT of first round D per game is higher than the average GVT of non-first round forwards.
The average first round D has a GVT per game of 0.079. The average non-first round forward has a GVT of 0.060. I don’t understand why you would choose to ignore a D to dip in to a pool of forwards less talented than D.
With a fantasy team, everyone you draft that year has to play and you also know that everyone you draft that year will play. In the NHL, you know that a lot of them are going to bust and, as a result, you’re essentially always going to have enough room on your roster to play the guys you draft who are talented enough to have a decent GVT.
Based solely on your numbers, what I would do is pick and choose in the first round according to the best talent available from both positions – the D in the top 30 and the forwards in the top 30 are each better than the players at either position drafted outside of the top 30. After the first round, I’d go for D alone based on the fact they have the higher expected return. A more granular cut on the rounds may lead a different answer, but that’s the conclusion that seems to be logical based on the numbers you’ve collected.
That’s the value across all the rounds, not the 2nd round.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions
A more granular cut on the rounds may lead a different answer, but that’s the conclusion that seems to be logical based on the numbers you’ve collected.
Well, not completely based on my numbers, because if that were true you wouldn’t choose a single defenseman in the 1st round, a position not even I advocate.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the part I don’t get … you can’t shorten the first round.
After you pick the 18 or so forwards, you have a choice between picking forwards with a GVT of .06 or first round D with a GVT of .079. Again, I don’t know why you would go for the forwards.
The 19th forward doesn’t become a better player because you picked him in the first round instead of afterwards – his talent isn’t dependent on where he’s drafted, where he’s drafted is dependent on his talent.
Ceiling.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh? There doesn’t seem to be anything in your analysis that measures ceiling – it focuses on averages.
And how do you calculate an average?
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions
What is the average of each the following series:
Series 1: 1,1,5
Series 2: 4,4,4
Which one would you say has the higher ceiling? Series 1 most likely, even though it has the lower average.
What is the average of each of the following series:
Series A: 3,3,3
Series B: 4,4,4
Which one would you say has the higher ceiling? Series B most likely, which has the higher average.
So, based on your numbers, we should draft almost completely defensemen in the 1st round because they are all 4’s and only the highest-rated forward has a ceiling of 5, the rest are 1’s?
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not what I said at all. You said that averages were somehow representative of ceilings. I showed you they weren’t.
Look, there is one big conclusion I take issue with, but in general I agree with what you’ve wrote. You want to take the disagreement and re-frame them in to positions that I’ve never taken.
To put it very clearly, so that it can’t be misrepresented, here is the positions that I take.
If you choose to ignore first round D, that necessitates that you draft non-first round forwards in the first round. First round D have a higher GVT than non-first round forwards. Therefore, it is not a wise decision to ignore D in the first round.
I refer you to the lower comment on ceiling. Teams can (and should) draft on ceiling, as they cannot possibly know how a player will pan out, but you can be guaranteed that the expectation for a 1st round (and early 2nd round) forward is more offense than defenseman counterparts. Add to the mix the fact that scouting on defensive ability is still suspect, and you cannot be anywhere near guaranteed that either forwards or defenseman will be good in their own zone.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Even the 1st round defensemen with the best-case results (players like Drew Doughty, or Chris Pronger) will struggle to get into the same GVT company as the best-case results of 1st round forwards (Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin) and even some with good, not great results (Patrick Marleau, Jeff Carter).
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions
This is another view that makes it look like your numbers work well for the very top of the draft but don’t hold up throughout the first round.
5 of the 6 players you use as examples were among the top 2 picks.
The ceiling for any forward taken in the 1st round is at least point-per game offense, plus whatever potential defense they can provide. One 1st round defenseman in recent memory was able to match that kind of offensive output (Mike Green). The remainder peak below that and have had (as I said in the post) dubious defensive accomplishments.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
The ceiling for any forward taken in the 1st round is at least point-per game offense, plus whatever potential defense they can provide
Ok, I’m getting tired, so this is my last post for the night, but you have to realize how inaccurate this comment is, don’t you?
I started at the 1990 draft, which is the year you started with. Looking at the bottom 10 picks, precisely 0 players since 1990 have averaged a point per game in their career. It seems a stretch when no one in 20 years has averaged a point per game to say that it is a reasonable ceiling for all forwards picked at this point.
Admittedly, Miiko Elomo was close. He had 1 point in 2 games in his career.
Expectation, not results…isn’t that what you were giving me shit about before?
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
You answered before I closed my browser so I’ll respond.
How is reasonable to claim that back of the first round forwards have the potential to put up a point per game when none have done it in 20 years. As many or more non-first round forwards have had points per game careers over that time. Why wouldn’t you say they have the same upside?
Keep in mind, my comparison is not first round D with first round forwards. I agree first round forwards (the ones that were actually chosen in the first round) have the upside.
The issue is that when you say you will not pick D in the first round, you are claiming that non-first round forwards are more valuable than first round D.
