Welcome back to our SJMHL S44 Draft class breakdown! If you haven't read it yet, it's worth heading over to check out part one prior to reading this as I will be referencing data I made in that post, although it's not necessary. You can find that here.
So last time we left you with the standings of the individual players themselves in their draft ranks, but didn't actually compare the outcomes of the season against each other. We'll begin with that data in this segment to set the tone for the rest of the article.
I gave any player that was currently situated on the exact same TPE as another the same ranking in this breakdown, so there only ended up being 24 different combinations earned when all said and done. This way players could be assigned the same rank as another regardless of point totals for the season, the latter of which can sometimes be misleading in determining team contribution.
We'll get to points afterwards, but for now lets look at the raw TPE data:
1. Mika Mayfield
273
2. Samuel Jalopski
262
3. Alexander Selich
259
4. Leopold Lockhart
258
4. Andreas Kvalheim
258
5. Maxime Bouchard
250
6. Konstantin Voloshin
248
6. Cassius Darrow
248
7. Dominic Montgomery
247
7. Hiro Fujikawa
247
8. Griffith Calwalader
243
8. Slip McScruff
243
9. Vegeta Muerto
241
10. Arsene Arsenich
239
10. William Goose
239
11. Sanyi Kocsis
238
12. Donnie Dicks
237
13. Andy Kerr
235
14. Nolan Sawchuk
234
15. Zivan Zedek
226
16. Jakub Novak
217
17. Kenji Yoshimura
215
18. Jimmy Cahill
200
19. Desmond Carey
188
20. Guy McCool
181
21. Cash Considerations
180
22. Marshal Ray
166
23. Ivars Ozols
161
24. Gareth Rush
0
24. Richard Williamson
0
24. Jeffrey Murphy
0
24. Elias Hughes
0
I have included the 4 deleted players for the purpose of determining draft percentages by team. This may be slightly controversial in the view that the teams may have had no idea they would go inactive, but in my opinion the team doesn't have to draft any particular player and they are accepting the risks associated when taking someone in the first place.
As the teams in the draft had a differing amount of picks, it was required that I assign some kind of score to players to avoid a team with a lot of picks (in this case Colorado) having an advantage purely because they have more players. I came up with the following:
10 Points for 270-279
9 Points for 260-269
8 Points for 250-259
7 Points for 240-249
6 Points for 230-239
5 Points for 220-229
4 Points for 210-219
3 Points for 200-209
2 Points for 190-199
1 Point for 189 or less
0 Points for Zero
With this system, a team with a small amount of picks can be ranked higher than a team with a lot, directly based off how much 'quality' the player has. I used Mika's TPE as the top end of the scale and worked backwards, so theoretically any other player could have earned the same score as Mika for their draft team if they had hit the 270 point threshold, but they didn't so she takes the first spot on the TPE podium all for herself.
For example the top 10 players earned the following for their teams:
Mika Mayfield 273 = 10 Points
Samuel Jalopski 262 = 9 Points
Alexander Selich 259 = 8 Points
Leopold Lockhart 258 = 8 Points
Andreas Kvalheim 258 = 8 Points
Maxime Bouchard 250 = 8 Points
Konstantin Voloshin 248 = 7 Points
Cassius Darrow 248 = 7 Points
Dominic Montgomery 247 = 7 Points
Hiro Fujikawa 247 = 7 Points
The list of picks was as follows (excluding passes and forfeits):
Colorado 7 picks
Anchorage 6 picks
Montreal 5 picks
Vancouver 3 Picks
Halifax 3 Picks
Detroit 3 Picks
Kelowna 3 Picks
St. Louis 2 Picks
Team totals for Player scores once applied to the scale (totals on the right are assumed absolute maximums):
Anchorage 43 / 60
Colorado 32 / 70
Montreal 23 / 50
St Louis 16 / 20
Vancouver 13 / 30
Kelowna 12 / 30
Halifax 9 / 30
Detroit 9 / 30
Making for a final ranking of:
1. St Louis 80%
2. Anchorage 71.6%
3. Montreal 46%
4. Colorado 45.7%
5. Vancouver 43.3%
6. Kelowna 40%
7. Halifax 30%
8. Detroit 30%
So applying my scale here (which may or may not be ideal but I think it works well), St Louis won the draft in terms of quality applied to their overall team! Jalopski really came through for his team here, although even if he had only achieved ~250 TPE it would have been enough for the Scarecrows to secure the win. Having only selected two very active players in Jalopski and McScruff, and passing on all their other options (or having traded them away) let them win comfortably over the other teams here.
