A Question of Value

[NewAbaddon]

 

Long read so I appreciate those who attempt to take it in. I hope the factual payoff is worth it.

 

Are Benning's first selections in each draft of his tenure (Virtanen, Boeser, Juolevi, Pettersson) an area of weakness or strength? Some Canucks fans routinely complain about Benning missing out on Nylander/Ehlers or Tkachuk, and others celebrate possible home-runs like Boeser and Pettersson. How do we look at all these picks together, as a complete picture?

 

Among these picks are two 5th overalls, a 6th overall, and a 23rd overall. What is the expected haul of this crop of picks?

 

Scott Cullen's recent exposition of the value of draft picks from 1990 to 2013 (https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131) is a useful tool for this, but far from perfect, as it contains certain quirks like further back draft picks being judged more valuable than earlier picks because of the somewhat random historical successes and failures of those slots.

 

So I made a very slight adaptation, and judged a pick's value by averaging its own value, and the value of the four picks around it, i.e. for pick number 14, I averaged its value with picks 12, 13, 15, and 16. Some might object to this, but it's at worst an imperfect modification of an imperfect model in the honest spirit of generating greater objectivity.

 

With this modification, the 5th overall pick has a historic value of producing a player with a 59.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 6th overall pick has a 49.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 23rd overall pick has a 21.7% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. Some simple math follows: (2 x 59.2) + 49.2 + 21.7 = 189.3.

 

So these four picks have a historical value of producing at least one surefire top 6 F or top 4 D (100%), and then an 89.3 chance of producing another. That is their total historical value: one for sure top 6 F or top 4 D, another very likely, out of 4 total picks. But anything beyond that is not in the numbers at this point; it's just fan fever over the potential of draft picks and an overrating of the science aspect of drafting.

 

Thus far Benning has produced one 100% top 6 F or top 4 D in Boeser. All he needs to do is produce one more, and his first selections in the draft will be already surpassing their historical value. Out of Pettersson, Juolevi, and Virtanen, that will not be very difficult IMO, and if Juolevi becomes a top 4 D (a still likely outcome even among his largest detractors), and Pettersson a top 6 F (also likely at this point, barring catastrophe), then Benning will have greatly outperformed the historical value of his draft selections. A possible emergence of Virtanen down the road would just be icing on the cake to this statistical area of strength for Benning.

  

 

[VIC_CITY]

If Jake turns into a perennial 20-25 goal scorer, which could very well happen, that will actually be quite the haul for Benning.

 

It's tough to say what will happen with Juolevi, your guess is as good as mine. But hopefully he's training like a mad man this offseason. He doesn't NEED to make the roster next season, but it would go a long way towards shutting up the naysayers. Obviously defensemen take longer than forwards, especially someone who isn't as physically mature as some of his peers, but I really have no idea what we have in him. If he turns out to be a solid 2nd pairing guy, we should all be pretty happy about that.

[Crabcakes]

I think a lot of people are crying because they see other picks having success before Benning's picks.  You really can't judge the success or failure of a draft pick until their career is over.  Well, maybe for 10 years because most players have peaked by age 28.

 

People say that Virtanen was a bad pick because Nylander and Ehlers are having success earlier and they were picked after Virtanen.  What about Bennett (4) and Dal Colle (5)?  These 2 players have had less success.

 

Drafting is one thing, development is another and is at least equally important.  I am happy with the attention that Benning pays to developing players well.  He has the organization aligned well between the Canucks and the Comets in terms of systems and placing players in positions to succeed

[cripplereh]

so far Benning has done an awesome job and people should give him props for it not be like said "we could have got so and so"

 

A plan was set and is working, now give it a couple years and you will see the production of getting someone like Benning!

 

he kind of reminds me of the Pat Q. days

[Solinar]

   Drafting....and DEVELOPMENT!  Some of those drafted need some polishing and refining to be true gems, while others will be NHL players regardless, but would probably have been better with better support behind them.  I think Virtanen's draft can't be held to just judging Nylander and Ehlers, because it was quite rightly mentioned that Bennet and Dal Colle that were selected above him have kind of dropped off a cliff, while Virtanen looks like he has still more to give.

  Johnson seems to be doing a good job as director of player development, but would love to see more resources given to Gradin in Sweden, but it was cool to see Salo trying to mentor Juolevi along, and it seems to have worked as he has shown strides in his game.  But it is our AHL team that will ultimately make or break our long term success.  Much the way Detroit did, you have to have the people in the minors to mentor, train, and refine the talents of those you draft.   Hope we spend even more and start to aggressively train our prospects so that not only do we have replacements for the big club for depth, that we end up having a pool we can trade from to acquire pieces that we haven't acquired in the draft.