At least we agree. I never said don’t pick any…I said I wouldn’t pick any. There’s maybe 3 or 4 defenseman deserving a 1st round pick based on expectation, but I wouldn’t be the one to make the pick. And it should probably be later in the 1st.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions
And no, not everyone you draft in fantasy plays, in fact far from it. The waiver wire functions as a virtual AHL, and you add and drop as you wish (or as you pay, in some leagues).
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Keeper league.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
In terms of elite player impact to a team I think in order the following is valid
Elite Goalie has more impact than elite forward has more impact than elite defence
Luongo > Sedin > Hamhuis
But the chance of finding elite goalie in the first round is rare so a GM is probably better off securing a forward instead of choosing risking a choice between Toskala, Dipietro and Luongo.
we talked about this back on the Isles blog too
Another factor is that you have more of a margin for error at forward and defense, and less for goalies. If you miss with a forward, you have three other lines to filter him into. If you get the 90th best forward in the league with your first-round draft pick, you still have a top-six forward. If you get the 90th best defender, you’ve got a steady middle-pair guy; or else a PP or PK specialist on your bottom pair. But if you get the 90th best goalie, you have a guy you might use in a dire emergency, no more.
It might still be worth it to go for that goalie in the first, knowing that you’re going to have a boom or bust pick… it would be far crazier to, oh, let’s just say (for the sake of discussion, you know) – deal a goalie prospect who IS ready to boom, plus other assets, in favor of a draft choice that you will then use on a goalie instead of one of two very promising goal-scoring forwards.
We may be in the box, but you get the penalty.
Lighthouse Hockey - a beacon of greatness on the rocky coast of sports blog mediocrity
Non-hockey scribblings at nightflyblog
GVT and ES PPG Averages
Are the GVT and ES PPG Averages here covering only players that actually played in the NHL? I simply can’t believe that players after the first round average 1/3 of an ES point per game including guys who never played in the NHL. I think leaving those players out is also probably compressing both the forwards and defenseman differentials.
To extrapolate your point more fully, you seem to be saying that high skill guys have a higher upside. I think that is true. I also think that high skill players take on more risk. That is, if you have a player, forward or defenseman (I am not thinking about goalies at all here) that is highly skilled, they may turn out to be a superstar, but they may also turn out to be a total flameout. A player who may not have the highest skill level, but otherwise demonstrates those qualities that are useful in the NHL game such as speed, size, positioning and (for lack of a better term) toughness, could turn into a serviceable non-superstar player. These secondary qualiities (without the superstar skill level) are probably more prevalent in succesful defencemen than forwards, particularly at the elite junior level.
The problem with your analyis, is that it seems to treat the draft as simply a chance at the average. But every draft pick is a little different. Some picks are long shot gambles to get a superstar (think late round small forward draft picks, like Martin St. Louis) others are low risk picks, with limited upside but a high likelihood of getting a serviceable player (the best example I can think of here is a JF Jacques but there are probably better ones).
I think it is a perfectly defensible analysis by a GM to use a higher pick on a player that is more likely to develop into at least a serviceable player, and use later round picks to take gambles on a bunch of potential superstars, only a fraction of whom might ever work out.
I don’t really buy into a “high skill player/serviceable non-superstar player” dichotomy, nor do I think high skill players inherently boom-or-bust or non-superstar players always succeed or play better hockey. I think high skill players can become serviceable non-superstars, and players that appear to be serviceable non-superstars at draft day can become superstars. Teams draft high skill or big-bodies (or goalies, I guess) in the first round. They can’t really evaluate how a player responds to NHL-level hockey, they just project that the skill will translate.
In general, I’m focusing on the 1st round, not what you would do after the 1st round. You could employ any number of strategies later, but to take a chance that a defensemen will yield an elite-forward-level return (as you would likewise expect of a forward) is the longest of long shots.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
In the 2003 draft, some had Andrei Kostitsyn as the most skilled forward on the table. And they also said Ryan Kesler was a ‘safe’ pick. Andrei Kostitsyn definitely didn’t bust, and became a high skill/serviceable non-superstar player, while Kesler definitely ascended to superstar type status with his skill set.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
And yes, it’s covering only players that actually made it to the NHL. But the point is why take a defensemen in the 1st round if you can pick 4 in the later rounds? Is the potential that one of those four becomes a pretty good defender such a longer shot than the risk/reward/mediocrity when you hinge on one player (and one hearty contract) who’s expected to play 20+ minutes a game?
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
Your exclusion of players that did not play a game in the NHL is ultra compressing the talent spread for players taken outside of the first round.
At this post Derek Zona put up the league average draft success numbers. Essentially, in the first round you have a 60% chance of getting an NHL player, in the second round a 25% chance and in the later rounds your odds are under 10%.
If we followed your system, we would pass up defencemen with a 25% to 60% chance of becoming regular NHL players in favour of forwards with a 10% to 25% chance of becoming NHL players, and then drafting 2 or 3 extra defencemen with a sub 10% chance of becoming NHL players. The likely result is not a set of average defencemen, but no NHL defencemen to speak of, and most of the forwards with this high ceiling you speak of would also be sub-NHL quality.
