Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

Drafting Goaltenders (2000-2002)

This article is the second part of my series on which teams do a good job of drafting goaltenders.  Yesterday I looked at how teams did from 2003-2005 and found that although early round picks tend to perform better than late round picks, the gap in performance isn't enough to justify choosing goalies early in the draft.  I also noted that there were a few teams that may be using distinct draft strategies over that three-year period, whether it was systematically ignoring goaltenders or using only late-round picks to draft them.  Today's article will focus on the years 2000-2002.  After the jump we'll look at the data and compare the results from this period to the years 2003-2005.

Star-divide

Before I get rolling, I should first remind readers of the criteria I'm using to evaluate individual draft picks:

Goaltending_criteria_medium

Goalie_expectations_medium

With that criteria in mind, here's how each team fared from 2000-2002:

Goalies_2000-2002_medium

You know that a list is good when the Calgary Flames are at the bottom of the heap.  On the other hand, you know that there's a problem when Jeff Deslauriers can push your club to fifth spot.  Deslauriers is probably the biggest example of jobbing the system I can think of.  He was drafted 31st overall which means he's as close to a first round pick as one can be while still getting only the second round pick starting subtraction.  He was also never intended to be a starting goaltender for the Oilers this season but because of the injury to Nikolai Khabibulin, he played in 48 games.  These two factors combine to give Deslauriers an individual contribution of +8 to the Oilers' score. Clearly, there are still some kinks to work out (suggestions welcome).

Setting the Oilers aside, there are some teams on this list who are still set to make big gains.  Craig Anderson has established himself as an NHL goalie and will probably drag the Chicago Blackhawks into positive territory by the end of his current contract with the Avalanche.  If they can stay healthy, Kari Lehtonen (somewhat likely) and Rick DiPietro (extremely unlikely) should also improve the numbers for Atlanta and Long Island respectively.  Cam Ward will almost certainly push Carolina's total higher for years to come, as will Ilya Bryzgalov for Anaheim.  Henrik Lundqvist could well put the Rangers at the very top of this chart in ten years time despite the anchor of failed first round pick Dan Blackburn pushing down the Rangers' score.

The Rangers, it turns out, are an interesting case.  They were the only one team that used a first-round pick to select a goaltender in both three-year segments.  And not only were they first rounders, both picks were in the top ten!  Admittedly, the pick of Al Montoya in 2004 probably had a lot to do with Dan Blackburn's injury but that's still an awful lot of draft capital to invest in goalies, especially considering their performance. Henrik Lundqvist being plucked out of the seventh round in 2000 really saves them.

Lundqvist's performance illustrates another problem with this kind of evaluation.  To some degree, I'm measuring luck as much as skill or strategy.  Some teams have done well in both segments (Anaheim, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Ottawa and Tampa are in the top ten both times), and some have done poorly in both segments (Vancouver and Florida are in the bottom ten both times) but it's not enough to say with confidence that these teams are either very good or very bad.  Further, how much credit should the L.A. Kings get for drafting Cristobal Huet?  Or the Flyers for Roman Cechmanek?

For those two examples, I think the answer is both "quite a bit" and "not much" at the same time.  From 2003-2005, the teams identified as following the "lots late" strategy in the draft were the Flyers, Kings, Lightning, Predators and Sharks.  The Flyers, Kings and Lightning continued that trend in this three-year segment with all three teams choosing at least four goalies and none in the first two rounds.  That makes six consecutive years of data for these teams with a lot of goalies drafted and none in the first two rounds which may imply a distinct strategy from management.  If so, they deserve some credit for following what is, in my opinion, a very good strategy but not much credit for having one of their many shots in the dark pan out. The Predators and Sharks, meanwhile, also avoided choosing goalies in the first two rounds for another three-year period, but this time took three goalies or less overall.  Still, they may well belong in a group with the Flyers, Kings and Lightning as teams who have decided not to select goalies in the early rounds.

