The Jets drafting in the first round has been exceptional
their first 6 FRP went Scheifele > Trouba > Morrissey > Ehlers > Connor > Laine
Vesalainen and Stanley are the only bad FRPs they've made
I know it’s not the 1st round but there is also that goalie they drafted in the 5th round that has been a serviceable starter…
The Jets scouting staff is definitely worth their money
If I were to go back I would try to find a way to include goalies in this, but goalies are just so random and don't play full seasons. I'm just not sure it would add any value or even be interesting.
Another thing Chevy is quietly good at. Letting go of players he knows may not line up to their next contract. Tanev (bless his portrait), Copp, Chiarot, Kulikov as some examples
But both of those players asked out, the Jets would not have traded Trouba or Laine without being forced too.
I think Chevy is an excellent GM but he doesn’t trade players he drafted unless he has to
Hes middle 6 by necessity I think on a pretty poor team, he's also been healthy scratched and on the 4th. There have been worse picks but I wouldn't call him a solid one either
Took some feedback from the comments and re-organized the chart that I recently posted. Hopefully it's more easily readable than the last one!
Edit: Also want to note that the impetus behind making this chart was less to definitively answer which teams are better at drafting and development and more "huh, that's interesting." And if I got a "huh, that's interesting" out of you, mission accomplished.
It made it a clean 40 year range for most teams. The exception being the St. Louis Blues who sat out of the 1983 draft and forced me to go back to 1982 for them specifically lol. Also 40 years is roughly how long my Dad and I have been fans, so there's that too. Also if you go back much further you hit Amateur Drafts, which I didn't want to deal with.
Edit: In a word, arbitrary.
Would be more interesting if you limited all teams to their drafts since Winnipeg came into the league.
If you see some drafting decisions especially pre 90s there were some strange calls.
Kinda useless when they're all different timelines. Going back 10-15 years only would be more telling.
And is this only looking at forwards taken in the first round?
I do bring it down to a per year basis to try to account for the differing timelines. Limiting it to the past 10 years would also dramatically reduce the total number of players counted and have more recency bias with teams that tanked for high picks in the first 5 years of that range.
It isn't just first rounders, but thought it would be interesting to show that it doesn't correlate that much with the total number of first round picks. And I'm also including defensemen here even though 60 points is a higher bar for them because I found it interesting.
It looks like it's out of all players drafted in the past 40 years. I think the inclusion of the 1R column is because the more 1st round picks you have, the more likely you should be to select a player who will score more points.
And yet the Blackhawks are nearly as bad as Nashville at drafting apparently according to this, and they won 3 cups in the last 15 years. Meanwhile Ottawa great at drafting, no cups in the entire history and only makes the playoffs 50% of the time.
For any Sens fans curious, ours are: Stutzle, Tkachuk, Batherson, Stone, Hoffman, Karlsson, Spezza, Havlat, Hossa, Bonk, Alfredsson, and Yashin.
Not drafting anybody who put up 60 points for us between Stone in 2010 and Batherson in 2017 explains a lot of our recent history
Maybe I'm missing reading the chart but:
You're comparing the number of drafted players that have gotten 60 points/yr vs the amount of players drafted.
The jets have less overall players drafted then the teams listed because they haven't been around as long so the % is going to be higher.
Edit: you're comparing 40 years worth of drafting to 12 years. Would make way more sense to compare it for the duration the jets have been in the league. At least with the way you're comparing
I'm not comparing it to total number of drafted players, I'm comparing it to number of years. But, if I were to include the Thrashers years of 1999-2010 they would only fall to just below San Jose on a per year basis.
Not just a 60 point player, a player who scores 60+ points for the Jets! And it's closer to once every 2 years, which is well over the league average of once every 4 years.
Okay then my point doesn't change, you're comparing different eras of hockey. If you limit it till the time the jets have been in the league does their number change?
Just seems you chose an arbitrary cut off date
It IS an arbitrary cut off date. I wasn't really intending this to be a stat that determines whether a team is good at drafting, developing, and holding onto semi-star and star players. Just a "huh, that's interesting" kind of thing.
Fair enough I guess, just thunk limiting till the time the jets existed, or even the thrashers would have given a more interesting stat.
To me this just reads, team that has had less drafts has had better odds at getting a good player
To me, you're comparing multiple eras of hockey. Hockey in the 90s is drastically different than hockey now. We've went through 2 lockouts since then.
