The Value of a Top 5 Pick
via nationalpostsports.files.wordpress.com (Image fromthe national post)
With Turris trade rumours flying and the ever present discussions of trading lottery picks, I recently found myself in a discussion about whether "1st rounders are overrated." I made a comment to the effect that top 5 picks probably aren't overrated, but later 1st rounders probably are. However, after making that comment I realized that I have never seen an analysis of top 5 picks by anything besides games played. I thought this could be a useful exercise, so have attempted to do so here. If this sounds interesting, please read on.
To analyze this I looked at the top 5 picks from 1996-2005, a ten year period that ends long enough ago that we should be able to see the quality of these players. I then used a pretty subjective analysis of the specific players using the following guidelines (if you disagree with any of my rankings, please outline why in the comments).
(Note: you can click on all the images to zoom in)
via i.imgur.com
Here is what I came up with:
via i.imgur.com
Before I further analyze the data a couple players I had trouble ranking (or who you may disagree with):
- Joe Thornton. I decided to call him generational because he was the leading point scorer over the first 10 seasons of the 2000s by 80 points (roughly a 10% lead over 2nd place)
- Vishnevski. I simply didn't know that much about him.
- DiPietro. With so many GP it could be argued he is a good NHLer, but frankly besides one or two seasons 5 years ago he has barely been a 0.900 goaltender
- Malkin. He's on the line for generational and may be able to take that mantle soon.
- Kari Lehtonen, Marc Andre Fleury, and Carey Price. I had a lot of trouble with this one. Price has the best career save %, followed by Lehtonen, followed by Fleury. I think Lehtonen is pretty underappreciated, particularly because he had injury problems early in his career. I think Fleury is fairly overrated by being on a team better than him. Over the last 4 or 5 years he has been very inconsistent year to year, with a 0.912 and 0.905 seasons. However, in the last year (from late fall until today), he has really picked up his game, particularly last winter carrying the team while it was missing its stars. In the end it appears to me that Price and MAF have gotten the recognition as all stars and Lehtonen still has to prove himself.
I then looked at how many players of each rankingwere drafted at each position and overall:
via i.imgur.com
A couple things I notice:
- With the number 1 and 2 overall pick you have a pretty good chance of getting an allstar or better (14/20 or 70%). But that still means 30% were worse than that and consists of the Chris Phillips, Andrei Zyuzins, and David Legwands of the world (and of course Patrik Stefan...hehehehe).
- After the top 2 you still have a good chance of getting an NHL player who is good or better (20/30 or 66.6%), but there is also a reasonable likelihood (33%) that you are getting a par NHLer or worse. As well, there are no generational players (big deal), only 6 allstars (20%), and only 7 (23.3%) great NHLers. So picks 3-5 give you a good chance of getting a player who is more than a poor NHLer (24/30 or 80%), but not that good a chance of getting you a game breaker.
- Overall its a pretty even split between great NHLer and better (28/50 or 56%) and good NHLer or worse (22/50 or 44%). However, the skew is pretty heavy to the first two picks, with later picks not necessarily being as good.
- Specifically looking at the third picks to compare to Turris (which is obviously a bit of a silly exercise), there were a bunch of great and allstar NHLers (Nathan Horton, Marian Gaborik, Henrik Sedin, etc (6/10)), but there are also 2 players who were pretty questionable (Cam Barker and Alexander Svitov).
What do you think?
PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.
48 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cool analysis. The ‘type of player’ column is on the left side but not the right side. Not sure if it is meant to be like that or if it got cut off.
It got cutoff for 2001-2006 and Vanek is in the wrong colour. I’ll fix it later.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
all the picks by position have almost the same number of NHLers, they only differ in their quality.
Move along. Nothing to see here...
by Van Ryn's Neurologist on Nov 8, 2011 3:45 PM EST reply actions
Good point.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
But thats mostly due to the fact
That only 2 of the 50 (oddly both 4th overall picks), didn’t crack a full season’s worth of games.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
Smart scouts
knew to avoid Stefan, but too many get sucked in by the hype of bad players. Still, drafting top 5 is way better than 10-15.
