Canuck Draft Inversions

[JamesB]

To me the striking thing about the 2014 Canuck draft is the strong "inversion". An inversion occurs when the better player is taken later.

 

Draft inversions of course happen quite often. Still, most of the time, the top player taken by a team in a given year turns out to be the most successful player taken that year. In recent years the top players taken by the Canucks have included the Sedins, Kesler, Schneider (followed by Edler), Grabner, Hodgson and Horvat. (Some people may not think highly of Grabner and Hodgson but they were far and away the most successful players drafted by the Canucks in their draft years. ) And I don't think there is much doubt that Juolevi and Boeser will be the best Canucks taken in their respective draft years.

 

But 2014 is shaping up to be a big inversion year. My own evaluation right now is that the ordering of the best players taken by the Canucks in 2014 is 1 -- Tryamkin, 2 -- Demko, 3 -- McCann, and 4 -- Virtanen. That is the exact opposite order in which they were taken.

 

I went back and checked Canuck drafting history. I made a list of the years with at least 3 inversions among the most successful players. The measure of success I used is NHL games played. Thus, for example, in 1978 Smyl was taken in 3rd round but was the most successful player, Curt Fraser was taken in the 2nd round and was the second most successful, and Bill Derlago was taken in the 1st round and was the third most successful. So Smyl was ahead of 2 players taken before him and Fraser was ahead one player taken before him. That makes 3 inversions.

 

And that is one of the best drafts the Canucks have ever had, by the way. In the last 20 years the Canucks have only had two drafts when they got three reasonably solid NHL players (more than 200 GP) in the same year (1998 and 2004).

 

I only counted the first player taken by the Canucks (usually a first rounder) and the other two most successful players in doing this count. Thus, for example, in 1992 Adrian Aucoin was picked in the 5th round but was the most successful player. Mike Peca was taken in the 2nd round and was the 2nd most successful player. Libor Polasek was taken in the 1st round and never played in the NHL. Aucoin is ahead of the other two players so that is two inversions, and Peca is ahead of Polasek, so that is one more inversion.

 

I have listed what I think are the biggest inversions in the poll. There are no big inversions in recent years. Big inversions are a lot less common than they used to be. I have stated this point before but without providing the data to support it. This information is strongly evidence supporting this point. Scouting and player evaluation are much better than they used to be and big inversions have become rare. That makes it more important than in the past to get high draft picks and to use them well. (That is a hint to Benning to try to acquire more picks this year, just in case he reads CDC.)

 

This declining frequency of inversions makes 2014 all the more striking. I don't want jump into the Benning debate here, but I can't help but note that I think the Virtanen pick at #6 overall was a swing and a miss, whereas picking Tryamkin in the 3rd round was at least an extra base hit. I kind of see those picks as cancelling each other out.

 

One final note about the Bure year. Bure was taken so low because GMs were uncertain he would be allowed to play in the NHL. He was well known to be a good player. So it is debatable as to whether that is really an inversion rather than the result of political uncertainty.

 

 

[JustABandwagoner]

I really wonder if ownership had anything to do with drafting "Virtanen" 

[cripplereh]

Bure one as he has been the best player we have ever selected by a long shot, Linden draft second!

[Adarsh Sant]

Canucks drafting has been terrible from 2007-Present. Horvat best pick by far, Boeser, Hutton, Demko and Juolevi still to be seen but other than that....who the hell have we drafted that actually turned out to be something??? Even before that we had some mess ups .....we screwed up the 2000 and 2002 drafts 51 total games played by the 18 players we drafted. 2007 draft is laughable. Not a single game played by any player.

 

Also you're forgetting JANNIK HANSEN. 9TH ROUND GEM. 9TH ROUND ISN'T EVEN A THING ANYMORE. WHAT A BEAUTY HANSEN IS. HARDEST WORKING PLAYER THIS SEASON. ONLY PLAYER SHOWING ANY SORT OF GRIT (Tryamkin is getting better lately I'll admit but still). 287TH OVERALL PICK. STRAIGHT OUT OF DENMARK. 3RD HIGHEST SCORING DANISH PLAYER OF ALL-TIME. 9TH ROUND!!!!!!!!!!! Ok I'm done.