[Crabcakes]

6 minutes ago, Solinar said:

   Drafting....and DEVELOPMENT!  Some of those drafted need some polishing and refining to be true gems, while others will be NHL players regardless, but would probably have been better with better support behind them.  I think Virtanen's draft can't be held to just judging Nylander and Ehlers, because it was quite rightly mentioned that Bennet and Dal Colle that were selected above him have kind of dropped off a cliff, while Virtanen looks like he has still more to give.

  Johnson seems to be doing a good job as director of player development, but would love to see more resources given to Gradin in Sweden, but it was cool to see Salo trying to mentor Juolevi along, and it seems to have worked as he has shown strides in his game.  But it is our AHL team that will ultimately make or break our long term success.  Much the way Detroit did, you have to have the people in the minors to mentor, train, and refine the talents of those you draft.   Hope we spend even more and start to aggressively train our prospects so that not only do we have replacements for the big club for depth, that we end up having a pool we can trade from to acquire pieces that we haven't acquired in the draft.

Another point, I think that Benning pays a lot of attention to character when drafting.  This can mean a lot of things but I think that if you're drafting players with a strong work ethic, who are willing to work on their deficiencies to always become a better player.  For example, Bo Horvat and his skating.  Continuous improvement is such an important quality.  It's one quality among many but players who always strive to get better are worth drafting.

[xereau]

Teams are build on deeper picks, and most fans focus on only the first ones.

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, NewAbaddon said:

With this modification, the 5th overall pick has a historic value of producing a player with a 59.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 6th overall pick has a 49.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 23rd overall pick has a 21.7% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. Some simple math follows: (2 x 59.2) + 49.2 + 21.7 = 189.3.

 

So these four picks have a historical value of producing at least one surefire top 6 F or top 4 D (100%), and then an 89.3 chance of producing another. That is their total historical value: one for sure top 6 F or top 4 D, another very likely, out of 4 total picks. But anything beyond that is not in the numbers at this point; it's just fan fever over the potential of draft picks and an overrating of the science aspect of drafting.

Technically, this is a misapplication of probabilities.

[Fanuck]

Didn't read anything past the thread title - based on that though, pretty sure that lengthy post was all about how Tanev is worth a 1st,  2nd and young,  skilled roster player,  No?  

[NewAbaddon]

Just now, Kevin Biestra said:

Technically, this is a misapplication of probabilities.

Could you explain how it is so? I'm simply extrapolating the hard data from Cullen's percentages, i.e. teams drafting in those slots have produced an average of 1.8 top 6 F or top 4 D out of every set of 4 picks.

[-AJ-]

Great research and work, but I'm not sure you can just add up those percentages like that. The implication is that enough picks gives you a 100% chance of getting a top 6 F or top 4 D, which we know isn't right. The odds are no doubt increased with more picks, but I'm not sure it's as simple as simple addition of percentages.

[Wanless]

15 minutes ago, xereau said:

Teams are build on deeper picks, and most fans focus on only the first ones.

It’s such a hard conversation to have with those fans too

 

im glad we have virtanen over Ehlers and nylander, juolevi over tkatchuk for the reason that teams that are all goal scoring don’t succeed 

 

virtanen will I’ll always provide a solid back check a big body and a degree of toughness. These are the things that complete a team. These are the things that the leafs are missing and are really holding them back.

 

ehlers is a perimeter player that is in with the big boys. But perimeter players come in abundance, the big boys don’t 

 

[Kevin Biestra]

6 minutes ago, NewAbaddon said:

Could you explain how it is so? I'm simply extrapolating the hard data from Cullen's percentages, i.e. teams drafting in those slots have produced an average of 1.8 top 6 F or top 4 D out of every set of 4 picks.

Well, just to use simpler numbers...  If you had four 50% chances of a win (be that a top four D, or landing heads on a coin flip), then four coin flips doesn't mean you will win two times (50%+50%+50%+50% = 100% of a win + another 100% of a win).  Which is essentially what you did in the section I bolded and underlined.

 

With four coin flips, if heads is a win, you have four 50% chances of winning.  The chances of never winning with four flips/chances is (.5 x .5 x .5 x.5) = 6.25%.  That's also the odds of winning ALL FOUR times.  But there's no adding it up to guarantees of anything.  The remaining 100% - 6.25% - 6.25% = 87.5% represents all the possible remaining combinations of some wins and some losses.

[NewAbaddon]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

Well, just to use simpler numbers...  If you had four 50% chances of a win (be that a top four D, or landing heads on a coin flip), then four coin flips doesn't mean you will win two times (50%+50%+50%+50% = 100% of a win + another 100% of a win).  Which is essentially what you did in the section I bolded and underlined.