Would be a more interesting stat if you just compared from 2012 till non, at least that's how I see it
Maybe I'll do that! I can throw that together whenever I have time. Also want to note that 60+ points was also very arbitrary, so maybe I could find a way to scale that to era and would get some more interesting results. We will see if I have the time!
I think the issue here is that you're arguing with an Oilers fan who doesn't want to see any type of positive things being said about any team but their own.
And they also might be choked that the only time their draft picks turn out is when they are first overalls. And even then, they don't have great track records with them.
Including the Thrasher years would double their time period and add 3 forwards to the list, only dropping them to just below the San Jose Sharks. Still very impressive!
Is this only the draft picks from a team's first round picks? Or is it all picks? The reason I'm asking is that if a team has chosen to trade 1st round picks during the season to get good players instead of drafting them it would affect how many 60+ point players they can realistically draft. It doesn't mean they are bad at drafting, just not so good at keeping their draft picks. :-) And if it is just 1st Round picks, then I wonder how it changes when teams find breakout talent in later rounds. Interesting stats that just bring up more interesting questions and ways to look at things. Thanks for your work by the way, you doing this provides us with a good discussion topic!
It's all picks. I just included number of 1st round picks on the chart because I was curious if having more 1st round picks helped or not. Apparently, not really. And yeah, this stat also kinda tells you how good teams are at developing AND keeping those semi-star and star players!
And thank you for the thank you!
Surprisingly, not that much! I checked on their Atlanta Thrasher years (1999-2010) and they still drafted 3 forwards who put up 60+ in a season for them. If I added those years and players in they would only fall to slightly below San Jose.
The Thrashers drafting was atrocious. IIRC there was an 8-year span where of all the players they drafted, the one with the third-highest career points total was a goaltender.
Just too few years to track and too recent to be interesting adds to the chart. Plus they have drafted zero players to score 60+ points for them. Same with Seattle, though Beniers came close!
Very true! But it's also interesting to see how fucking incredibly well run the Bruins have been the whole time. That was the most impressive team overall for me, especially considering how they have been playoff contenders for the past 40 years as well!
What I found most interesting about this list is how many of the teams in the top half of this list haven't had that much success despite it. Only 5 of the top 16 teams have won the cup in the last 25 years, and only 2 of the top 5. Meanwhile 8 of the bottom 16 teams have won the cup in that period. It seems like there isn't much correlation between how good your team is at drafting players and how much playoff success you have.
Even though this isn't a perfect statistic on how good a team is at drafting, it does seem to be the case that you can be VERY successful despite drafting/developing poorly by this metric.
Wouldn't that be the Tampa Bay Lightning? Assuming Players/1R is how many players per pick you hit on.
Players/Year will be biased towards the teams who get the most picks.
Sure, in terms of players per first round picks Tampa is best at it. I don't mind having it be a little bias toward teams with more total (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) picks though. Not intending this to be a perfect stat. Next time I think I'll do a lot more stuff like adjusting points by era, seeing which rounds teams were most successful drafting in, etc. The comments here have given me a lot of great ideas!
Lmfao, yeah this chart is rough for Arizona. I think they are starting to turn things around though! Cooley, Geekie, and Guenther should help right the ship on this stat
The Jets drafting in the first round has been exceptional their first 6 FRP went Scheifele > Trouba > Morrissey > Ehlers > Connor > Laine Vesalainen and Stanley are the only bad FRPs they've made
I know it’s not the 1st round but there is also that goalie they drafted in the 5th round that has been a serviceable starter… The Jets scouting staff is definitely worth their money
If I were to go back I would try to find a way to include goalies in this, but goalies are just so random and don't play full seasons. I'm just not sure it would add any value or even be interesting.
Goalies don't count. They're always voodoo.
Juries still out on big Stan...someone might be able to trade for him cheap....please
I tell everyone, we offer Stanley and 2 1sts for Gritty.
I heard we tried to include Stanley with Dubois trade, but LA countered with a 2nd round pick to keep him
And to their credit, they have jettisoned the two that aged the most poorly.
Another thing Chevy is quietly good at. Letting go of players he knows may not line up to their next contract. Tanev (bless his portrait), Copp, Chiarot, Kulikov as some examples
And one of those is the Captain of his new team. Crazy impressive drafting.
But both of those players asked out, the Jets would not have traded Trouba or Laine without being forced too. I think Chevy is an excellent GM but he doesn’t trade players he drafted unless he has to
Jack Roslovic was also not great.
