So, I saw in another thread a person who made a comment that talent wise a certain team wasn't as deep as some other teams, and all I could think was: the teams referenced were incredibly lucky (as opposed to good) at drafting.
The number one example of this, in my mind, is the Pittsburg Penguins.
-In 1984, a floundering franchise lands Mario Lemieux with the first overall pick in 1984, arguably one of the top 3 players of all time. The team also picked up Jagr in 1990 with the 5th overall pick, but this isn't really the same kind of lucky.. unless you consider Philadelphia taking Mike Ricci to be luck.
-In 2003/2004/2005, the Pittsburg Penguins drafted 1st, 2nd and 1st. They happened to once again be fortunate enough to and a franchise talent.... one of them, the 2005 1st overall pick Sidney Crosby, was through a lottery draft no less...which, they had more balls in on account of their poor record pre-lockout. A franchise which was on its way to being moved from Pittsburg suddenly had renewed interest.
It is true the Penguins won cups in 1991, 1992 and 2009, but, one can't help but wonder how much of those cups amounted to being in the right place, at the right time.
A second example, along similar veins, is the Washington Capitals, landing star winger Alexander Ovechkin.
-You would not hear complaints from me if you were to characterize him as perhaps the best goal scorer in the game today, and arguably the most dynamic forward. It's true that the capitals have built a pretty good core around him, in Mike Green (D), Niklas Backstrom, Alexander Semin....but if you take Ovechkin off that team, the Capitals are pretty average.
-In fact, if you were to swap Ovechkin with any other player in the 2004 NHL Entry Draft, the odds are that with the exception of Malkin, the Capitals are not nearly the same team: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NHL_Entry_Draft... Add Ovechkin to any other roster too; and they're almost certainly at the very least a playoff team, or in many cases, a cup favorite.
-The thing about this here, is it's not as though Ovechkin was a surprise #1 pick. The capitals were lucky enough to land the #1 pick so they could choose the easily regarded best player available, in this case, Alexander Ovechkin. Thats what makes them lucky. It would be different if they went off the board, and it turned out they drafted the best player, or, if they had a lower pick and snagged the best player, but having the #1 overall pick is luck.
-=-=-
By contrast, there's other teams who seem like they are legitimately good drafting teams. For example, much as I hate to admit this, the Detroit Red Wings haven't had a #1 pick in a long time (hell, they had a stretch of years where they didn't even have a first round pick), and yet, every year, new talent seems to find its way into their organization. They remain a cup favorite for a long time.
Other teams like San Jose seem to be able to do this as well... San Jose may be a terrible playoff team, but their presidents trophy wins tend to mean low draft picks, and yet, somehow they seem to have built up a solid core of great young players (although they traded a few recently, in Ehroff and Michalek, but still including Vlasic, Clowe, etc).
That's not to say the good drafting teams don't get lucky every now and again. I'm sure Ottawa, which in the last decade has been a fairly good drafting team, was lucky to land Alfredsson when they did; even if they were horrible in picking Phillips 1st overall or Daigle 1st overall.. but, the distinction is that when you look at these teams rosters, you don't think to yourself: The only reason you're good is you were so terrible for so long, you managed to accumulate a ton of high picks and, even then, lucked into franchise players.
This has been discussed a lot... you're more likely than not to get a great player with the 1st overall pick, and anyone in the top 10-15 generally becomes a good player (obviously there are exceptions) but after that is when the pro scouting really has to work hard... teams like detroit have done well because they were able to pick some guys in the late rounds who turned out to be great players... a lot of these guys go so late because of the risk/reward factor... Like I heard that Datsyuk went to late because he played in an arena that was so cold that none of the scouts wanted to seem him, but sometimes these players don't want to play in the NHL so you might be wasting a draft pick.
Anyway back on topic... your scouting team has to have the experience to know what types of players will progress well... you might pick a guy who's dominated in the OHL or something but will fail in the NHL. Drafting can be lucky but it's also a science...
As for lucky teams, It's obvious why Pittsburgh won the cup, the got 5 consecutive top 5 picks, any team would do well with a solid core like that, Washington has been pretty strong late in the first round but they were lucky to get a guy like Ovechkin
Phillips 1st overall was not a bad pick. The 1996 draft was one of the shallowest drafts ever. There is no player I would have rather had out of the first two rounds of that draft than Phillips.
When I look at a couple teams who say haven't drafted a superstar for the last decade or so, I can only assume it's how they develop that player rather than simply who they choose.
I think a better way to get a handle on how good a team is at drafting is to look at how many players they have drafted that are currently playing in the NHL compared to the number of players drafted by other teams. However, this isn't by any means an exact way of telling who is good at drafting because some team may have drafted players who are stuck in the AHL because there weren't any opening in the big club, or a past GM was bad at drafting but a current one is or vice versa. Also a lot of the players drafted in the last 3 or so years are either probably just coming up now to the NHL, or haven't yet.