[JamesB]

3 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

Canucks drafting has been terrible from 2007-Present. Horvat best pick by far, Boeser, Hutton, Demko and Juolevi still to be seen but other than that....who the hell have we drafted that actually turned out to be something??? Even before that we had some mess ups .....we screwed up the 2000 and 2002 drafts 51 total games played by the 18 players we drafted. 2007 draft is laughable. Not a single game played by any player.

 

Also you're forgetting JANNIK HANSEN. 9TH ROUND GEM. 9TH ROUND ISN'T EVEN A THING ANYMORE. WHAT A BEAUTY HANSEN IS.

Hansen was a great pick in the 9th round. But using my rule that year did not count as a big inversion year. The first Canucks taken that year were Schneider and Edler. So I would say the best three players in that Canuck draft were Schneider, Edler, and Hansen. And that is the order in which those three players were picked.

 

You could argue that I should base the definition on the number of rounds a player would "jump" in the redraft. In this case Hansen would jump 6 places (up to #3). But that is a difficult rule to implement and it would end up putting a lot of emphasis on relative orderings of players who never even played in the NHL. (Who cares if a player jumps from. say, 8th to 3rd if none of those players even played more than a few games in the NHL.)

[Adarsh Sant]

3 minutes ago, JamesB said:

Hansen was a great pick in the 9th round. But using my rule that year did not count as a big inversion year. The first Canucks taken that year were Schneider and Edler. So I would say the best three players in that Canuck draft were Schneider, Edler, and Hansen. And that is the order in which those three players were picked.

 

You could argue that I should base the definition on the number of rounds a player would "jump" in the redraft. In this case Hansen would jump 6 places (up to #3). But that is a difficult rule to implement and it would end up putting a lot of emphasis on relative orderings of players who never even played in the NHL. (Who cares if a player jumps from. say, 8th to 3rd if none of those players even played more than a few games in the NHL.)

Ok good point. That actually makes sense. He may not be an inversion, but he certainly is a steal.

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

To me the striking thing about the 2014 Canuck draft is the strong "inversion". An inversion occurs when the better player is taken later.

 

Draft inversions of course happen quite often. Still, most of the time, the top player taken by a team in a given year turns out to be the most successful player taken that year. In recent years the top players taken by the Canucks have included the Sedins, Kesler, Schneider (followed by Edler), Grabner, Hodgson and Horvat. (Some people may not think highly of Grabner and Hodgson but they were far and away the most successful players drafted by the Canucks in their draft years. ) And I don't think there is much doubt that Juolevi and Boeser will be the best Canucks taken in their respective draft years.

 

But 2014 is shaping up to be a big inversion year. My own evaluation right now is that the ordering of the best players taken by the Canucks in 2014 is 1 -- Tryamkin, 2 -- Demko, 3 -- McCann, and 4 -- Virtanen. That is the exact opposite order in which they were taken.

 

I went back and checked Canuck drafting history. I made a list of the years with at least 3 inversions among the most successful players. The measure of success I used is NHL games played. Thus, for example, in 1978 Smyl was taken in 3rd round but was the most successful player, Curt Fraser was taken in the 2nd round and was the second most successful, and Bill Derlago was taken in the 1st round and was the third most successful. So Smyl was ahead of 2 players taken before him and Fraser was ahead one player taken before him. That makes 3 inversions.

 

And that is one of the best drafts the Canucks have ever had, by the way. In the last 20 years the Canucks have only had two drafts when they got three reasonably solid NHL players (more than 200 GP) in the same year (1998 and 2004).

 

I only counted the first player taken by the Canucks (usually a first rounder) and the other two most successful players in doing this count. Thus, for example, in 1992 Adrian Aucoin was picked in the 5th round but was the most successful player. Mike Peca was taken in the 2nd round and was the 2nd most successful player. Libor Polasek was taken in the 1st round and never played in the NHL. Aucoin is ahead of the other two players so that is two inversions, and Peca is ahead of Polasek, so that is one more inversion.

