Daily draft position watch

[Hrkac Circus]

I definitely won’t disagree with you on the fact it’s nice to see the young guys play well.

 

[mk80]

It appears as though Vegas is going to win tonight, up 2-1 with 1:20 left....

I'll use this post to echo a lot of the consensus opinion we are going to finish just outside the playoffs and draft 14-15.

 

[Celtic Note]

if we are playing kids and fighting for playoff spot, that seems like great outcome to me. Even if we fall short.

I agree to a degree, however I have a couple counterpoints.

1st- I would love to to give our scouting staff every advantage to get a good player out of this draft, even if just a few spots. I think it’s more important to our future at this time. It also seems that since this draft isn’t as loaded as last and we have less 1st rounders, our first round pick is pretty important. I really think we need to nail it, unless it’s traded at which point we need to nail that trade.

2nd and more relevant to your point - I think guys like Kessel, Bolduc, Dean, Peru, Hofer, etc. really don’t need the playoff push as much this year, so much as they just need to focus on evolving their games. To be clear, I don’t think a playoff push necessarily hurts that. But I think their focus should be on growing the technical aspects of their games. I believe next year or the following would be more important to see that push once they have more baseline fundamentals in place.

3rd and also relevant - I sort of don’t want to see us make the playoffs (this is also tied to roster management realizations but I don’t want to get to that) because it rewards a season riddled with poor, lackadaisical, and inconsistent play (aside from a few players). I could see that reinforcing bad habits. I want our guys to come into the off-season with a chip on their shoulders and inspiration to work hard this summer to work on their deficiencies.

 

[tfriede2]

I agree to a degree, however I have a couple counterpoints.

1st- I would love to to give our scouting staff every advantage to get a good player out of this draft, even if just a few spots. I think it’s more important to our future at this time. It also seems that since this draft isn’t as loaded as last and we have less 1st rounders, our first round pick is pretty important. I really think we need to nail it, unless it’s traded at which point we need to nail that trade.

2nd and more relevant to your point - I think guys like Kessel, Bolduc, Dean, Peru, Hofer, etc. really don’t need the playoff push as much this year, so much as they just need to focus on evolving their games. To be clear, I don’t think a playoff push necessarily hurts that. But I think their focus should be on growing the technical aspects of their games. I believe next year or the following would be more important to see that push once they have more baseline fundamentals in place.

3rd and also relevant - I sort of don’t want to see us make the playoffs (this is also tied to roster management realizations but I don’t want to get to that) because it rewards a season riddled with poor, lackadaisical, and inconsistent play (aside from a few players). I could see that reinforcing bad habits. I want our guys to come into the off-season with a chip on their shoulders and inspiration to work hard this summer to work on their deficiencies.

With respect to the last point, I think the opposite. If the Blues manage to make the playoffs, then they likely found a way to rid themselves of bad habits, and they’d be rewarded for doing so. With that said, I’m in the “get a better draft pick” camp.

 

[Hrkac Circus]

We’re definitely stuck in the middle at this point. Even if we had lost the last four games we’d still only be in the 10-11 spots. The teams below us suck too badly to catch. And in order to make the playoffs we’ll need to win like we haven’t done all season. And we need help. The Knights have a game in hand and they play (ugh) the Blue Jackets on Saturday.

 

[Celtic Note]

With respect to the last point, I think the opposite. If the Blues manage to make the playoffs, then they likely found a way to rid themselves of bad habits, and they’d be rewarded for doing so. With that said, I’m in the “get a better draft pick” camp.

That’s fair point. I will concede that some change in habits for the good is better than none. It would give a leaping off point.

What I am unsure of is whether disappointment or success will drive this team to greater improvement. It’s hard to say without knowing the collective and individual motivators of the players.

 

[joe galiba]

I don't think there is really difference between players drafted from 8 to around 26 in the chances to play over 100 games in the NHL, so how much difference does 9th vs 15th make

 

[STL fan in MN]

I don't think there is really difference between players drafted from 8 to around 26 in the chances to play over 100 games in the NHL, so how much difference does 9th vs 15th make

What makes you think this?

While every draft is different, over time, pick 8 is more than twice as valuable as pick 26.

 

[joe galiba]

What makes you think this?

While every draft is different, over time, pick 8 is more than twice as valuable as pick 26.

