Do The Thrashers Have Large Talons?

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Conclusion: Thrasher Drafts in Review 1999-2002

I've gone through the 1st four drafts in team history on a year-by-year basis. Now for a quick summary to put all of this together to see how Atlanta's scouts and GM compare to others aroudn the league in that time period.


How Much is that Pick Worth?
For the summary I add up the probability of every single draft pick a team had between 1999-2002 to produce an estimate of how many NHL players they should have found given their number of picks and location.

Draft Pick 1999 Probability 2000 Probability 2001 Probability 2002 Probability
Top 1/3 of the 1st .78 .70 1.00 .80
Middle 1/3 of the 1st .67 .60 .70 .50
Bottom 1/3 of the 1st .30 .80 .40 .50
2nd Round .21 .26 .27 .18
3rd Round .37 .13 .18 .09
4th-8th Rounds .12 .09 .14 .04
9th Round .03 .00 .03 .00

1999-2002 NHL Draft Rankings
OK here is the mega super ultra sumamry table you're all been waiting for:


NHL Rank NHL Team # of Picks Expected NHL Players Actual NHL Players Difference NHL Players Selected
1 PIT
41
6.7 11
+4.3 Koltsov, Malone, Kostopoulos, Caron, Orpik, Ouellet, C.Armstrong, Surovy, Whitney, M.Talbot, Christensen
2 COL
44
6.4
9
+2.6
Radivojevic, Vrbata, Hahl, Nederost, Sauer, Liles, Svatos, McCormick, Budaj
3 OTT
41
7.5
10
+2.5 Havlat, Kelly, Prusek, Volchenkov, Vermette, Spezza, Laich, Gleason, Schubert, Emery
4 NYR
40
6.9
9
+2.1
Lundmark, Moore, Lundqvist, Zidlicky, Blackburn, Tyutin, Hollweg, G.Murray, Prucha
5 MIN
26
5.0
7
+2.0 Gaborik, Schultz, Sekeras, M.Koivu, Veilleux, Boogaard, P.M.Bouchard
6 LAK
43
7.1
9
+1.9 F. Kaberle, McGratton, Parros, Cammalleri, Bednar, Huet
7 ANA
31
5.8
7
+1.2 Leopold, Havelid, Tenkrat, Bryzgalov, Chistov, Gerber, Lupul
8 BUF
38
6.4
7
+0.6 Zigomanis, Miller, Pominville, D.Roy, Ballard, Wideman
9 NYI
38
7.4
8
+.06 Connolly, Pyatt, Martinek, Mezei,
Kolnik, Weinhandl, DiPietro, Torres
10 BOS
37
6.6
7
+.04 Boynton, Eloranta, Kultanen, Hilbert, Alberts, Morrisonn, Jurcina
11 CBJ
35
5.6
6
+.04 Klesla, Nummelin, A.Johnson, Leclaire, Nash,
Pirjeta
12 ATL
44
7.8
8
+.02 Stefan, Exelby, Heatley, Hordichuk, Kovalchuk, Nurminen, Lehtonen, Slater
13 PHI
30
4.8
5
+0.2 J.Williams, Cechmanek, Seidenberg, Sharp, Pitkanen
14 STL
36
5.2
5
-0.2 B. Jackman, Khavanov, Taffe, Cajanek, McClement
15 TOR
40
6.4
6
-0.4 Boyes, Tellqvist, Wellwood, Pilar, Steen, Stajan
NHL Rank NHL Team # of Picks Expected NHL Players Actual NHL Players Difference NHL Players Selected
16 CAL
42
7.4
7
-.04
Saprykin, C.Anderson, Stoll, Foster,
Moen, Kobasew, Lombardi
17 EDM
45
7.4
7
-.04
Semenov, Comrie, Stoll, Lombardi, Hemsky, Markkanen, M.Greene
18 MON
36
6.5
6
-.05
Hossa, Hainsey, Komisarek, Plekanec, Perezhogin, Higgins
19 SJS
27
4.6
4
-.06
Jillson, Goc Dimitrakos, Ehrhoff
20 TBL
47
6.9
6
-.09
Keefe, Svitov
Olvestad, Alexeev,
Ranger,
R.Craig
21 NAS
44
7.9
7
-.09
Hall, Erat, Hutchinson, Hartnell, Hamhuis, Tootoo,
Upshall
22 NJD
42
7.0
6
-1.0
Commodore, Martin, Hale, Rupp, Danton C.Janssen
23 WAS
39
7.1
6
-1.0
Beech, Sutherby, Pettinger, Eminger, Semin,
Gordon
24 FLA
39
8.0
7
-1.1
Auld,
Hagman,
Weiss, Majesky, Krajicek, Bouwmeester, G.Campbell
25 CAR
29
5.1
4
-1.1
Tanabe, N.Wallin, Zigomanis, C.Ward
26 DET
34
4.1
3
-1.1
Zetterberg, Kronwall, Hudler
27 DAL
43
6.4
5
-1.4
M.Tjarnqvist, Ott, Miettinen, J.Jokinen, Bacashihua, Daley
28 CHI
45
7.7
6
-1.7
S.McCarthy, M.Leighton, T.Ruutu, C.Anderson, Babchuk, D.Keith
29 VAN
32
5.9
4
-1.9
D.Sedin, H.Sedin,
Umberger, Bieksa
30 PHO
37
7.0
3
-3.9
Kolanos, Sjostrom,
Eager