 

I have listed what I think are the biggest inversions in the poll. There are no big inversions in recent years. Big inversions are a lot less common than they used to be. I have stated this point before but without providing the data to support it. This information is strongly evidence supporting this point. Scouting and player evaluation are much better than they used to be and big inversions have become rare. That makes it more important than in the past to get high draft picks and to use them well. (That is a hint to Benning to try to acquire more picks this year, just in case he reads CDC.)

 

This declining frequency of inversions makes 2014 all the more striking. I don't want jump into the Benning debate here, but I can't help but note that I think the Virtanen pick at #6 overall was a swing and a miss, whereas picking Tryamkin in the 3rd round was at least an extra base hit. I kind of see those picks as cancelling each other out.

 

One final note about the Bure year. Bure was taken so low because GMs were uncertain he would be allowed to play in the NHL. He was well known to be a good player. So it is debatable as to whether that is really an inversion rather than the result of political uncertainty.

 

 

Interesting but it's worth noting that you've dramatically underrated some players, such as Mike Rogers (three straight 100 point seasons in the NHL and several years in the WHA as well).  You're also selling Bill Derlago short (four 30-goal seasons and one 40).

[stanleysteamersmyl]

22 minutes ago, Adarsh Sant said:

Canucks drafting has been terrible from 2007-Present. Horvat best pick by far, Boeser, Hutton, Demko and Juolevi still to be seen but other than that....who the hell have we drafted that actually turned out to be something??? Even before that we had some mess ups .....we screwed up the 2000 and 2002 drafts 51 total games played by the 18 players we drafted. 2007 draft is laughable. Not a single game played by any player.

 

Also you're forgetting JANNIK HANSEN. 9TH ROUND GEM. 9TH ROUND ISN'T EVEN A THING ANYMORE. WHAT A BEAUTY HANSEN IS. HARDEST WORKING PLAYER THIS SEASON. ONLY PLAYER SHOWING ANY SORT OF GRIT (Tryamkin is getting better lately I'll admit but still). 287TH OVERALL PICK. STRAIGHT OUT OF DENMARK. 3RD HIGHEST SCORING DANISH PLAYER OF ALL-TIME. 9TH ROUND!!!!!!!!!!! Ok I'm done.

2004 Entry Draft  (9th round)

 

262  Mark Streit

265  Daniel Winnick

279  Adam Cracknell

287  Jannick Hansen

 

It's not what round you are drafted, it's the hard work that follows.

 

 

[JamesB]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

Interesting but it's worth noting that you've dramatically underrated some players, such as Mike Rogers (three straight 100 point seasons in the NHL and several years in the WHA as well).  You're also selling Bill Derlago short (four 30-goal seasons and one 40).

Derlago and Rogers were very good players. I don't mean to sell them short. I had to use some criterion for ordering players so I used NHL games played. Both those guys were good picks at the spots they were taken.

[Mattrek]

2 hours ago, JamesB said:

To me the striking thing about the 2014 Canuck draft is the strong "inversion". An inversion occurs when the better player is taken later.

 

Draft inversions of course happen quite often. Still, most of the time, the top player taken by a team in a given year turns out to be the most successful player taken that year. In recent years the top players taken by the Canucks have included the Sedins, Kesler, Schneider (followed by Edler), Grabner, Hodgson and Horvat. (Some people may not think highly of Grabner and Hodgson but they were far and away the most successful players drafted by the Canucks in their draft years. ) And I don't think there is much doubt that Juolevi and Boeser will be the best Canucks taken in their respective draft years.

 

But 2014 is shaping up to be a big inversion year. My own evaluation right now is that the ordering of the best players taken by the Canucks in 2014 is 1 -- Tryamkin, 2 -- Demko, 3 -- McCann, and 4 -- Virtanen. That is the exact opposite order in which they were taken.

