• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      All Threads Must Contain Tags!   07/25/2017

      ALL THREADS MUST CONTAIN TAGS   All threads in this forum must contain tags prefixed to topic titles. The purpose of the tags is to eliminate confusion in recent threads lists, and to create an organized and consistent environment. Moderators may immediately lock and thread that does not contain tags.    Tags must be placed at the start of your thread title, following this exact formatting:    [Tag] Thread Title   Here are some of the most used popular tags:    [Proposal]
      A trade, or trades, for next season, or even the off-season.
      [Off-Season]
      FA signings, off-season trades for RFA's, UFA's rights etc...
      [Value Of]
      (A question regarding a players worth, whether from another team, or the Canucks)
      [Speculation] Posting a rumor (with a source of course), but providing why it could be possible for the Canucks to land that player.   [Discussion]
      Thoughts on team trading strategy and composition.   Please feel free to create your own tag if none of these suit your thread.   
Sign in to follow this  
janisahockeynut

Average years of playing (Discussion)

Recommended Posts

I am having some difficulty on whether this calculation is right..............please jump in!

 

We have an average of 23 players on a NHL roster

Given that the average players career is approx. 5.6 years

And that the draft is 7 rounds long

 

23 players divided by 5.6 years = 4.1 players per year must be replaced per year, with in the organization (on Average), that in some way can reach the parent club

Now this is spread throughout the NHL for the average, and does not include undrafted players or College UFA's, or mature Europeans, that fall into the

undrafted player area.

 

So using my simple math...........50% of a team needs to play over 5.6 years per player, and I would think of that 50% above the average,

most will be 1st and 2nd line players, with the scattering of journeyman players. Which for all intense and purposes, means that we need to draft or sign from outside

the NHL 2 above average players per year (1st/2nd line players), and 2 below average players per year (Could this be right?)

 

So if a team drafts/signs better than that, they will move up the NHL's team power rankings, and closer to competing for the Stanley Cup. But if a team drafts/signs worse than

the NHL average they most likely move down the rankings, unless there is a increase in elite/generational players added...(quality over quantity) 

 

I would suggest that an aggressive approach be taken by those teams in the lower half of the league, to condense their picks/signing, so that they move above the average,

and higher up the NHL team power rankings. ( this has been done by several teams this year Montreal/NYR/NYI to name 3 teams that have multiple picks in the 1st and 2nd rounds)

 

In addition to picks and signing, it is my opinion, that rebuilding teams (and teams in general) must put additional assets into drafting, and that your teams scouting department

should be considered an essential and important department, which should have the best of scouts in it. Further more, rebuilding teams, should after identifying unsigned gems

in the NCAA or Europe, should be aggressive in signing and stat bonuses. This will separate competing teams which are in the hunt for those players.

 

So, first off............I am not completely happy with my numbers in the first couple of paragraphs, and would like CDC to debunk them, if they are not accurate.............

Secondly, ............I feel that although Benning has shown to be a good drafter, that we need to continue to be more aggressive on searching and signing hidden gems

(Butcher, Caggiula, Schultz etc.)

 

PS.......I will feel better if I am wrong on the numbers...it just doesn't look right! Maybe an better explanation for another poster would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow this is a 'trade Tanev' post, right ^_^?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are using an incorrect number when you use the 23 man roster limit. For example, if the Canucks were the average NHL team with 5.6 years of experience, as I believe you are saying, you would have to include all 37 players they used during the season. I have no idea what the average number of players appearing in the NHL over the course of a season is but it will be substantially more than the 23.

Somewhere in there I also think you need to factor in that more than 50% of all NHL players play less than 100 games in their careers and a full 5% only play 1 game in their career.

www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerLengthGP.php
  1.  
  2.  

Average Length of an NHL Player Career. A typical career of an NHL player can be summarized with one word. Its short! Over half of all NHL players play less that 100 games during their career and for approximately 5 percent of players, their first NHL game is also their last.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

So if a team drafts/signs better than that, they will move up the NHL's team power rankings, and closer to competing for the Stanley Cup. But if a team drafts/signs worse than

the NHL average they most likely move down the rankings, unless there is a increase in elite/generational players added...(quality over quantity) 

 

3 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

In addition to picks and signing, it is my opinion, that rebuilding teams (and teams in general) must put additional assets into drafting, and that your teams scouting department

should be considered an essential and important department, which should have the best of scouts in it

Isn't this what every team is trying to do, always?

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

 

Isn't this what every team is trying to do, always?

I honestly don't think every team does this well............I want to make sure(??) that the Canucks do this...........

