I am genuinely intrigued how organizations add talent to their ranks. Especially in a hyper competitive environment like professional sports. The US is unique in that the draft adds a layer above just pure economic might for acquiring talent.
What makes some organizations objectively better at stocking their rosters over the long haul?
Why do Philly, Baltimore, & San Francisco seem able to consistently draft well even when they don’t get premium picks or strike gold on a QB in the NFL? Why does my NFL (Seahawks) team consistently pick players who play non-premium positions with their premium draft capital?
For the NHL, what are the premium positions & how can they be ranked?
Here’s my lay person’s take:
1) Top line center who can score, create, & defend. There are only a couple of handfuls of these guys in the league at any one time.
2) Top pairing defenseman who can play strong defense, but also matriculate the puck out of the D zone and into the O zone. Throw in some passing vision, & an occasional scoring touch. Pure gold.
3) Elite goaltending. Guys who regularly steal games with save percentages in the mid .900’s & are great on goals saved above expected.
Of those three, the first two seem to be able to be objectively sought after early in the draft with goalies being very hard to find and predict. Conner Helkybuck played for the Odessa Jackalopes for God’s sake. While I love that the local arena has a junior team and they send kids on to college teams pretty regularly, it isn’t a “must stop” destination for NHL scouts.
The real question is what should scouts be looking for in prospects for those top two premium positions that can reliably be counted on to deliver players to the big club that are difference makers.
Secondly, I wonder if the market inefficiency that could really be exploited by NHL teams isn’t on the drafting side, but rather on how they develop players instead once in the organization.
From my experience, NHL teams are shit rotten at developing prospects. They either make it or they don’t it seems. And opportunity is as much a determining factor as anything else.
When dealing with human capital, there is a ton of uncertainty, but the goal is to put as many factors onto the scale tray for success as for the scale tray of failure. Consistently grind for those instead of wive’s tales and axioms that may or may not be rooted in qualitative or quantitative evidence/experience.
The middle of the first round is always such an interesting place to look back and study. Usually the top 5 guys are all solid, the next 5 may have one or two hiccups, but that's as much being a tough comparable as truly a bad pick. The teens picks though is where things can go wheels off. Some guys clearly should have been top 5, others look like 6th rounders.
Curious to know what traits both positive and negative where most likely to be worked through or doom a player. I feel like size is on of those things that impresses early, but doesn't carry as much weight as it is given. Similarly to a rocket shot, impressive, but if you can't hit the broad side of the barn or even get it off, who cares. Also, if you play a dumb game, you're probably always going to do that. Now on the other side, Harley getting noted for playing too many minutes, easy fix. I also like players with vision, if you know what to do with the puck, you can grow those skills much better than treating it like a hot potato.
2019 was a pretty decent draft with the top having few total whiffs. Stats wise Harley has some ground to make up before he's redrafted crazy higher (but I'm not worried about that).
Given the graphics and stats you frequently give, this one was a bit barren. For some reference on the other defenders in the top 20
4. Byram 21-34-55 in 132 gp
6. Seider 18-100-118 in 213 gp
8. Broberg 2-9-11 in 79 gp
11. Soderstrom 1-10-11 in 51 gp
14. York 11-36-47 in 137 gp
18. Harley 13-22-35 in 86 gp
19. Thomson 0-5-5 in 18 gp
20. Heinola 1-10-11 in 35 gp
22. Bjornfot 1-14-15 in 119 gp
Everything drops off real quick after that for Defense in that draft. I get that goals aren't the only things, but for reference Hakanpaa has 8-16-24 in his last 131 gp over a season and a half. Anyone on this list with stats below that might need to keep pushing a bit harder.
It’s a very interesting question. Firstly, I’d say that drafting 18 year old athletes is a very inexact science. There are plenty of 5-star high school football players who amount to very little at the college level, due to many factors. Clearly, the same can be said for highly regarded hockey players. The Stars drafted D Richard Jackman fifth overall in 1996. He was tall. He could skate like the wind. He could make plays with his eyes closed. This guy was going to be a superstar rearguard in the NHL. But he ended up being a nearly unmitigated flop. Why? He didn’t have the mental makeup needed to succeed. And that’s something that often doesn’t truly make itself known or obvious until it’s too late for the drafting team.
