NHL Draft Analytics: A Study of NHL Central Scouting

In the past few years, with the rise in analytics and teams hyper-focus on draft performance, the National Hockey League among others have been studying the draft; the players and the leagues and all patterns and correlations between size, position, stats, etc.

We have put our analysts on the task of breaking down the NHL Draft in a three-pronged approach.

  1. An analysis of the NHL Draft Results
  2. Breaking down the Draft Market
  3. Breaking down Position/League/Size Correlations & Bias

 

  1. Analysis of the NHL Draft Results

There have been countless studies in the past 10 years evaluating NHL Draft “success” all with a different lens and focus. Some see NHL success as playing in at least one NHL game, others look at it by recording 25 or more points, some look at it as playing in 100 or 200 games. Regardless of the “success” metric used; we analyzed the NHL Draft results over 20-year period to get an idea of how well the NHL Draft process worked in evaluating and projecting talent.

Arguably the most noticeable data we found has been the increase in undrafted prospects in the league. Again, depending on how you measure an “active” we simply picked a date in November and took all the active rosters on that day to count how many players were undrafted in the NHL. Our number was 125 which accounts for 20% of the NHL population. That is a significant stat that differentiates hockey from other professional sports. One in every five players in an NHL locker room was never drafted.

The other statistically significant and consistent data over the past 20 years is the correlation between draft round and future success in the NHL. Sportsnet did a nice job analyzing drafts based on 100 games or 200 games shown below:

Chart 1-01

chart5

This chart clearly shows the importance of draft position and the low percentage of drafted players who make it to 200 games in the NHL. The 25th overall pick has only a 40% of playing 200 games in a season and just over 50% chance of playing 100 games.

 

Chart 1-02

NHL Draft 1995-2005

Pick Appeared In NHL Played 100+ Games In NHL
Top-5 100% 96.3%
6-10 100% 78.1%
Rest of First Round 88.6% 63.0%
Second Round 65.7% 31.1%
Third Round 50.7% 27.9%
Fourth Round 36.0% 18.7%
Fifth Round 29.9% 14.2%
Sixth Round 30.0% 14.3%
Seventh Through Ninth Rounds 27.1% 11.6%

 

* Source: Adam Getz

Draft position importance is not just about how well first round picks compare to second round picks but also the variations. In chart 1-02 we see two different metrics, appearing in the NHL and playing 100 or more games. In the 100+ games example, it is clear to see that the majority of first round picks play at least 100 games in the NHL. After that, the percentages drop dramatically and less than 1/3 of second round picks will play 100+ NHL games. However, what is most interesting here is that there is more variability from a first round picks success rate to a second-round pick (39%) then from a second-round pick to a seventh-round pick (19.5%). This is consistent with the data in Chart 1-01 showing that after the first two rounds, the success rate drops and there are small differences between the later rounds. Therefore, a fourth-round pick does have a slightly better chance of making it to the NHL than a sixth-round pick but its very small and relatively insignificant.

So, what does this tell us?

At first the data appears to be quite surprising but after analyzing 5 years of NHL trades, it isn’t. The NHL clubs trade away draft picks in rounds 3-7 fairly loosely relative to other sports and get little value in return. The experts on the NHL clubs know this data better than anyone and today there are websites who can use historical data over the past 20 years and assign projected value for every pick in every round.

While there are other factors at play here including collective bargaining, salary cap constraints and the pure available positions open each year in the NHL through retirement, injury or players being sent down to the minors. However, the historical draft results show that the low NHL Draft success rates are systemic. It’s not a few bad scouts, it’s not a few misguided GM’s, the entire league follows nearly the same exact trend. The higher draft position, the greater chance that player has to making the NHL which shows NHL teams have done a consistent job in evaluating and scouting the draft base as a whole. If you saw third round picks outperforming second round picks and fourth round picks outperforming first round picks then that would show scouting staffs were inefficient and give way to thoughts that there is no science behind draft picks just guesses.

For our purposes of this study we are looking at what goes into the NHL Draft. Why is 20% of the league undrafted and why does only 1/3 of the second-round picks (the best 31-61 players in the world) make it to 100+ games in the NHL?  If we understand that the draft is systemic then what are the systemic factors that go into a player’s draft?

  1. The Draft Market

To understand the draft, you have to understand the key players involved. The biggest players are obviously the NHL teams scouting departments who have the final say in how the process goes. However, those key players impacted by other factors. These factors could include the players personality, biases those departments have for particular leagues, the agent the player has, etc. In talking with several Directors of Amateur Scouting throughout the NHL, it is clear that the biggest market setter is NHL Central Scouting.