Stefan went first over all. No scouts avoided him.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
In defence of the pick, Burke had already secured the right to draft the Sedins – Stefan was first overall in name only, and more realistically the third choice. And, the rest of that first round really sucked hard; it’s actually difficult to point to the guy Atlanta should have drafted (and Stefan really stunk!). Of the rest of the top 16 picks, only Tim Connolly and Taylor Pyatt are still in the NHL.
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Nov 10, 2011 9:10 AM EST up reply actions
out of the first two rounds only the Sedins and Havlat have been even above average- good for long term, how hilariously bad
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Nov 10, 2011 9:59 AM EST up reply actions
I do think it’s hilarious that you could build the case that a player with a rep for being a horrible bust was also (almost) the best player available…
I've been looking at the sky
by Back In Black on Nov 10, 2011 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
not to nitpick but If Thorton is generational so are the Sedins.
Raycroft! I like the move. Falls inline with the push for youth and is a solution for the future. Trading Rask was unfortunate, but with Pogge and Raycroft only being 26, I think the TO goaltending future is a bright one. - Some guy from 2006
Not even comparable.
Sedins have played 10 full seasons (before this year) from 20-30. So comparing those 10 to Thornton’s 10 from 20-30
H Sedin: 810 GP 157 G 666 pts
D Sedin 787 GP 249 G 651 pts
J Thornton 779 GP 266 G 883 pts
Thornton was miles ahead of them. They have taken a long time to get where they are and were criticized for it. Thornton was dominant right through his 20s.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
by BCapp on Nov 8, 2011 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think people forget
How absolutely dominant Thornton was in the early 2000s. They also forget how the Sedins were considered overrated until 2 years ago…
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
Yeah I remember before they went UFA people were legitimately debating whether or not they were worth pursuing.
The Leafs are my Rushmore
Certified Grabbo Lover and member of the PPPPP
I also write things about stuff over at the Leafs Nation
by Plea From A Cat Named Felix on Nov 11, 2011 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
the only real question about persuing the Sedins was the contracts they would garner that they only signed 6.1 per deals till 2014 was a shock to everyone
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Nov 11, 2011 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
The Sedins took a long time to fully develop, but today they are both top 10 players. I’m not sure Thornton is a top 10 player anymore, and I don’t know how you define generational, but I believe that if Thornton is a generational player, so are the Sedins.
by scrambles the death dealer on Nov 14, 2011 1:52 AM EST up reply actions
Based on their career… Its completely subjective but there really is no comparison. The Sedins have been top 10 players for 2 years. Thornton was for nearly 10.
Here are all active players with more than 500 GP by PPG. Thornton is tied for 4th and the only guys ahead of him are two more generational players (Jagr and Selanne) and a guy who is 2 years younger and who I would put money being below him in points per game by the end of they year (Heatley). The Sedins are 19th and 22nd.
While they are playing great today they simply have not had careers of elite production.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
For the record I don't even think the Sedins are the next best after those 3
First up is Malkin, than probably Luongo, than Spezza, Kovalchuk, and Heatley, than probably the Sedins.
I am not looking at how they are producing today but at their overall careers.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
If your definition of a generational player is someone who has had an entire career of generational play, then I have no argument. However, I do not believe it is a coincidence that the Sedins have won the Hart trophy the last two years. I also believe that for the next 3-5 years, the Sedins will continue to dominate the regular season.
It really depends on how you define ‘generational’, but for now and the foreseeable future Sedins are elite players.
by scrambles the death dealer on Nov 14, 2011 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
I am trying to take a look at career. This isn’t about who they are today, but about what kind of player you are getting for the career. If they are dominant for the next 3-5 years I will gladly concede the point and call them that good.