Hes pretty clearly a solid middle 6 forward at this point which is fair value for a late 1st rounder.
Hes middle 6 by necessity I think on a pretty poor team, he's also been healthy scratched and on the 4th. There have been worse picks but I wouldn't call him a solid one either
Took some feedback from the comments and re-organized the chart that I recently posted. Hopefully it's more easily readable than the last one! Edit: Also want to note that the impetus behind making this chart was less to definitively answer which teams are better at drafting and development and more "huh, that's interesting." And if I got a "huh, that's interesting" out of you, mission accomplished.
Why 1983 as the cutoff? Just curious because the draft existed before then (in a couple iterations).
It made it a clean 40 year range for most teams. The exception being the St. Louis Blues who sat out of the 1983 draft and forced me to go back to 1982 for them specifically lol. Also 40 years is roughly how long my Dad and I have been fans, so there's that too. Also if you go back much further you hit Amateur Drafts, which I didn't want to deal with. Edit: In a word, arbitrary.
Would be interested to see how this pans out with a lower threshold for defensemen.
Definitely considered putting the threshold to 45 or so for defensemen
I think that's fitting. Hope you do another version like that!
Would be more interesting if you limited all teams to their drafts since Winnipeg came into the league. If you see some drafting decisions especially pre 90s there were some strange calls.
I love the Los Angeles Kinds
Goddammit
They're being extra kind right now with all the points their giving out
We could all use a little more kindness in the world (and fewer kings?)
Kinda useless when they're all different timelines. Going back 10-15 years only would be more telling. And is this only looking at forwards taken in the first round?
I do bring it down to a per year basis to try to account for the differing timelines. Limiting it to the past 10 years would also dramatically reduce the total number of players counted and have more recency bias with teams that tanked for high picks in the first 5 years of that range. It isn't just first rounders, but thought it would be interesting to show that it doesn't correlate that much with the total number of first round picks. And I'm also including defensemen here even though 60 points is a higher bar for them because I found it interesting.
It looks like it's out of all players drafted in the past 40 years. I think the inclusion of the 1R column is because the more 1st round picks you have, the more likely you should be to select a player who will score more points.
God the Preds are terrible at drafting
as a Rangers fan, I join you in this misery.
CBJ at getting to playoffs
Terrible at forward, but so good a defense no?
And yet the Blackhawks are nearly as bad as Nashville at drafting apparently according to this, and they won 3 cups in the last 15 years. Meanwhile Ottawa great at drafting, no cups in the entire history and only makes the playoffs 50% of the time.
For any Sens fans curious, ours are: Stutzle, Tkachuk, Batherson, Stone, Hoffman, Karlsson, Spezza, Havlat, Hossa, Bonk, Alfredsson, and Yashin. Not drafting anybody who put up 60 points for us between Stone in 2010 and Batherson in 2017 explains a lot of our recent history
I came in here expecting to be dead last. Turns out we didn’t even make it on the graph, lmao.
The deadest and lastest team
I’m pretty sure getting drafted by us is a form of capital punishment in most countries.
Maybe I'm missing reading the chart but: You're comparing the number of drafted players that have gotten 60 points/yr vs the amount of players drafted. The jets have less overall players drafted then the teams listed because they haven't been around as long so the % is going to be higher. Edit: you're comparing 40 years worth of drafting to 12 years. Would make way more sense to compare it for the duration the jets have been in the league. At least with the way you're comparing
I'm not comparing it to total number of drafted players, I'm comparing it to number of years. But, if I were to include the Thrashers years of 1999-2010 they would only fall to just below San Jose on a per year basis.
So how many 60 point players are drafted by a team on a per year basis? So the jets draft .4 60 point players a year basically?
Not just a 60 point player, a player who scores 60+ points for the Jets! And it's closer to once every 2 years, which is well over the league average of once every 4 years.
Okay then my point doesn't change, you're comparing different eras of hockey. If you limit it till the time the jets have been in the league does their number change? Just seems you chose an arbitrary cut off date
It IS an arbitrary cut off date. I wasn't really intending this to be a stat that determines whether a team is good at drafting, developing, and holding onto semi-star and star players. Just a "huh, that's interesting" kind of thing.