 

But I think it all goes part and parcel with a good organization................just wanted to start a conversation...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all the numbers are wrong.  Your calculations must include guys that play around one hundred games and disappear into Europe or the AHL.  I remember reading a book   that said the average NHLer played just over 7 years, which makes sense basically two contracts.   This lines up well with the percentages of drafting an NHL player.  There are a lot of Carbanoes, Plavics, Drukens on each team over the years, Vey like guys that make the NHL play 100 or so games and disappear.  Especially the first round players that teams give a lot of slack. 

 

And then on the other end of the spectrum you get the Charas Rechhis Andreychuks etc.   Makes it hard to know what one can realistically expect from the draft each year.  

 

Best at way to look at it is the odds.   It works out that two that play two contracts is better than average 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Built into that 5.6 year figure is a lot of players who only played a few games.  I think that if you are looking at bona fide NHLers, the turnover is much less alarming.  I'm guessing that 2 per year on average is closer to how you need to draft.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe have the ECHL have 32 teams, the AHL having 32 teams. Have 9 rounds in the draft, and put more emphasis on learning and development in the ECHL so that players don't wither on the vine there and have their careers just end? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rick Blight said:

I think you are using an incorrect number when you use the 23 man roster limit. For example, if the Canucks were the average NHL team with 5.6 years of experience, as I believe you are saying, you would have to include all 37 players they used during the season. I have no idea what the average number of players appearing in the NHL over the course of a season is but it will be substantially more than the 23.

Somewhere in there I also think you need to factor in that more than 50% of all NHL players play less than 100 games in their careers and a full 5% only play 1 game in their career.

www.quanthockey.com/Distributions/CareerLengthGP.php
  1.  
  2.  

Average Length of an NHL Player Career. A typical career of an NHL player can be summarized with one word. Its short! Over half of all NHL players play less that 100 games during their career and for approximately 5 percent of players, their first NHL game is also their last.

Thanks this is exactly what I was trying to say...if you took out the one gamers and the half that are Vey like and work with what's left   That's what you are trying to draft.  One a year is ok two is good three is exceptional 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IBatch said:

Thanks this is exactly what I was trying to say...if you took out the one gamers and the half that are Vey like and work with what's left   That's what you are trying to draft.  One a year is ok two is good three is exceptional 

Thanks guys you are the voice of reason..............I was really screwed up!

 

2 players seem a better addition........was trying to win.......I was trying to learn

 

Thanks again...........

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Built into that 5.6 year figure is a lot of players who only played a few games.  I think that if you are looking at bona fide NHLers, the turnover is much less alarming.  I'm guessing that 2 per year on average is closer to how you need to draft.

Between 1990 and 2007 19% of drafted players played 200+ games. 200 games is a good marker of a successful draft and usually includes stars, role players, and good depth players and weeds out a few outliars that managed to scrape together 100 games due to a teams' serious lack of depth or injury plagued seasons.

Using 19% as the successful players in a draft average and 7 picks for a team (before trades) then you get 1.33 draft picks playing 200 games per team. 

By this math a team drafting 2 players that go on to play over 200 games can be considered a fairly successful draft. This math holds up with articles I have read in the past, usually as a warning to fans to not get too excited about a draft class and be realistic. 

Ignoring 2017 and 2016 as it is way too early to tell (imo one looks great, one looks terrible). If you look at our draft history things are pretty bleak in the past decade. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00008756.html

 

2015 - could be successful dependent on how Gaudette turns out, Boeser will play his 200 games and we have a dark horse in Jasek that could make the draft very successful.

2014 - actually quite a good draft. Virtanen and McCann (FLA) will play 200 games in the NHL already making it a successful draft but Forsling may also end up playing 200 games if he continues to find room in Chicago as depth. Tryamkin is also a possibility as a player that could come back to the NHL and play several seasons.
 

2006-2013 drafts... I don't want to talk about. After Bo Horvat there is really nothing to write home about and the 2012 draft and 2009 draft are fairly similar in results with a fringe forward and bottom pairing D  (Gaunce/Schroeder Hutton/Connauton) as the more successful drafts we have had

Luckily our drafting has improved under Jim.

Just my opinions..

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Thanks guys you are the voice of reason..............I was really screwed up!

 

2 players seem a better addition........was trying to win.......I was trying to learn

 

Thanks again...........

No worries I can understand the confusion and your posts are always at the very least fun to read so happy to help.   As far as drafting well EDM had a run starting in 79 through the early eighties that won them five cups.    

Three guys Lowe, Messier and Anderson to set the tone, later complimented by Kurri and other complimentary players... that 79 draft was sick but so was 80-81.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.