Measuring Success: Part 1 - Carolina Hurricanes Draft Analysis

How do you measure the success of a hockey franchise?  By the number of wins and losses?  By the number of Stanley Cups won?  By how profitable or popular the team is?  Perhaps it comes down to a bit of each of those criteria, as well as what contributes to each of them.  And the very beginning of the process? One could argue that everything starts with the draft.  

It would seem likely that clubs with the best ability to judge talent and develop that talent would have a jump on others in the league.  But is that reality?  Let's take a look and find out.  I have totaled up the number of draft picks for each team over the past 12 years, (when this franchise first participated in the draft as the Carolina Hurricanes).  I also added up the number of NHL games each draft pick played, along with the total number of points they scored.   How did the Hurricanes compare with the rest of the league?

Once again, the analysis starts from 1997.  (*Four teams did not exist at that time, so I took the data for them starting from the first year they participated, with a note).  One thing that sticks out immediately is that the Hurricanes had fewer draft choices, (90), than any of the other teams who participated over that complete 12 year period.  If the expansion teams would have had more time, they would have also had more selections than Carolina.

Why does Carolina have fewer picks, (column one), than most of the other teams?  I believe that there are a couple of reasons.  First of all, the Canes were involved in two playoff runs which took them to the Stanley Cup Finals.  The team traded away several picks, (especially when they acquired Mark Recchi and Doug Weight), to help them get to the finals.

Also, the franchise does not seem to place the same value on draft picks as some other teams do, such as Chicago, who had 37 more picks over the same time frame.  For instance, the Canes could have acquired Jussi Jokinen for free on the waiver wire.  Instead, they traded Wade Brookbank and Josef Melichar and threw in a draft pick so that they could make that deal.   There is an example of using up a draft pick, simply to save money.

Now let's re-sort the stats to see which team got the most playing time, (column two), out of their picks.  

Colorado, Ottawa, Buffalo, San Jose, and Boston all did very well as far as having their selections actually make it to the NHL.  Of course, the pure number of picks might inflate this stat, so I also looked at the average playing time per draft pick, (column four). But those teams are still at the top.

Carolina performs in the middle of the pack in this scenario as their 90 draft picks averaged playing 46 games each.  Chicago, with their 127 picks, actually averages less playing time, so quantity does not necessarily equal quality.  Some people might be surprised at Detroit's position, as well as a few other high profile teams.  While the Red Wings did an outstanding job selecting both Zetterberg and Datsyuk in later rounds, they really have not had many other coups during this time frame, (Franzen).  Keep in mind though, when you finish near the top of the league every year, you do not get favorable position in the draft and there is not really a great opportunity for your draft picks to take jobs away from veterans.

Phoenix has done a deplorable job in the draft, no matter how you look at it.

Next we will see how well these draft picks performed at the NHL level, (column three).   While one team's draft picks might be playing in a lot of games compared to others, are they scoring points?

The usual suspects are at the top again with Ottawa far and away the leader.  But we should look at the averages again, (column five), to make sure that the sheer quantity of picks don't skew the results.

Once again, the numbers indicate that Ottawa, San Jose, Boston, and Buffalo get the most out of their draft picks.  While a number of those picks were traded at some point and are playing for other teams, in my analysis the original teams that drafted them get credit for them because they initially recognized the talent.  (Perhaps the scouting staffs are more astute than some of the general managers?)

While the Hurricanes are not grouped with the top performers, they are not at the bottom either.  Could they do better if money was not so much of an issue and they held onto more of their draft picks?  Would it make a difference to have full-time scouts in Europe?   

As with any comparison like this, there are bound to be imperfections.  Some teams might have drafted more goalies or defensemen, and of course their scoring totals would be lower.  But over a fairly long period of time, those picks should even out because all teams need the same number of defensemen and goalies.   Also, the expansion teams might have had to play some borderline players at the NHL level, when those players would not have necessarily made a roster in an established market.  Still, that team should be given credit for filling a spot internally.

The next question is, does success at the draft translate to a winning record on the ice?  In Part 2 of the series, we will compare the wins and losses of the teams over the same time frame.  

(all data compiled from HockeyDB.com.)