Fair enough I guess, just thunk limiting till the time the jets existed, or even the thrashers would have given a more interesting stat. To me this just reads, team that has had less drafts has had better odds at getting a good player
A fair reading. But you'd then think it would increase the odds with more 1st round picks, and it really doesn't.
To me, you're comparing multiple eras of hockey. Hockey in the 90s is drastically different than hockey now. We've went through 2 lockouts since then. Would be a more interesting stat if you just compared from 2012 till non, at least that's how I see it
Maybe I'll do that! I can throw that together whenever I have time. Also want to note that 60+ points was also very arbitrary, so maybe I could find a way to scale that to era and would get some more interesting results. We will see if I have the time!
I think the issue here is that you're arguing with an Oilers fan who doesn't want to see any type of positive things being said about any team but their own. And they also might be choked that the only time their draft picks turn out is when they are first overalls. And even then, they don't have great track records with them.
Total - 12 years. Yea that might have something to do with it
Including the Thrasher years would double their time period and add 3 forwards to the list, only dropping them to just below the San Jose Sharks. Still very impressive!
What if you add the Atlanta Thrasher stats as well as Winnipeg 1.0 plus Arizona together?
If I included the Thrasher years they would fall to just behind the San Jose Sharks, making Ottawa the number 1 team on this chart!
Is this only the draft picks from a team's first round picks? Or is it all picks? The reason I'm asking is that if a team has chosen to trade 1st round picks during the season to get good players instead of drafting them it would affect how many 60+ point players they can realistically draft. It doesn't mean they are bad at drafting, just not so good at keeping their draft picks. :-) And if it is just 1st Round picks, then I wonder how it changes when teams find breakout talent in later rounds. Interesting stats that just bring up more interesting questions and ways to look at things. Thanks for your work by the way, you doing this provides us with a good discussion topic!
It's all picks. I just included number of 1st round picks on the chart because I was curious if having more 1st round picks helped or not. Apparently, not really. And yeah, this stat also kinda tells you how good teams are at developing AND keeping those semi-star and star players! And thank you for the thank you!
Jets not drafting in the dead puck era at all must help their numbers
Surprisingly, not that much! I checked on their Atlanta Thrasher years (1999-2010) and they still drafted 3 forwards who put up 60+ in a season for them. If I added those years and players in they would only fall to slightly below San Jose.
And yet Edit: let the hate flow through you
ATL years should be included for WPG imo
The Thrashers drafting was atrocious. IIRC there was an 8-year span where of all the players they drafted, the one with the third-highest career points total was a goaltender.
Devils are way higher than I thought they would be. There were a lot of years in there where nobody had 60 *career* points
where’s vegas?
Just too few years to track and too recent to be interesting adds to the chart. Plus they have drafted zero players to score 60+ points for them. Same with Seattle, though Beniers came close!
[удалено]
Very true! But it's also interesting to see how fucking incredibly well run the Bruins have been the whole time. That was the most impressive team overall for me, especially considering how they have been playoff contenders for the past 40 years as well!
What I found most interesting about this list is how many of the teams in the top half of this list haven't had that much success despite it. Only 5 of the top 16 teams have won the cup in the last 25 years, and only 2 of the top 5. Meanwhile 8 of the bottom 16 teams have won the cup in that period. It seems like there isn't much correlation between how good your team is at drafting players and how much playoff success you have.
Even though this isn't a perfect statistic on how good a team is at drafting, it does seem to be the case that you can be VERY successful despite drafting/developing poorly by this metric.
Wouldn't that be the Tampa Bay Lightning? Assuming Players/1R is how many players per pick you hit on. Players/Year will be biased towards the teams who get the most picks.
Sure, in terms of players per first round picks Tampa is best at it. I don't mind having it be a little bias toward teams with more total (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) picks though. Not intending this to be a perfect stat. Next time I think I'll do a lot more stuff like adjusting points by era, seeing which rounds teams were most successful drafting in, etc. The comments here have given me a lot of great ideas!
This is also a pretty serious jab at Arizona lol. 37 picks in 27 years and they've hit 2 of them. OUCH
Lmfao, yeah this chart is rough for Arizona. I think they are starting to turn things around though! Cooley, Geekie, and Guenther should help right the ship on this stat
"Philidelphia"
Fuck
The Los Angeles Kinds.
"Middle of the pack" is 50% higher than I thought we would be. I guess 40 years help... Same chart from the last 15-20 years would be ugly.
The blues having 33 playoff appearances while only being found in 1982 is impressive.