1999-2002 Winners
Pittsburgh acquired a lot of players, some of them quite good some of them are just average. Of course they would go on to draft two stars in Crosby and Malkin in subsequent drafts and now have a very nice collection of young talent on their NHL team. I've heard a lot of NHL GMs talk about building the team through the draft but Pittsburgh has actually done that. Ottawa is another team that is largely home grown and they place third in my study with a great collection of impact and role players. Colorado found a lot of bodies but I don't expect to see any of those fellows in a NHL All-Star game during their careers. Minnesota ranks high but I only see Gaborik as a big impact player out of that group. If my study took quality into account Vancouver and Detroit would both move up significantly I suspect.

1999-2000 Losers
Phoenix was unbelievably bad during this four year period. They only found three NHL players when they should have seven with their picks. None of the players they drafted were impact guys. If I was an owner of this franchise I would clean house. You can't do much worse than you just did.

2002 Atlanta Thrashers
How did the Thrashers fare? Exactly as they were supposed to. They should have found eight players and they did find eight players. They drafted very high and they found three All-Stars or potential All Stars. They also found some role players later in the draft. The biggest problem is the lack of players who can help fill out the top two scoring lines.

Conclusion: The Thrashers were neither great nor terrible in their first four NHL drafts as a franchise. They did about as well as they ought to have done given their position and the quality of those drafts.

Next up: I may do something of college and junior free agents from 1999-2002.

3 Comments:

  • Hey!

    Great post. This is just the type of analysis that hockey needs - that is statistical analysis. You watch these talk shows and Canadian channels and all these people do is say this and that without any facts or analysis behind their statements!

    People say Patrick and his staff didn't draft well... I'd beg to differ. Maybe Patrick wasn't one for making the best trades or getting on plus side of them half of the time, but his staff drafted well and got quality players to fill not only Pittsburgh, but their farm team as well.

    Again, great job!

    By Blogger nathanael, at 11:16 PM  

  • Thanks glad you enjoyed. I figured this would be of interest to NHL fans beyond Atlanta. I have to say I was surprised at how well Pittsburgh, but the numbers speak for themselves.

    By Blogger The Falconer, at 12:17 AM  

  • Awesome analysis man! I'd love to see more analysis like this for other drafts before 1999 since it's relevant for all teams. As a Canucks fan I'm dissapointed to see the Canucks second to last in your rankings, but that seems about right since only the Sedins turned out great.

    By Blogger Sal, at 4:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


 
Who links to my website?
View My Stats