But beyond this part of the evaluation equation, I think Thomas Harley was unfairly penalized for his height. He was too skinny. He needed to bulk up. He wasn’t physical enough. Would shorter prospects who could skate and handle the puck like Harley be similarly criticized? No, because they weren’t expected to play that way because of their shorter stature. But because Harley has a tall frame, he was expected to play a more physical game. But if a 6-0 puck mover doesn’t have to bear the weight of expectations of physicality, then why should one who is 6-3? I think this is a fundamental bias among NHL evaluators when looking at defenseman prospects, in particular. And I do think it caused Harley to drop, thankfully for the Stars.
I guess you fail to realize that young players do develop over time.
One of the biggest knocks on Dallas is their defense. Harley is playing with some of the top players in the league right now i.e. the scoring average between the top six. You must learn how to either keep up or defend. I’m excited to see his development as I am sure you are….
I'm not sure what "fail to realize" means, exactly. Do you think I don't know that players develop at different rates? Let's say I did not, in fact, know this. What would that have to do with Harley getting picked behind Soderstrom, Broberg, and York specifically? Was anyone arguing that they were pro-ready in 2019 while Harley would need lots and lots of time?
After the 2 or 3 each year who are so skilled the step right into the NHL, selecting these “kids”are a crap shoot, a coin flip.
50/50 after the first 10 picks, getting worse results every round after.
Educated guesses are the best they can do, and hope. By the best minds in the business. Nill had a winning streak is all. Law of averages wins in the end!!!
Harley, the Cream rises. The Rest become AHL leading scorers??? Sometimes.
We never know which, until the end of the story...
I am genuinely intrigued how organizations add talent to their ranks. Especially in a hyper competitive environment like professional sports. The US is unique in that the draft adds a layer above just pure economic might for acquiring talent.
What makes some organizations objectively better at stocking their rosters over the long haul?
Why do Philly, Baltimore, & San Francisco seem able to consistently draft well even when they don’t get premium picks or strike gold on a QB in the NFL? Why does my NFL (Seahawks) team consistently pick players who play non-premium positions with their premium draft capital?
For the NHL, what are the premium positions & how can they be ranked?
Here’s my lay person’s take:
1) Top line center who can score, create, & defend. There are only a couple of handfuls of these guys in the league at any one time.
2) Top pairing defenseman who can play strong defense, but also matriculate the puck out of the D zone and into the O zone. Throw in some passing vision, & an occasional scoring touch. Pure gold.
3) Elite goaltending. Guys who regularly steal games with save percentages in the mid .900’s & are great on goals saved above expected.
Of those three, the first two seem to be able to be objectively sought after early in the draft with goalies being very hard to find and predict. Conner Helkybuck played for the Odessa Jackalopes for God’s sake. While I love that the local arena has a junior team and they send kids on to college teams pretty regularly, it isn’t a “must stop” destination for NHL scouts.
The real question is what should scouts be looking for in prospects for those top two premium positions that can reliably be counted on to deliver players to the big club that are difference makers.
Secondly, I wonder if the market inefficiency that could really be exploited by NHL teams isn’t on the drafting side, but rather on how they develop players instead once in the organization.
From my experience, NHL teams are shit rotten at developing prospects. They either make it or they don’t it seems. And opportunity is as much a determining factor as anything else.
When dealing with human capital, there is a ton of uncertainty, but the goal is to put as many factors onto the scale tray for success as for the scale tray of failure. Consistently grind for those instead of wive’s tales and axioms that may or may not be rooted in qualitative or quantitative evidence/experience.
Great stuff Brad.
The middle of the first round is always such an interesting place to look back and study. Usually the top 5 guys are all solid, the next 5 may have one or two hiccups, but that's as much being a tough comparable as truly a bad pick. The teens picks though is where things can go wheels off. Some guys clearly should have been top 5, others look like 6th rounders.