Other teams who employed  the "lots late" strategy from 2000-2002 but who didn't from 2003-2005 are the Pittsburgh Penguins, Toronto Maple Leafs and Detroit Red Wings.  All three clubs picked four or more goalies in the third round or later from 2000-2002 but then picked at least one goalie in the first two rounds from 2003-2005.  The Penguins in particular are an interesting case.  The failure of all six of the guys they drafted late from 2000-2002 to make even a dent at the NHL level may have been one reason they decided to use the first overall pick on Marc-Andre Fleury in 2005.  Personally, I still it was a mistake (imagine that team with Eric Staal) and that the Penguins could have found goaltending close to what Fleury is providing on the free agent market. 

There were also teams from 2003-2005 who selected only one goaltender.  However, the Red Wings, Islanders, Avalanche and Coyotes all selected at least three goalies from 2000-2002 which suggests that the idea of never selecting goalies hasn't been a persistent strategy for these clubs.  The only two teams to select one goaltender from 2000-2002 were the New Jersey Devils and Montreal Canadiens, two teams with strong and relatively young netminders in Martin Brodeur and Jose Theodore (seriously, he won the Vezina in 2002) when these drafts took place.  Basically, flat-out never choosing goalies doesn't seem to be a strategy used consistently by NHL teams.

 

Here's the breakdown of how many goalies were taken in each round of the draft over these three years and how each group performed:

Goalie_distribution_2000-2002_medium

As expected, the goalies drafted in the first two rounds see their average total rise as time passes.  We also see that the average first rounder isn't a good bet to be starting for your team eight to ten years after being drafted.  Of the nine goalies who were selected in the first round from 2000-2002, only four of them managed to start forty games in any one NHL season.  So - and I'll make sure to mention this at least once in each of the four posts in this series - don't take goalies in the first round.

One final point of comparison that I found interesting between 2000-2002 and 2003-2005 is that the number of goalies picked really starts to take off in the fifth round both years.  So, if you happen to be working for an NHL team and your team has an obscure goalie in mind, it might behoove you to select said netminder in the fourth round before a lot of teams start throwing out names. 

Comment 12 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Jeff Deslauriers was selected in the second round, 31st overall, by the Edmonton Oilers in 2002. In this picture, he’s checking to see if the puck beat him short side.

SPOILER ALERT: it probably did.

by Benjamin Massey on May 26, 2010 12:48 PM MDT reply actions  

Believe it or not, in the full picture you can see that the puck rolling between his legs. Not that he looks he knows that.

by Scott Reynolds on May 26, 2010 12:52 PM MDT up reply actions  

Jeff Deslauriers has no puck sense? You’re right, I don’t believe it!

by Benjamin Massey on May 26, 2010 1:06 PM MDT up reply actions  

At least he’s self-aware. Given his history, the most likely place for him to be beat was short side. So he looked there.

Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by Derek Zona on May 26, 2010 2:31 PM MDT up reply actions  

These two factors combine to give Deslauriers an individual contribution of +8 to the Oilers’ score. Clearly, there are still some kinks to work out (suggestions welcome).

I think if you are looking for a perfect indicator it won’t happen. No matter what you do there will be outliers so as long as you recognize these (and they are the exception rather than the rule) you are doing fine.

One suggestion I have is breaking your draft position down. i.e:
1-5 ov – 30 points
6-10 ov – 25 points
11-20 ov – 20 points
21-30 ov – 15 points
31-45 ov -10 points
40-end 2nd round – 7 points

and then from there on use the criteria you have.

Because let’s be honest… blowing the 11th overall pick on a bust goalie is worse than blowing the 29th OV pick on a goalie. And potentially wasting the #2 OV is worse than the #10 OV pick.

by dawgbone98 on May 26, 2010 2:17 PM MDT reply actions  

but why there’s a 5 point difference between 20 and 21 is unexplainable… maybe drop the difference from 5 to 2 or 3, and maybe doing it every 5 spots in the first round.