I'm not sure if I'd look at high picks for the Pens to be lucky. They were fortunate that the players they got were there those years, but it's not like it's luck that they actually panned out the way they did, they mostly went as projected. They made solid picks, not terribly shocking or impressive in most cases, but obviously they did will. I'd neither call it exceptional or lucky drafting though, just making good choices, which in many cases were the consensus ones.
Similarly, I have problems with calling late round guys turning into superstars strictly great drafting. Sure there is some sort of strategy involved in taking flyers on guys who might pan out with talent recognized, which is something especially Detroit obviously excels in. Then again, getting Zetterberg or Datsyuk in the later rounds, or the Leafs getting Kaberle (and Markov) in the late rounds also involved a huge deal of luck. Nobody would likely have guessed these picks would pan out so well. So this type of drafting takes a good deal of luck, but teams which have the right strategy and counting do have a good structure which makes it a lot more likely to get lucky. (which is what you can call a good approach to good drafting in the later rounds)
When I think of good drafting though, I mainly think about teams getting players in the first 2-3 rounds, outside the couple of slam dunk picks. (which are usually highly consensus) The kind of player which teams recognize better than others the kind of potential they have and pick or trade up for. The Devils had for example trading up to get Parise is the kind of thing I'd also consider a hallmark of good drafting.
Similarly, I have problems with calling late round guys turning into superstars strictly great drafting. Sure there is some sort of strategy involved in taking flyers on guys who might pan out with talent recognized, which is something especially Detroit obviously excels in. Then again, getting Zetterberg or Datsyuk in the later rounds, or the Leafs getting Kaberle (and Markov) in the late rounds also involved a huge deal of luck. Nobody would likely have guessed these picks would pan out so well. So this type of drafting takes a good deal of luck, but teams which have the right strategy and counting do have a good structure which makes it a lot more likely to get lucky. (which is what you can call a good approach to good drafting in the later rounds)
I don't think it's merely a huge deal of luck. The level of scouting and development they took getting into the NHL was key to how they play today. If I recall, Zetterberg and Datsyuk learned a lot about two-way play from some of roster players including Yzerman as well as their coaches. For them to get passed on by other teams means that they were either not scouted well or needed some development before making it into the big leagues. Either scenario to the credit to the franchise who drafted them for having the ability to draft and develop them into a great player. To me, that's not luck.
To put it in perspective (and obviously not the real numbers) for any pro sport:
1st round = solid chance they will continue to play in the NHL for a huge chunk of their careers
2nd-3rd round = better than average
4-5th round = may take a long time to get up there, but they'll have to work hardcore to get it
6+ round = if they even make it past the 2nd line in a farm system should be considered a highlight
Obviously there are so many exceptions to the rule, but that is what makes having terrific scouts that much more critical. You only get 1 pick in each round, you have to chose wisely to your needs and know they will work within your systems. Detroit has been the model franchise when it comes to this as we all know.
Flyers have always struck me as a team that drafts well. I look at Gagne, Carter, Richards and Giroux as great examples of guys who weren't taken all that high but are either stars or (in Giroux's case) look like they could become ones.
I'd probably say that lucky drafting consists of being able to pick in the top 5 of a great draft. (Note that it does take a good GM to commit to to a rebuild and actually keep those picks, :cough:Toronto:cough). Good drafting consists of getting good value out of your draft picks and having enough of them around to make a difference.
Phillips 1st overall was not a bad pick. The 1996 draft was one of the shallowest drafts ever. There is no player I would have rather had out of the first two rounds of that draft than Phillips.
Hello , my name is Daniel Briere and i do not approve this message.
I don't think Detroit is great at drafting. They are great at developing.
Colorado has had really good drafting, unfortunately they traded a lot of the players away while contending.
The whole point of drafting is based on potential of a player to develop in a legit NHL player. So technically, yes Detroit is good at drafting because they are able to find the diamonds in the rough which can develop in rounds that are usually just used to fill voids in farm systems. They were able to take those pics and turn players like Zetterberg, Franzen, and Datsuyk into top-tier talent.
I don't think Detroit is great at drafting. They are great at developing.
I would have to agree with this. I think there strategy is very simple, draft guys with some under lying skill and speed, who lack certain things to make them go higher such as defense, or work ethic. Than take these players and develop them until they can play in the NHL.
Drafting is always a combination of luck and skill, so to speak. Even in the case of Pittsburgh, were they "lucky" to draft Talbot, Letang, Goligoski, Scuderi, Orpik, etc.? I would argue as well that trading Florida for the rights to Fleury showed draft "skill", the team could just as easily have stayed put and picked Horton instead of pursuing MAF. Don't get me wrong, Pittsburgh undoubtedly benefited from early picks and "can't miss" guys like Malkin and Crosby. However, they also benefited by changing organizational philosophies and ousting a stale GM/scouting staff in favor of a new one. These benefits can clearly be seen in the recent success of both the NHL Penguins and their AHL affiliate.
Some have already touched on it but player development is arguably more important that drafting itself. It's no coincidence that Detroit consistently brings along lesser-known, late draft picks at a pace that allows them to grow into their expected roles. I don't see drafting as some mysterious event, teams simply acknowledge a few core traits that they want players to have (speed, size, attitude, etc.) and then work them into the system. How those players ultimately pan out is a reflection of their own hard work and the coaching/training staff that's in place around them (whether in the ECHL, AHL, or NHL), in addition to the pace that management allows them to grow.