 

I went back and checked Canuck drafting history. I made a list of the years with at least 3 inversions among the most successful players. The measure of success I used is NHL games played. Thus, for example, in 1978 Smyl was taken in 3rd round but was the most successful player, Curt Fraser was taken in the 2nd round and was the second most successful, and Bill Derlago was taken in the 1st round and was the third most successful. So Smyl was ahead of 2 players taken before him and Fraser was ahead one player taken before him. That makes 3 inversions.

 

And that is one of the best drafts the Canucks have ever had, by the way. In the last 20 years the Canucks have only had two drafts when they got three reasonably solid NHL players (more than 200 GP) in the same year (1998 and 2004).

 

I only counted the first player taken by the Canucks (usually a first rounder) and the other two most successful players in doing this count. Thus, for example, in 1992 Adrian Aucoin was picked in the 5th round but was the most successful player. Mike Peca was taken in the 2nd round and was the 2nd most successful player. Libor Polasek was taken in the 1st round and never played in the NHL. Aucoin is ahead of the other two players so that is two inversions, and Peca is ahead of Polasek, so that is one more inversion.

 

I have listed what I think are the biggest inversions in the poll. There are no big inversions in recent years. Big inversions are a lot less common than they used to be. I have stated this point before but without providing the data to support it. This information is strongly evidence supporting this point. Scouting and player evaluation are much better than they used to be and big inversions have become rare. That makes it more important than in the past to get high draft picks and to use them well. (That is a hint to Benning to try to acquire more picks this year, just in case he reads CDC.)

 

This declining frequency of inversions makes 2014 all the more striking. I don't want jump into the Benning debate here, but I can't help but note that I think the Virtanen pick at #6 overall was a swing and a miss, whereas picking Tryamkin in the 3rd round was at least an extra base hit. I kind of see those picks as cancelling each other out.

 

One final note about the Bure year. Bure was taken so low because GMs were uncertain he would be allowed to play in the NHL. He was well known to be a good player. So it is debatable as to whether that is really an inversion rather than the result of political uncertainty.

 

 

 

2 years from being drafted is way too early to make a fair judgement (case in point the Sedins). We have no idea if that order will stick or not. The overall thread is a good discussion, but leave out any draft since 2012 at minimum. If I'm being generous we need 5 years to determines a draft pick's quality.

[10pavelbure96]

Pavel Bure all day

[Ghostsof1915]

3 hours ago, DontMessMe said:

I really wonder if ownership had anything to do with drafting "Virtanen" 

Why do you say that? 

[HerrDrFunk]

I don't think any of the other inversions you listed come close to Bure.

[-AJ-]

A neat find, though the Bure year is definitely the strongest case as of now. Ron Sedlbauer was the first Canuck to score 40 goals and Mike Rogers had three consecutive 100+ point seasons as was already mentioned, though not with us, of course, (darn WHA). Even Lanz was a solid defenseman for the Canucks for seven seasons, including an impressive 57 point year that's still among the highest single-season point totals for any Canucks d-man.

 

Regarding the best year ever, I was going to pick 1978 without really looking at it, but ended up going with 2004. Never really realized how much gold we struck in that year. Schneider is a top goaltender and Edler was once an all-star, still a great defenseman in his own right. Hansen has turned out to be quite the solid middle six forward himself with dogged determination. 

 

The '78 draft is still close to the '04 one in my mind; Smyl was obviously huge, and Fraser was essentially the Adams or Burrows of the early 80s. Delargo wasn't great with us, but was with other teams, somewhat like Schneider has gone on to greatness with other teams (though he was good with us too).

[Phat Fingers]

OP,

 

The only inversion is that Trymakin was older by two years and played in a small remote Russian club. 

 

Premature to begin with and just be happy to have a player like Trymakin already in the line up. The rest will come along in time. 

 

EW

 

 

PS how does anyone compare 2014 with getting Bure in the Sixth round and Jason Herter in the first in that draft. 

 

 

Just for fun, Fedorov, Konsatinov, Lidstrom were drafted in that same year.  How many players did Quinn miss before drafting the best player to done a Canucks jersey in club history. 