1-5 ov – 30 points
6-10 ov – 25 points
11-15 – 22 points
16-20 – 19 points
21-25 – 17 points
26-30 – 15 points
31-35 – 13 points
36-45 – 10 points
46- end 2nd 7 points…

It’s all just nitpicking though.

and where it says: 40-end 2nd round – 7 points above it should say 46-end 2nd round – 7 points

by dawgbone98 on May 26, 2010 2:20 PM MDT up reply actions  

I think those are good suggestions. I did this exercise last year and tweaked it a bit to come up with my current values. Going by draft position is probably a better way to go and I’ll make sure to rejig my data for next year accordingly. I’ll probably play around with the points a bit too, especially on the lower end. Right now, guys getting a game or two in the AHL are getting too much credit relative to guys who play 30 AHL games for three or four years.

by Scott Reynolds on May 26, 2010 2:26 PM MDT up reply actions  

I think the end qualification should be an NHL goaltender. You don’t really draft guys for your AHL team. So whether the guy plays 1 career AHL game and 0 NHL games or 500 career AHL games and 0 NHL games it’s not a successful pick.

Just my opinion though, and the only reason I think that is because you can easily sign a quality AHL goaltender for free… so that pick could have had better use.

by dawgbone98 on May 26, 2010 2:51 PM MDT up reply actions  

This is true. I guess I’m using AHL productivity as a proxy for “how good” the guy is and whether the team was able to get him under control. To me, those are both important parts of drafting. For the “how good” part, a player who becomes an AHL starter is very likely a better goalie than a guy who gets just a cup of coffee in the AHL. If one scouting staff consistently misses with guys who get close and another usually misses badly when they miss but both have a similar number of “hits,” I would trust the first group to make my picks. For the “under control” part, if you take a Swedish goalie but can’t get him over to NA, well that’s kind of a waste whether he’s talented or not.

by Scott Reynolds on May 26, 2010 3:05 PM MDT up reply actions  

I definitely agree that a guy who is an AHL starter is a better goalie than a guy who just gets a cup of coffee in the AHL, but I’m not sure I agree with your end assessment.

Sure, picking the guy who has an AHL career shows you picked better than a guy who doesn’t get that far but in terms of draft value, I don’t know if it holds any (aside from maybe a mentoring angle down the road). And I’m not sure there’s much of a difference between picking a guy who isn’t good enough vs picking a guy who just doesn’t want to come over in terms of being a wasted pick (unless the Swede has told you up front he’s never coming over).

In the end, I guess it depends on what you are trying to evaluate… is it draft pick value or are you looking to evaluate their abilities to pick the better goaltender. For the former, there’s no difference between an AHL starter and ECHL backup but there is for the latter.

Either way, it’s interesting and I think we’ll start seeing more teams get a higher net score as we advance further back in the draft… but it’s interesting to see if there is a pattern in terms of if certain teams are better at it than others.

by dawgbone98 on May 26, 2010 3:23 PM MDT up reply actions  

I was going to suggest the same thing as Dawgbone, more gradations in your "expectations" scale. For example of the first rounders picked in 2000-02, five were in the top ten so took the maximum deduction. The other four were all #25-30, yet they all got docked the same as if they’d gone #12 or #15.

Btw, of the 90 first rounders that got picked in 2000-02, here’s a breakdown:

58 F, avg. 268 GP
23 D, avg 316 GP
9 G, avg. 123 GP

Now as we’ve discussed before, "GP" are not created equal for goalies, since the guy who sits on the bench gets a "0" whereas the skater that spends 90% of the game on the bench gets a "1". My tendency is to value GP for goalies as double. Admittedly a crude methodology that starts to break down when you apply it to a high first-rounder who one would certainly expect to play >41 games a season, but for back-of-the-envelope stuff and group averages it works fine.

Even applying the doubler, the first round goalies still come up a little light compared to skaters, which supports your position that goalies are not the best risk in the first round. However, it’s closer than it appears.

