Counting Cards at the Draft – US U-18 Defencemen

The next installment of Counting Cards at the Draft is looking at defencemen selected from the US National Development Program. This pool of players was the smallest (just 21 players) seen so far just due to the fact that only one team is being looked at compared to an entire league. Still despite the small size I figured they were still worth wile taking a look at. Just keep in mind that the results are the least reliable of the series so far because of the sample size.  

The majority of players are from the US National Under 18 team with four players from the US Junior National Team. Without further ado the graphs:

It’s tough to see much of anything from the graph due to the limited number of points but I think a case could be made that 0.6 seems to be a rough area of where the points begin to take off. Drawing the lines on 0.6 and the usually 40% provides this:

The percentages actually match up pretty favorably to the other ones which bodes very well for this.

How they missed

-David Warsofsky (95^th overall, 2008): He had a good college career posting a 0.6ppg. Was traded to Boston and is buried on the Bruins depth chart behind young guys like Dougie Hamilton and Torey Krug.

-J.D. Forrest (181^st overall, 2000): Also had a great college career putting up 0.67ppg. He went to Europe when college was done. *Was drafted out of the Junior National Team

How they made it   

-Ryan Suter (7^th overall, 2003) he put up 0.57ppg in his draft season which is close enough to 0.6 to be considered a success. *Was drafted out of the Junior National Team

-Jack Johnson (3^rd overall, 2005) clear he is an offensive defencemen. Put up almost a point per game in college (0.96). *Was drafted out of the Junior National Team

Of the four exceptions three of them are from the Junior National Team. If we remove them we have only 1 player who failed to score more than 0.6 and not make the NHL. There would also be no players who scored less than 0.6 and ended up making it. This year’s draft class is going to put this to the test.

2014 Draft Eligible US U18 Defensemen as per Central Scouting’s final ranking.

Player	Rank	GP	Goals	Assists	Points	PPG
Jack Dougherty	30	55	6	16	22	0.40
Jack Glover	38	59	2	26	28	0.47
Johnathan.Macleod	44	51	5	6	11	0.22
Ryan Collins	57	59	1	6	7	0.12
Louis Belpedio	107	61	7	16	23	0.38

As you can clearly see none of these players reach the 0.6 mark. Its not enough for me to say don’t draft any of these players,  but it makes me second guess where these players should be ranked. Jack Dougherty and Jack Glover are both projected to be high second rounders with an outside chance of going in the first round. I would defiantly pick them both lower than that. I know 17 players is an extremely small sample, but it’s a bit unsettling that no previous US U-18 player has scored below 0.6 and succeeded. Dougherty, Glover and throw in Louis Belpedio into this mix as well, they all need to show some scoring ability in college to avoid becoming busts.

As for Johnathan Macleod and Ryan Collins I would just avoid them as they just don’t have enough offence to be worth the gamble.

In conclusion the small sample makes this study somewhat unreliable. However it still supports the notion that in order to make the NHL you need to show some scoring as an amateur. This years class of defencemen are an interesting case as none of them have reached the 0.6 ppg outlined by this study. It will be interesting going forward how these players perform and if they can become the first one to make the NHL while being below 0.6 ppg.

If you have any questions feel free to leave a comment.  

Memorial Cup Wrap Up

Congratulations to the Edmonton Oil Kings on their Memorial Cup victory. They defeated the Guelph Storm 6-3 in the final on Sunday. Guelph was the best team in the tournament and very easily could have been the champions if this was a seven game series. In watching each game I have been tracking the zone entries for each game. I have games 1-3 already posted and decided rather than continue with a post every game just do one big post at the end with everything.

Here are the Zone Entries by team for the Memorial Cup

	Zone Entries
	London	Val d’Or	Guelph	Edmonton
Dump-Ins	64	88	99	101
Success Rate	17%	17%	17%	25%
Carry-Ins	118	135	149	211
Success Rate	65%	50%	58%	56%
Other	34	30	46	35
Success Rate	50%	37%	33%	57%

*This data is all even strength only. That includes 4 on 4 but not 6 on 5 when the goalie is pulled.

*I unfortunately missed game 4 between Val d’Or and Edmonton so these numbers do not include that game. I will update the post when I finish tracking that game.