I highly doubt that will happen though. They have already peaked late and most career progressions have them declining between 2 years ago and next year. If they are top 10 forwads in 2-3 years (33-34 years old) I will be surprised.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
Well either way, it’s a very semantical argument and a minor blemish on some very interesting research.
by scrambles the death dealer on Nov 14, 2011 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think the Sedins are any different than they were three years ago. It’s just that their coaching staff decided to feed them easy minutes and a slew of offensive zone starts.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 14, 2011 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
That’s possible, I don’t see much of them so I can’t really compare how they play now and how they’ve played in the past.
by scrambles the death dealer on Nov 15, 2011 2:08 AM EST up reply actions
This is really interesting. I’d like to see what the results looked like if we just looked at forwards drafted (maybe do 20 years?) and ranked based on career points, because it seems like there is a sharp cutoff between picks 2 and 3, but I wonder how much of that comes from the subjective (though unobjectionable) categories you used.
I also wonder how much drafting to your team’s needs affects this. There are a few cases where picks 2 and 3 aren’t the same position (i.e. F or D or G), and so teams deciding they need one position over another changes where kids get drafted. So with different teams drafting, a #3 pick becomes a #2, or vice versa. Only relevant because there does seem to be such a dropoff after the second pick.
Come get your duds in order...
If the Leafs
don’t draft people like Joe Sakic (who our scouts wanted but idiotstick coach and GM balked at), we will never win the Cup.
2013, there’s Domi, Monahan, Klimchuk, MacKinnon, Horvat, Lazar, Shinkaruk, Barkov, Duclair, Rankin and more who could be another Joe Sakic. If the Leafs screw up by blowing the 1st round picks in 2012 and 2013 (ESPECIALLY 2013), people should have the brains to cheer for someone else.
Sakic
What’s the story there?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
by PPP on Nov 9, 2011 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
14 teams passed on Sakic, don’t make it sound so cut and dried
and if the Leafs do “blow” those picks, you are welcome to jump on some other teams coat tails, but I’ll still be here, stop making it sound like it is easy to grab generational talent in the 2nd half of the 1st round
Resident Internet Tough Guy
by JaredFromLondon on Nov 9, 2011 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
Cheering for teams that are bad at drafting is stupid. I only cheer for teams that make smart draft picks. Of course, since it takes around 5 years to see who did well in the draft, I only know retroactively who I should have cheered for. My solution is to sit quietly in a dark room.
Come get your duds in order...
by The Bag on Nov 9, 2011 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This guy is the best.
No more moral victories, no more excuses. Put up or shut up.
Lebda-free since July 3.
by nhlcheapshot on Nov 10, 2011 7:00 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He doesn’t have the charm of FLYERROB, but it’s still very entertaining.
by scrambles the death dealer on Nov 14, 2011 1:54 AM EST up reply actions
I think what this says to me is that 1st round draft picks are a bit more expendable than most people think. Unless you end up with a pick in the top 10, a first round pick isn’t all that valuable, contrary to popular belief.
Never stop believing. Go Leafs Go.
This analysis only looked at the top 5 so I don’t really think it can be used to judge the rest of the round…
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
Those are showing the 1st-5th pick. I’ll edit it if its not clear.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
Oh whoops
I thought the x axis referred to first 5 picks, second 5 pics, etc. My bad on that one.
Never stop believing. Go Leafs Go.
With the salary cap, though, ELC and RFA years come into the equation, and the most valuable contracts now are all for guys in RFA years. Instead of paying market for a star, you underpay a star and pay market for another good contributor.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 14, 2011 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
ELC years don’t always give a bargain for top 5 picks. Has Evander Kane been producing at 3.1 mil, did Seguin last year, or did JVR live up to his ELC, etc… It definitely gives you an advantage of when you have control over these assets but I think some people exaggerate the importance of that. Most players are not impact players on there ELC’s and can often cost more if they are a top 5 pick (only time ELC’s are so large). Making smart RFA signing on the other hand can be pretty important (the Parise and Giroux contracts come to mind).
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
But, on average, they do, and we’d expect they do, right?
There was also the thing about bonuses that doesn’t apply this year, too. Could’ve just rolled over the bonuses if need be in prior years, right?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Nov 16, 2011 12:39 AM EST up reply actions

by 




