Except that chances of anyone picked between 8 and 26 of playing 100 games in the NHL is identical, and just looking through the drafts from 2010 to 2017 there is not a lot of difference in the actual players performance on the ice, some really good players, a lot of solid to good players and some guys who busted

 

[Majorityof1]

Except that chances of anyone picked between 8 and 26 of playing 100 games in the NHL is identical, and just looking through the drafts from 2010 to 2017 there is not a lot of difference in the actual players performance on the ice, some really good players, a lot of solid to good players and some guys who busted

Is getting someone who plays 100 games the goal? I know it's a common benchmark, but it's a weak one

Also, this specific draft, I think the top 8 is really strong (draft watchers, correct me if I'm wrong). So picking 9 would only require 1 team to reach to get a top tier player

 

[joe galiba]

Is getting someone who plays 100 games the goal? I know it's a common benchmark, but it's a weak one

Also, this specific draft, I think the top 8 is really strong (draft watchers, correct me if I'm wrong). So picking 9 would only require 1 team to reach to get a top tier player

history shows, say, picking 11th vs picking 16th or 21st has very little difference in outcomes
you could get Ehlers at 9th, Larkin at 15th, or Pasternak at 25th OR you could wind up with Perlini at 12th or Milano at 16th
the actual values of these outcomes are pretty equally spread out over that range of picks
so if we draft at 9th or 16th it doesn't appear to make much difference as bust rates and hit rates seem similar

 

[STL fan in MN]

Except that chances of anyone picked between 8 and 26 of playing 100 games in the NHL is identical, and just looking through the drafts from 2010 to 2017 there is not a lot of difference in the actual players performance on the ice, some really good players, a lot of solid to good players and some guys who busted

What proof do you have that the odds of getting a player playing 100 games is identical at picks 8 and 26? Agree with Majorityof1 that that’s a low bar but regardless, I find that claim dubious at best.

All of the charts out there that try to measure draft pick value, whether it’s games played or other things like Goals Above Replacement that try to measure the value of the player, they all show pick 8 as highly more valuable than pick 26.

 

[joe galiba]

What proof do you have that the odds of getting a player playing 100 games is identical at picks 8 and 26? Agree with Majorityof1 that that’s a low bar but regardless, I find that claim dubious at best.

All of the charts out there that try to measure draft pick value, whether it’s games played or other things like Goals Above Replacement that try to measure the value of the player, they all show pick 8 as highly more valuable than pick 26.

 

[STL fan in MN]

View attachment 839924

What sort of timeframe does that measure? And it still shows pick 8 at an 80% chance and pick 26 at a 60% chance. 60% and 80% are not “about the same.”

But what’s much more important to me is the quality of those games played. I personally don’t value playing 100 NHL games that highly. Johnny Pohl and Jeff Taffe reached that bar. A graph that measures the impact of players taken at that pick is a much better measurement IMO.

 

[joe galiba]

What sort of timeframe does that measure? And it still shows pick 8 at an 80% chance and pick 26 at a 60% chance. 60% and 80% are not “about the same.”

But what’s much more important to me is the quality of those games played. I personally don’t value playing 100 NHL games that highly. Johnny Pohl and Jeff Taffe reached that bar. A graph that measures the impact of players taken at that pick is a much better measurement IMO.

that was done in 2020 and measured the 2000-2009 drafts, it more or less shows the chances of a complete bust are spread fairly evenly over that range of picks, I looked for something that showed the higher end impact, but either my search skills are lacking or, as value is more subjective, it isn't out there in a similar format

 

[joe galiba]

from 1969 to 2023 the 10th pick has averaged 90 goals and 130 assists for a career, the 26th pick has averaged 68 goals and 102 assists
this was the closest thing I could find, and I would expect the success rate is has greatly improved now vs the early years of the draft

 

[STL fan in MN]

that was done in 2020 and measured the 2000-2009 drafts, it more or less shows the chances of a complete bust are spread fairly evenly over that range of picks, I looked for something that showed the higher end impact, but either my search skills are lacking or, as value is more subjective, it isn't out there in a similar format

I quite literally posted such a graph in my first reply…

Here’s another one I find interesting. Shows two different ways of valuing picks but then also includes the average going rate of those picks and shows a bit of a market disparity a shrewd GM could take advantage of.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Maybe restrict that to say the last 30 years, or even better the last 20 years. Make the data relevant. Otherwise, you might as well draw conclusions on how teams perform in 2024 based on how teams performed in 1944.

 

[joe galiba]

I quite literally posted such a graph in my first reply…

Here’s another one I find interesting. Shows two different ways of valuing picks but then also includes the average going rate of those picks and shows a bit of a market disparity a shrewd GM could take advantage of.

what are they basing “value relative to first overall” on
perceived value?
the actual measurement of what picks hit in the past relative to where they were drafted?

 

[STL fan in MN]

what are they basing “value relative to first overall” on
perceived value?
the actual measurement of what picks hit in the past relative to where they were drafted?

It’s a base 100 scale so the 1st overall pick would be 100 and the others scaled accordingly.

The article that this graph comes from uses GSVA and WAR. So Game Score Value Added and Wins Above Replacement. I’ll let you google those if you want to learn more. But basically, their goal is to measure the impact a player has, not just games played.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

so long top 12 pick, was nice knowing ya.

 

[TK 421]

Coping and seething until the next regulation loss brings the good fees.

 

[Xerloris]

I just hope we can knock vegas out of the playoffs.

 

[Eldon Reid]

I just hope we can knock vegas out of the playoffs.

That would make my year. Then watch them somehow get out of the cap mess they are in especially if they try to keep Hanfiin.

 

[Hrkac Circus]

Sitting in the 16 spot at the end of the day. Ten games left for that to get better.