Curious to know what traits both positive and negative where most likely to be worked through or doom a player. I feel like size is on of those things that impresses early, but doesn't carry as much weight as it is given. Similarly to a rocket shot, impressive, but if you can't hit the broad side of the barn or even get it off, who cares. Also, if you play a dumb game, you're probably always going to do that. Now on the other side, Harley getting noted for playing too many minutes, easy fix. I also like players with vision, if you know what to do with the puck, you can grow those skills much better than treating it like a hot potato.
Really good point about the mushy middle. Seems like if you're good, but have dropped, maybe doubt creeps in. "Why is this dude falling?"
2019 was a pretty decent draft with the top having few total whiffs. Stats wise Harley has some ground to make up before he's redrafted crazy higher (but I'm not worried about that).
Given the graphics and stats you frequently give, this one was a bit barren. For some reference on the other defenders in the top 20
4. Byram 21-34-55 in 132 gp
6. Seider 18-100-118 in 213 gp
8. Broberg 2-9-11 in 79 gp
11. Soderstrom 1-10-11 in 51 gp
14. York 11-36-47 in 137 gp
18. Harley 13-22-35 in 86 gp
19. Thomson 0-5-5 in 18 gp
20. Heinola 1-10-11 in 35 gp
22. Bjornfot 1-14-15 in 119 gp
Everything drops off real quick after that for Defense in that draft. I get that goals aren't the only things, but for reference Hakanpaa has 8-16-24 in his last 131 gp over a season and a half. Anyone on this list with stats below that might need to keep pushing a bit harder.
It’s a very interesting question. Firstly, I’d say that drafting 18 year old athletes is a very inexact science. There are plenty of 5-star high school football players who amount to very little at the college level, due to many factors. Clearly, the same can be said for highly regarded hockey players. The Stars drafted D Richard Jackman fifth overall in 1996. He was tall. He could skate like the wind. He could make plays with his eyes closed. This guy was going to be a superstar rearguard in the NHL. But he ended up being a nearly unmitigated flop. Why? He didn’t have the mental makeup needed to succeed. And that’s something that often doesn’t truly make itself known or obvious until it’s too late for the drafting team.
But beyond this part of the evaluation equation, I think Thomas Harley was unfairly penalized for his height. He was too skinny. He needed to bulk up. He wasn’t physical enough. Would shorter prospects who could skate and handle the puck like Harley be similarly criticized? No, because they weren’t expected to play that way because of their shorter stature. But because Harley has a tall frame, he was expected to play a more physical game. But if a 6-0 puck mover doesn’t have to bear the weight of expectations of physicality, then why should one who is 6-3? I think this is a fundamental bias among NHL evaluators when looking at defenseman prospects, in particular. And I do think it caused Harley to drop, thankfully for the Stars.
I guess you fail to realize that young players do develop over time.
One of the biggest knocks on Dallas is their defense. Harley is playing with some of the top players in the league right now i.e. the scoring average between the top six. You must learn how to either keep up or defend. I’m excited to see his development as I am sure you are….
I'm not sure what "fail to realize" means, exactly. Do you think I don't know that players develop at different rates? Let's say I did not, in fact, know this. What would that have to do with Harley getting picked behind Soderstrom, Broberg, and York specifically? Was anyone arguing that they were pro-ready in 2019 while Harley would need lots and lots of time?
After the 2 or 3 each year who are so skilled the step right into the NHL, selecting these “kids”are a crap shoot, a coin flip.
50/50 after the first 10 picks, getting worse results every round after.
Educated guesses are the best they can do, and hope. By the best minds in the business. Nill had a winning streak is all. Law of averages wins in the end!!!
Harley, the Cream rises. The Rest become AHL leading scorers??? Sometimes.
We never know which, until the end of the story...
But man, I love watching him play!!!
Pssst! Don’t tell anyone, but Harley is our #1 Dman.
The media people already think that because all they can see is a stat sheet.