Another template I have applied with some success w.r.t. the draft is an expected distribution by position of 1G:3D:6F (or if you prefer, 2:6:12 which is the makeup of most game-night rosters). In this particular three-year window, there was a slight bias of F over D (58:23 rather than 54:27), but 9 goalies out of 90 first rounders falls exactly on the expected 10% mark.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on May 26, 2010 6:11 PM MDT up reply actions  

Btw, here’s the same breakdown of first round picks for the three years of Part One in your series, 2003-05.

55 F, avg 219 GP
28 D, avg 169 GP
7 G, avg 75 GP

So less across the board, which stands to reason when you consider the group is 3 years younger. But again we see a split pretty darn close to 54:27:9, and again we see the skaters with a little more than double the GP of the goalies. I’m still not sure whether that is because the skaters are better picks than the goalies on talent, or simply that they develop younger. Arguably that’s the same difference under the current CBA where you have rights on your draft picks for at most 9 years after they’re picked. If they don’t develop relatively fast, they’re not going to help you much. It is this compression of the development clock which has me somewhat reluctantly agreeing with you that drafting goalies early is likely not an optimum strategy.

Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries

"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg

by Bruce McCurdy on May 26, 2010 9:07 PM MDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to SB Nation's Edmonton Oilers community.

Northwest Standings

GP W L OTL PT
Vancouver 54 34 15 5 73
Colorado 56 28 25 3 59
Minnesota 54 25 21 8 58
Calgary 55 25 22 8 58
Edmonton 54 21 28 5 47

(updated 2.11.2012 at 6:02 AM MST)

21 - 28 - 5

Lost 2

Clear Victory Standings

Western Conference

  1. Detroit Red Wings (23-7, .767)
  2. San Jose Sharks (14-5, .737)
  3. Vancouver Canucks (18-7, .720)
  4. St. Louis Blues (12-6, .667)
  5. Chicago Blackhawks (16-13, .552)
  6. Los Angeles Kings (10-9, .526)
  7. Nashville Predators (11-10, .524)
  8. Phoenix Coyotes (12-12, .500)
  9. Dallas Stars (11-15, .423)
  10. Anaheim Ducks (10-14, .417)
  11. Colorado Avalanche (9-13, .409)
  12. Edmonton Oilers (11-16, .407)
  13. Calgary Flames (9-15, .375)
  14. Minnesota Wild (7-14,.333)
  15. Columbus Blue Jackets (5-19, .208)

Eastern Conference

  1. Boston Bruins (21-4, .840)
  2. New York Rangers (18-8, .692)
  3. Pittsburgh Penguins (16-9, .640)
  4. Philadelphia Flyers (14-11, .560)
  5. Toronto Maple Leafs (14-12, .538)
  6. Washington Capitals (14-13, .519)
  7. Montreal Canadiens (11-11, .500)
  8. New Jersey Devils (10-12, .455)
  9. Ottawa Senators (10-13, .435)
  10. Winnipeg Jets (10-14, .417)
  11. Carolina Hurricanes (9-13, .409)
  12. Florida Panthers (7-12, .368)
  13. Buffalo Sabres (8-14, .364)
  14. Tampa Bay Lightning (9-20, .310)
  15. New York Islanders (6-14, .300)

Division Standings

  1. Central (52-40, .565)
  2. Northeast (49-39, .557)
  3. Atlantic (45-37, .549)
  4. Pacific (38-36, .514)
  5. Northwest (34-45, .430)
  6. Southeast (33-54, .379)


Managing Editor

Kurri_small Derek Zona

Laraque_horcoff_250x360_small Scott Reynolds

Columnists

Batman_small ryanbatty

0615pisani_small dawgbone98

Okc_shoulder_small Eric Rodgers

Neal_small Neal Livingston

Mike_small Mike Wntrz

Contributors

Newtwitter2_small Jonathan Willis

Mccurdycloseup_small Bruce McCurdy

Esaandstanley_small Benjamin Massey

Me_smyth_bobblehead3__1_of_1__small Lisa McRitchie

Small Triumph44

Gyi0062208469-bobrovsky_small Chase W

Small JaredL