I should clarify that whilst Halifax and Detroit both ended on the same quality percentage, I placed Detroit lower due to the fact they drafted a player who later deleted his account, and therefore have less quality overall in comparison to Halifax's lowest in 161 TPE Ivars. Even if that is by the slimmest of margins.
An interesting takeaway from the results above is that Colorado (who have some of the strongest draft alumni in ranks 3, 6 and 6 respectively) also drafted some of the worst players in the class and severely hurt their rankings. Had they not drafted Rush and McCool, they would have been sitting at 62%. This still isn't enough to win them the rankings, but it certainly is easier on the eyes. Montreal is in a similar situation, but third still gets you a medal at championships, and I feel that's good enough for this situation too.
The next step is to correlate the data to who was selected where amongst the rounds. Nothing too surprising here, but a couple of intriguing things at least. Here is the raw data:
1. Mika Mayfield
7th
2. Samuel Jalopski
9th
3. Alexander Selich
1st
4. Leopold Lockhart
2nd
4. Andreas Kvalheim
3rd
5. Maxime Bouchard
23rd
6. Konstantin Voloshin
4th
6. Cassius Darrow
8th
7. Dominic Montgomery
5th
7. Hiro Fujikawa
19th
8. Griffith Calwalader
27th
8. Slip McScruff
17th
9. Vegeta Muerto
20th
10. Arsene Arsenich
25th
10. William Goose
24th
11. Sanyi Kocsis
10th
12. Donnie Dicks
6th
13. Andy Kerr
16th
14. Nolan Sawchuk
22nd
15. Zivan Zedek
21st
16. Jakub Novak
14th
17. Kenji Yoshimura
15th
18. Jimmy Cahill
28th
19. Desmond Carey
11th
20. Guy McCool
30th
21. Cash Considerations
12th
22. Marshal Ray
29th
23. Ivars Ozols
26th
24. Gareth Rush
13th
24. Richard Williamson
36th
24. Jeffrey Murphy
37th
24. Elias Hughes
35th
The first immediate outlier amongst the data is (some devilishly handsome fellow if I do say so myself), fifth placed Maxime Bouchard. Being amongst the company of predominantly first rounders, he has definitely proven some doubters wrong about his work ethic or expected inactivity. The other noticeable player sticking out amongst the first rounders (and Scruff) in the first 10 is Hiro Fujikawa.
It's certainly true that there are diamonds in the rough, but perhaps the opposite was almost the case in this draft. Examining the data closer, we can see that picks (in TPE descending order) 23, 19, 27, 17, 20, 25 and 24 all came in ahead of top rookie scorer for the season and 10th overall Sanyi Kocsis. Truly an astonishing stat given the general performance of late round picks and just goes to show the absolute quality that was present in this draft.
You could also turn it on it's head and look it at from the viewpoint that the second rounder's really haven't pulled their weight all that much in comparison too, both are accurate statements in my opinion.