It’s pretty clear that London deserved better in the tournament. They converted 65% of their carry-ins into shot attempts which led the field. They did everything well except score. Through the round robin they lead the tournament in possession close, but unfortunately had a 91.19 PDO due to a putrid 2.9% shooting percentage.  Guelph was riding high through the round robin sporting a 109 PDO propped up by a 15% shooting percentage. That came crashing back down to earth in the final where they shot just 9%.

The big reason Edmonton was able to win the Memorial Cup was due to their very high possession numbers. They were essentially tied with London, through the round robin and then continued that success in the semi-final vs. Val d’Or, out-shooting them 54-49 and then out-shooting Guelph in the final 45-35. They were able to turn those chances into goals as they shot 7.6% through the round robin and then 10.1% through the final two games, which is not spectacular but was enough. They were also able to get good goal-tending from Pittsburgh Penguins second round pick Tristan Jarry who posted a .910 SV% in the five games.    

In tracking zone entries for the Memorial Cup I was able to support the idea that dumping the puck in is usually a poor decision. All teams had much more success at generating a shot attempt when they carried the puck in rather than dump it in.  I look forward to tracking zone entries in the future when the CHL returns in the fall. For now all the hockey has been played for the season, next up the draft! 

Memorial Cup Game 3 - Zone Entries

Game three of the Mem Cup featured the host London Knights and the WHL Champs the Edmonton Oil Kings. Last game I noticed the Oil Kings had a significant amount of carry-ins, leading to success in the possession game. This game went as expect as the best two possession teams essentially tied in shots with Edmonton slightly edged London 43-40. The high shot totals for both teams were due to the fact both teams carried the puck into the zone and were able to create shots off of those rushes, as you can see in the chart below.

	Zone Entries
	London	Edmonton
Dump-Ins	19	21
Success Rate	16%	29%
Carry-Ins	34	38
Success Rate	62%	53%
Other	10	8
Success Rate	40%	25%

Edmonton won the game 5-2 but as you can see from the chart London was the better team. They created more shot attempts off of their carry-ins. Much like with Edmonton last game sometimes you just don't get the bounces and have a low PDO.

London is very close to elimination and need some help from Val d'Or tonight if they hope to keep their season alive. If Guelph wins tonight they will clinch a bye into the finals and London will be eliminated. 

Memorial Cup Game 2 – Zone Entries

Game two of the Memorial Cup featured the OHL champion Guelph Storm taking on the WHL champs the Edmonton Oil Kings. Edmonton entered the game as the best possession team in the WHL with 59.09%. Guelph was fourth in the OHL at 54.6%. (h/t to @joshweissbock). In knowing those numbers you would expect Edmonton to control the play in this game and have a chance to get a win. Edmonton did win the shot battle 39-32 (55%), but lost the game 5-2.  

In tracking the zone entries for the game it was very easy to see why Edmonton is such a good possession 

team.

	Game Two Zone Entries
	Guelph	Edmonton
Dump-ins	23	15
Success Rate	22%	27%
Carry-ins	25	44
Success Rate	64%	70%
Tip-ins	6	4
Success Rate	50%	0%
Other	16	9
Success Rate	38%	44%

    

The Oil Kings do an excellent job of hanging onto the puck. They almost doubled the carry-ins of Guelph and had a better success rate. They dumped the puck in fewer times and again had the higher success rate. Edmonton played well despite the loss, sometimes the bounces just don’t go your way.

I'm looking forward to the game tomorrow between the best two possession teams: London and Edmonton. Will be interesting to see how London goes about defending all the carry-ins Edmonton generates. 

Memorial Cup Game 1 Zone Entries

Trying something new for the Memorial Cup. Rather than my usual of recording scoring chances I decided to take a stab at tracking zone entries. A zone entry is how the team got across the blue line into the offensive zone. Since I'm new to this I only tracked dump-ins and carry-ins. I deemed an entry a success if the team was able to get a shot attempt before the puck left the zone. We care about zone entries because of the great work done by Eric Tulsky, who has shown that (NHL) teams generate more shots when the puck is carried into the zone rather than when it is dumped in.