4 dice rolls with a 1 in 10 chance of success cannot make up for giving up a better than 50/50 shot, or even for downgrading to a 1/4 chance. You would need to have 6 third or later round draft picks, by my calculation, to get to a 47% chance of landing a single NHL caliber defenceman and 9 third or later round draft picks to get to a 62% chance of getting a single NHLcaliber defenceman. I don’t think those odds are going to work out for you over time.
I’m not as concerned with who makes the league (which can be pretty arbitrary; 1st rounders can “make it” by default), but what they do when they get there. And I’m arguing that the difference between that one defenseman that makes it from later rounds and the one you’d pay millions of dollars on the premise that they’d better make it (because you’re automatically going to give them minutes if they showcase a glimmer of hope) is small.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 29, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Ignoring the fact that over 85% of players drafted after the first round don’t turn out to be NHL players is a major hole in your argument. Your whole argument is based on the premise that the difference between the average defenceman chosen in the first round and the average defenceman chosen in the later rounds is negligible. It isn’t . The average defenceman chosen in the first round is something like Ed Jovanovski, a serviceable if unexceptional player that is certainly qualified to play in the NHL. The average defenceman chosen in the latter rounds plays for the East Texas Professional Hockey League. Giving up the former for 4 of the latter doesn’t get you a good defenceman, it gets you a bunch of crappy defencemen.
The average defenceman chosen in the first round is something like Ed Jovanovski, a serviceable if unexceptional player that is certainly qualified to play in the NHL. The average defenceman chosen in the latter rounds plays for the East Texas Professional Hockey League.
this is hyperbole – i think both claims are wrong – but it is true that there is survivorship bias in the above breakdown. we have to imagine that 1st round picks are given more shots to succeed in the NHL, but may be providing middling or negative GVT while doing so.
what seems to be true are two things:
A: it’s very difficult to get elite forward talent in later rounds, red wings luckboxing aside
B: defensemen tend to develop later than forwards, so it is much more difficult to predict who will be any good at the time of the draft.
so, in general, i agree that drafting d men in the first round might be a mistake, but i think it’s wrong to label it as categorically a mistake.
A team needs 6 defencemen, 12 forwards. Assuming you’re a smart team that doesn’t draft goalies in the first round, it makes a lot of sense that 32%, or approximately 1/3, of the draftees would be defencemen.
You’re overthinking this.
What about average career length?
Has any study ever been done on the average length of career by position? I’d imagine that it’s pretty similar for forwards and defencemen, but probably shorter for goalies.
This is something that would be considered when drafting players however (to a certain degree as the value to a team of a draft pick is essentially gone come free agency eligibility).
I considered looking at this, but like you said after a few years the value of the draft pick might very well be moot as the player’s moved on or even retired. So I went for a couple of per game stats.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
What happens if you remove the #1 pick?
There have been a lot of guys go #1 that could really throw off the expected results for a first rounder for forwards. Stamkos, Kane, Crosby, Ovechkin, Nash, Kovalchuk, Lecavalier, and Thornton come to mind. Yeah, Stefan is in there too and maybe Daigle was included in your timeline, but in general, that first overall pick, if he’s a forward, is the type of player that could really throw off an average statistic. If you don’t have the top pick, it doesn’t really matter what the first round value is when including a Crosby, Ovechkin, etc.
Another way to cut it may be to look at the very last forward chosen in the first round versus the very first forward chosen in the second round (and alternatively for defencemen) or maybe last 3 forwards and first 3 forwards to give a bit of a data set.
It would also get rid of guys like Bryan Berard, Roman Hamrlik, Erik Johnson, Ed Jovanovski, and Chris Phillips…I mean, there have been a lot of defensemen taken in the top 3 picks over the last 20 years, and presumably teams felt they could get pretty darn close to the importance of those forwards you listed.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Do Bryan Berard, Roman Hamrlik, Erik Johnson, Ed Jovanovski, and Chris Phillips each inflate the average D performance the same way that Crosby, Ovechkin, et al do? I think not.
Performance variance among first round D does not seem to be nearly as high as that of forwards – that’s why my suggestion that you should use a median metric rather than a mean when you’re most likely not getting to pick the cream of the crop.
Exactly, they don’t hold a candle to them. Ceiling has to be a part of the analysis, that’s the whole purpose and value of the 1st round.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
But the ceiling of a typical first round forward is not the same as that of a 1st overall forward.
How many forwards picked after #1 have a ceiling of Crosby, Ovechkin, et al?
Is the ceiling of a 1st overall defenseman the same as a 2nd or 3rd overall defenseman?
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Re-read the post. The spread of talent among D is not as disparate as that between forwards, which means you can get quality defense later rather than paying extra for it in the 1st.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Mar 28, 2011 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Arctic Ice Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