 

If it wasn't for Bure, that draft would have been the worst in club history. 

 

EW

[IBatch]

Cool subject and well done on putting it together. GP over quality of player/career wouldn't have been the metric I would have chose but it didn't make much difference in the order anyways except Peca was better than Aucion considering his string of Selke Nominations.   Voted Smyls class as one star and two good servicable players in Fraser and Derlago beats out Bure.  Smyl and Linden were close to equal in my mind. I'm Second place has the be Hansen's draft year...What a pick!  How many players even play 50 games from the ninth round?

[ice orca]

5 hours ago, JamesB said:

Derlago and Rogers were very good players. I don't mean to sell them short. I had to use some criterion for ordering players so I used NHL games played. Both those guys were good picks at the spots they were taken.

I wonder how Derlago would have panned out, he was low bridged by Denis Potvin in his rookie year and suffered a huge knee injury. Knee surgury and recovery was like the dark ages back then vs today. That hit would have been a minimum of a 5 gamer in today's NHL.

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Adarsh Sant said:

Canucks drafting has been terrible from 2007-Present. Horvat best pick by far, Boeser, Hutton, Demko and Juolevi still to be seen but other than that....who the hell have we drafted that actually turned out to be something??? Even before that we had some mess ups .....we screwed up the 2000 and 2002 drafts 51 total games played by the 18 players we drafted. 2007 draft is laughable. Not a single game played by any player.

 

Also you're forgetting JANNIK HANSEN. 9TH ROUND GEM. 9TH ROUND ISN'T EVEN A THING ANYMORE. WHAT A BEAUTY HANSEN IS. HARDEST WORKING PLAYER THIS SEASON. ONLY PLAYER SHOWING ANY SORT OF GRIT (Tryamkin is getting better lately I'll admit but still). 287TH OVERALL PICK. STRAIGHT OUT OF DENMARK. 3RD HIGHEST SCORING DANISH PLAYER OF ALL-TIME. 9TH ROUND!!!!!!!!!!! Ok I'm done.

Had to be said.  Other forward notables all time ninth round are Matt Moulson Steve Sullivan and Craig Adams.  Best ever has to be two time Vezina winner  stand on your head and win a Conn Smythe just to ruin our parade guy who is joined by two guys way up there in the all time win list in Vokoun and Nabokov.  Hansen is top five best forward material all time ninth round steal....Thomas is still a putz though...

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I don't think any of the other inversions you listed come close to Bure.

This.  From Bure to Herter - quite a reverse gap.  Even there - Bure was taken before Moger, so the 'inversion' logic doesn't hold.

 

Calling 2014 an 'inversion' is presumptuous.  I get that it's in vogue to troll Virtanen, but it's highly premature to be lumping that year in as an inversion - (and oddly enough, leaving out Larionov, Kron, Sandlak).

We don't know that Demko won't be the best player in that draft year, or that Virtanen won't be better than McCann, etc.  The OP is also talking about 4 picks in the first three rounds and comparing that to a 6th rounder that exceeded an 8th overall 779 NHL points to 1.

 

It would be just as reasonable to include 2014 it in the best drafts in franchise history list if we're going to pretend to tell the future.

Tryamkin, Demko, Virtanen, McCann, Forsling have the potential to match Schneider, Edler, Hansen - particularly when you factor in that McCann was the principle in the Gudbranson deal, and Forsling (left out of that inversion because it ruins it) turned into the secondary piece of the Sutter deal in the end - Forsling/Clendenning - whom Pitt wanted included in that deal.   Five players one full draft ago that are all already on the verge of NHL careers.  (That is a hint that Benning doesn't need draft advice.)

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

 

How about best draft In the last 30 years?

 

1989 Detroit Red Wings

Mike Sillinger 11th overall, 1049 GP

Bob Boughner, 32nd overall, 630 GP

Nicklas Lidstrom, 53rd overall, 1564 GP

Sergei Fedorov, 74th overall, 1248 GP

Dallas Drake, 116th overall, 1009 GP

Vladimir Konstantinov, 221st overall, 446 GP