 

With four coin flips, if heads is a win, you have four 50% chances of winning.  The chances of never winning with four flips/chances is (.5 x .5 x .5 x.5) = 6.25%.  That's also the odds of winning ALL FOUR times.  But there's no adding it up to guarantees of anything.  The remaining 100% - 6.25% - 6.25% = 87.5% represents all the rpossible emaining combinations of some wins and some losses.

No but the average would be that you would win two times. I'm not calculating anything empirical or "guarantees", simply average probability. And this calculation of average probability, like I said, goes back to Cullen's hard #'s.

[luckylager]

51 minutes ago, xereau said:

Teams are build on deeper picks, and most fans focus on only the first ones.

Totally. Guys like Demko, Gaudette and Tram (baby please come back) come to mind. 

 

Probabilities and averages are fun (or frustrating), but I guarantee teams need to get "wins" in later rounds to be successful. 

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, NewAbaddon said:

No but the average would be that you would win two times. I'm not calculating anything empirical or "guarantees", simply average probability. And this calculation of average probability, like I said, goes back to Cullen's hard #'s.

I'm not going to run the calculations with your percentages, but I would go so far as to say that "two wins" is probably the most frequently occurring combination.

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, xereau said:

Teams are build on deeper picks, and most fans focus on only the first ones.

And Benning knocked those out of the park last year.

 

He's doing a hell of a job and I'm glad he's sticking around.  He's turned our biggest weakness into a huge asset.

[luckylager]

10 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

And Benning knocked those out of the park last year.

 

He's doing a hell of a job and I'm glad he's sticking around.  He's turned our biggest weakness into a huge asset.

I can only assume you're refering to our (formerly) dismal prospect pool and awful drafting... because our D is still a massive liability. 

[Canuck Surfer]

3 hours ago, NewAbaddon said:

 

Long read so I appreciate those who attempt to take it in. I hope the factual payoff is worth it.

 

Are Benning's first selections in each draft of his tenure (Virtanen, Boeser, Juolevi, Pettersson) an area of weakness or strength? Some Canucks fans routinely complain about Benning missing out on Nylander/Ehlers or Tkachuk, and others celebrate possible home-runs like Boeser and Pettersson. How do we look at all these picks together, as a complete picture?

 

Among these picks are two 5th overalls, a 6th overall, and a 23rd overall. What is the expected haul of this crop of picks?

 

Scott Cullen's recent exposition of the value of draft picks from 1990 to 2013 (https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131) is a useful tool for this, but far from perfect, as it contains certain quirks like further back draft picks being judged more valuable than earlier picks because of the somewhat random historical successes and failures of those slots.

 

So I made a very slight adaptation, and judged a pick's value by averaging its own value, and the value of the four picks around it, i.e. for pick number 14, I averaged its value with picks 12, 13, 15, and 16. Some might object to this, but it's at worst an imperfect modification of an imperfect model in the honest spirit of generating greater objectivity.

 

With this modification, the 5th overall pick has a historic value of producing a player with a 59.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 6th overall pick has a 49.2% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. The 23rd overall pick has a 21.7% chance of becoming a top 6 F or top 4 D. Some simple math follows: (2 x 59.2) + 49.2 + 21.7 = 189.3.

 

So these four picks have a historical value of producing at least one surefire top 6 F or top 4 D (100%), and then an 89.3 chance of producing another. That is their total historical value: one for sure top 6 F or top 4 D, another very likely, out of 4 total picks. But anything beyond that is not in the numbers at this point; it's just fan fever over the potential of draft picks and an overrating of the science aspect of drafting.

 

Thus far Benning has produced one 100% top 6 F or top 4 D in Boeser. All he needs to do is produce one more, and his first selections in the draft will be already surpassing their historical value. Out of Pettersson, Juolevi, and Virtanen, that will not be very difficult IMO, and if Juolevi becomes a top 4 D (a still likely outcome even among his largest detractors), and Pettersson a top 6 F (also likely at this point, barring catastrophe), then Benning will have greatly outperformed the historical value of his draft selections. A possible emergence of Virtanen down the road would just be icing on the cake to this statistical area of strength for Benning.

  

 

Was this your first post?

 

Welcome to CDC! Q quality post I have to add!

 

It is a well thought out formula.  I wonder how it stacks against historical drafts. Its nice to see a perspective that does not panic, or call for the GM's head as soon as the absolute best player in the draft is not selected by their team? Every year, every round...

 

These days its nice to see a lot of ground level support for our GM.  Imperfect sure, but doing a good job. Backed up by your stats.

[Canuck Surfer]

Be great to see how that formula stacks against GMJB's 2knd and later round picks?   (Guess too early to tell...)