We'll now examine the points for each rookie and compare that with their TPE Rank to see just how much they are over or under performing:
1. Sanyi Kocsis
38 Points : TPE Rank 11
Slightly over performing
2. Mika Mayfield
32 Points : TPE Rank 1 Performing as expected
3. Leopold Lockhart
31 Points : TPE Rank 4 Performing as expected
19. Guy McCool
3 Points : TPE Rank 20 Performing as expected
(I'm not wasting my time with these guys)
20. Marshal Ray
20. Elias Hughes
20. Richard Williamson
20. Jeffrey Murphy
20. Gareth Rush
Pretty sure the stats speak for themselves here. Keep in mind that ice time and line mates affects these results and they should be taken with a pinch of salt, but they are still a decent measure as to how a player is performing. It's hard for me to correlate these to team draft performance though, as there are just too many factors to take into account. I can however state that Colorado and Anchorage benefited greatly from their selections, with both teams point totals for the year being buffered largely through their rookies contributions. Kelowna as well come to think of it, but with only two rookies they are of a lesser extent.
I think that pretty much wraps this up, you can find the link to the screenshot of the excel spreadsheet I made here, and if anyone wants the raw file to mess around with just send me a message and I'll forward it to you (or Google doc it, whatever). Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoyed it! Let me know if I missed anything or you think I am wrong and I'll be happy to discuss it!
Great read just like the first article . I do think though that your method of ranking teams is a little off in some ways because it essentially punishes teams for every pick they have in the later rounds. Nobody really expects these super late picks to work out, but in your ranking every 4th rounder that doesn't make it negatively impacts a teams rating and I don't think that's a good idea.
12-01-2018, 09:46 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Great read just like the first article . I do think though that your method of ranking teams is a little off in some ways because it essentially punishes teams for every pick they have in the later rounds. Nobody really expects these super late picks to work out, but in your ranking every 4th rounder that doesn't make it negatively impacts a teams rating and I don't think that's a good idea.
That’s a fair point but I believe there is two sides to the coin. Say if a single 4th round pick turned out to be in the top 5 earners miraculously, would you expect the others to still be exempt from judgement? There’s no guarantee that any player will stick around and actually turn out decent, so the entire exercise needs to have repercussions for gambling on those players, instead of taking them in free agency in my opinion. Is it harsh? Perhaps, but life ain’t fair.
Glad you enjoyed them regardless :D
12-02-2018, 01:06 PMNoble Wrote: Completely snubbed smh. Top earning center and top producing center in points and doesn't even get on the list :( free agency will do that to yah
12-01-2018, 09:46 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Great read just like the first article . I do think though that your method of ranking teams is a little off in some ways because it essentially punishes teams for every pick they have in the later rounds. Nobody really expects these super late picks to work out, but in your ranking every 4th rounder that doesn't make it negatively impacts a teams rating and I don't think that's a good idea.
That’s a fair point but I believe there is two sides to the coin. Say if a single 4th round pick turned out to be in the top 5 earners miraculously, would you expect the others to still be exempt from judgement? There’s no guarantee that any player will stick around and actually turn out decent, so the entire exercise needs to have repercussions for gambling on those players, instead of taking them in free agency in my opinion. Is it harsh? Perhaps, but life ain’t fair.
Glad you enjoyed them regardless :D
The problem in my eyes is that teams get punished simply for heaving picks in the late rounds. This can theoretically lead to pretty bizarre results, for example a team who picks great in the 1st and 2nd rounds and then has some extra picks in the 4th and 5th rounds, by which points all the actives are gone anyway, would end up ranked worse than a team who only makes average picks in the 1st and 2nd and then doesn't have any picks later on. If someone hits on a sleeper pick very late then they should be rewarded for it of course, but I don't think teams should be hurt in the rankings if a pick who had a 95% chance to bust to begin with doesn't pan out.
@RomanesEuntDomus True, but in any case it’s still a case of two perspectives and that neither are necessarily correct. In this particular case, removing the players from the percentage results gives Montreal, Halifax and Detroit marginally better outcomes, and doesn’t impact the top 3 anyway. Maybe in the future seasons it will make an impact, and I look forward to seeing if it does!