I don't think it's merely a huge deal of luck. The level of scouting and development they took getting into the NHL was key to how they play today. If I recall, Zetterberg and Datsyuk learned a lot about two-way play from some of roster players including Yzerman as well as their coaches. For them to get passed on by other teams means that they were either not scouted well or needed some development before making it into the big leagues. Either scenario to the credit to the franchise who drafted them for having the ability to draft and develop them into a great player. To me, that's not luck.
Exactly. It's not so much luck or even great scouting (although it certainly has its role) as it is about having the right development system. Hakan Andersson is quite possibly the best scout in the business, but the fact of the matter is that Detroit also has almost unquestionably the best developmental system in the business right now. From the Wings to their minor league affiliates the prospects recieve the best training they can from the coaching staff and play alongside players that buy into the system and the team concept. It won't always work out, but if all other things are equal I'll put my stock in a kid drafted or signed by the Wings.
Exactly. It's not so much luck or even great scouting (although it certainly has its role) as it is about having the right development system. Hakan Andersson is quite possibly the best scout in the business, but the fact of the matter is that Detroit also has almost unquestionably the best developmental system in the business right now. From the Wings to their minor league affiliates the prospects recieve the best training they can from the coaching staff and play alongside players that buy into the system and the team concept. It won't always work out, but if all other things are equal I'll put my stock in a kid drafted or signed by the Wings.
This ^^^
I think development after drafting is a chronically overlooked aspect of any organization.
I know the Kings organization, up until recently, was dismal at this.
Drafting is always a combination of luck and skill, so to speak. Even in the case of Pittsburgh, were they "lucky" to draft Talbot, Letang, Goligoski, Scuderi, Orpik, etc.? I would argue as well that trading Florida for the rights to Fleury showed draft "skill", the team could just as easily have stayed put and picked Horton instead of pursuing MAF. Don't get me wrong, Pittsburgh undoubtedly benefited from early picks and "can't miss" guys like Malkin and Crosby. However, they also benefited by changing organizational philosophies and ousting a stale GM/scouting staff in favor of a new one. These benefits can clearly be seen in the recent success of both the NHL Penguins and their AHL affiliate.
Some have already touched on it but player development is arguably more important that drafting itself. It's no coincidence that Detroit consistently brings along lesser-known, late draft picks at a pace that allows them to grow into their expected roles. I don't see drafting as some mysterious event, teams simply acknowledge a few core traits that they want players to have (speed, size, attitude, etc.) and then work them into the system. How those players ultimately pan out is a reflection of their own hard work and the coaching/training staff that's in place around them (whether in the ECHL, AHL, or NHL), in addition to the pace that management allows them to grow.
The thing is though... A wings team with Talbot, Letang, Goligoski, Scuderi, Orpik, et al., doesn't win the cup.
They win the cup because of Crosby and Malkin... especially Crosby. Fleury played a large role, and yes, while some skill was involved in being able to trade up from Horton, its still lucky that they had a bottom 5 draft pick to MAKE such a trade.
The thing is though... A wings team with Talbot, Letang, Goligoski, Scuderi, Orpik, et al., doesn't win the cup.
They win the cup because of Crosby and Malkin... especially Crosby. Fleury played a large role, and yes, while some skill was involved in being able to trade up from Horton, its still lucky that they had a bottom 5 draft pick to MAKE such a trade.
Err, Pens*, not Wings.
Sorry, I'm sick and my brain isn't working perfectly atm.
To put it in perspective (and obviously not the real numbers) for any pro sport:
1st round = solid chance they will continue to play in the NHL for a huge chunk of their careers
2nd-3rd round = better than average
4-5th round = may take a long time to get up there, but they'll have to work hardcore to get it
6+ round = if they even make it past the 2nd line in a farm system should be considered a highlight
Obviously there are so many exceptions to the rule, but that is what makes having terrific scouts that much more critical. You only get 1 pick in each round, you have to chose wisely to your needs and know they will work within your systems. Detroit has been the model franchise when it comes to this as we all know.
Not scientific - but just from looking at old drafts - chances of having a signficant NHL career (top 9 forward, top 4 forward, starting goalie):
1st round: 40-50%
2nd round: 20-30%
3rd rounder: 15%
After: 10%
A big part of drafting is luck. Because if you think that DET is brilliant for getting Zetterberg or Datsyuk so late in the draft - they had guys like Carl Steen, Brent Hobday and Jake McCraken ranked higher on draft day. The Wings are obviously great at drafting - but more of an art than a science IMO. If the Wings knew that PD was going to develop like he did - they'd have taken him MUCH higher in the draft.
People always overlook player development. You don't just draft a player and then watch him become a stud or a dud. Usually the organization plays a rather large role in the process. Are the Red Wings lucky with their picks or do they find kids with potential and then maximize it?
). Good drafting consists of getting good value out of your draft picks and having enough of them around to make a difference.