As I do more of this I hope to be able to track more plays as well as individual players, as zone data like this is good way to evaluate defencemen.  You can see what players are being targeted with zone entries and how they are able to prevent chances. For now though just team data.

Team	Dump In*	Success Rate	Carry In*	Success Rate	Other*	Success Rate
London	27	15%	36	75%	11	64%
Val d’Or	23	4%	33	61%	12	42%

 *Even Strength Only

In looking at these numbers its clear London had the better game. They had more success on all zone entries. However they were  unable to beat Val d'Or goalie Antoine Bibeau, who was spectacular in stopping all 51 shots he faced.

This is a very short tournament but this game bodes well for the future success of London. If they can fire 50 shots a night they are going to win more often than not. Val d'Or got the win but needs to improve on getting shots after gaining the zone, particularly when they dump it in. They need to either stop dumping in or try to be better along the boards to create turnovers and retrieve the puck back.

I am looking forward to watching these teams again to see if they continue and make the adjustments they need to as the tournament progresses.

Counting Cards at the Draft – USHL Defencemen

For those who are new to this series I would recommend part one on NCAA defencemen and part two on high school defencemen. Those will both give you an idea of my methodology .  

Today we are looking at defencemen drafted out of the USHL. I am using all USHL drafted defencemen from 1999-2009, excluding players who played in the United States Development Program (they will get their own piece).  This sample size was again small with only 59 players, but I believe the results still provide a good estimate of what players are likely to succeed. Without further ado the graphs:

The dots seem to take off right between 0.6 and 0.8, so dividing the graph into quadrants at 0.7 and 40% provides:

Obviously only two successes is not ideal, but what is a positive is the 46 players below the 0.7 who failed. Clearly some scoring is needed to have a chance at succeeding at the NHL level.  Those who scored above 0.7 and failed and those who succeeded despite being below 0.7 need to be examined to see why and how they failed/succeeded.

How They Missed

-Colby Cohen (45^th overall, 2007) and Brett Skinner (68^th overall, 2002) were both traded and went to Europe to find stability.

 -Mike Vannelli (136^th overall, 2003) had a decent college career (0.55 ppg) but never received a rookie contract and went to Europe

 -Scott Polaski (180^th overall, 2001) played some RW in his draft season leading to the high point totals.

 -Jeff Finger (240^th overall, 1999) he likely would have been a success if not for the massive deal he signed with the Toronto Maple Leafs. Was sent to the AHL due to his large cap hit.

How They Made it

 -Tom Gilbert (129^th overall, 2002), Chris Butler (96^th overall, 2005) and Jeff Petry (45^th overall, 2006) all saw their scoring improve in the NCAA.

 -Andrew Alberts (179^th overall, 2001) didn’t have a great NCAA career (0.44ppg) but showed flashes including 22 points in 39 games his sophomore season.

 -Matt Greene (44^th overall, 2002) he is the exception to this as he never showed any ability to score at any level, but was big and physical which kept him around.

John Moore was also in this group but he had 0.68 ppg which is close enough to be deemed a success.

2014 Draft Eligible USHL Defensemen as per Central Scouting’s final ranking.  

Player	Rank	GP	Goals	Assists	Points	PPG
Joshua Jacobs	43	56	5	18	23	0.41
Brandon Montour	92	60	14	48	62	1.03
Mark Friedman	124	51	10	30	40	0.78
Neil Pionk	146	54	2	21	23	0.43
Ryan Mantha	149	53	3	12	15	0.28
Hunter Warner	206	43	2	10	12	0.28

Brandon Montour and Mark Friedman are the only two players I would consider drafting. Montour is older as he is a 1994 birthday which explains why his ranking is low. I would still take a shot on him especially if he slips in the draft due to his age. Friedman is likely to go in the fifth round but by this study, has a chance to make the NHL. The other players should be avoided as their likelihood of success is very low.

This study again shows that players who find NHL success are the ones who have proven they can put up points at lower levels. Brandon Montour and Mark Friedman are both on the path to NHL success, and could be draft day steals. For those players who fell below the 0.7 points per game, their NCAA seasons should be monitored closely to see if their scoring rates improve.

All stats gathered from elite prospects and hockey data base, and information on players from Hockey’s Future.