A breakdown of the key players:

NHL Amateur Scouts:

Each NHL has its own scouting staff; the majority of those scouts are dedicated to evaluating players for the NHL Draft with a smaller number of scouts focused on NHL/AHL pipelines, trades and free agents, etc. While each organization has its own unique way of covering all the amateur prospects in North America and Europe; the most popular strategy is to hire regional scouts to cover the major hockey markets (Ontario, Minnesota, British Columbia, etc) or to split it up by different leagues (OHL, WHL, QMJHL, USHL, BCHL, Minnesota HS, etc.). The regional scouts compile scouting reports throughout the season with the aid of cross-over or national scouts who compare the Minnesota High School player to the USHL player to the New England prep player. Then the Director of Amateur scouting typically has multiple views as well of each prospect so that they can compare a US prospect playing in NCAA to a CHL prospect playing in Canada to a European prospect playing in Sweden.

These regional, national and director level scouts are among the most experienced and qualified hockey minds in the game and yet after a great deal of views with experienced and talented eyes in a multi-step process the number of players in the draft who “make it” are slim.

 

NHL Central Scouting:

NHL is an independent scouting service funded by the NHL which sets the market for the amateur draft prospects. They are comprised of a group of qualified and experienced scouts who are hired by the NHL to develop draft lists of the top NHL prospects throughout the world. Their lists carry major weight because they attempt to identify the market value of each player through a midterm and final ranking list. For example, if Central Scouting has a player listed as first round pick and the New York Islanders want that player but only have a second-round selection then they know he may go earlier because his market value is that of a first-round pick. They may have to trade up to get him. There are other scouting agencies and there are other factors in knowing if a player is highly sought out or not, but Central Scouting has the biggest platform.

***Side Story: In the old days before Central Scouting and before sophisticated draft practices NHL scouts would pull a player aside and ask who else the player was talking to in an attempt to gauge market value. One veteran scout even told us how he would tell the players not to tell anyone that they’d met to try and keep them under the radar and also to see if the kid could be trusted.

NHL Agents:

In regards to agents impact on the draft it’s something to note, but important not to overstate. An agent can’t get a player drafted but they can point regional scouts in the right direction and the major agencies have built-in relationships with certain GM’s and scouting directors. The major agencies have an advantage because the NHL teams know that these agents work with current pros, know what it takes to make it and wouldn’t take on these clients unless they felt the player had pro upside. For example, it’d be hard not to listen to a strong recommendation from Bobby Orr or Pat Brisson who represent players like McDavid and Crosby to name a few.

League Affiliations:

What league a player is playing in during their draft year matters, but it is hard to gauge and it’s much more of a team by team basis then a systemic factor. For example, in the 2017 NHL Draft the New York Rangers had 7 draft picks and they selected 5 Europeans while San Jose drafted 4 NCAA bound prospects out of their 6 picks and Calgary selected CHL players with 4 of their 5 picks.

 

Our Study:

Our task is breaking down the factors that go into the NHL Draft and uncover any patterns in the draft selection process. With the exhaustive research on percentage of players who make it out of the draft we wanted to take a different vantage point and figure out if the Draft Market was efficient in serving its role.

For our extensive purposes we decided to use North American Skaters list and select the two most relevant years of draft data which would be 2016 and 2017. We selected North American Skaters because that list accounts for the highest percentage of players drafted in the NHL from 65-75% over the past 10 years. Every player listed on central scouting or drafted in the NHL in 2016 and 2017 are listed at the bottom of this report in Chart 2-01 and 2-02.

The columns Mid-Final, Final-Draft and Mid-Draft are variability measurements. Mid-Final measures the difference between the Mid Term Rankings and the Final Rankings by Central Scouting. Chart 2-03 and 2-04 shows the difference between the Mid-Term and Final Rankings. The numbers below zero represent players whose rankings fell from midterm to final while positive numbers represent players who have improved. For the top 50 ranked players there is little variation between the midterm and final rankings but as the rankings go beyond 50 the variation increases. The chart only shows players who were ranked in both an excludes players who were only ranked in midterm or final.

 

Midterm Ranking – Final Ranking

Chart 2-03

Chart 2-04

 

 

Chart 2-05 and 2-06 shows the variation between the Final Central Scouting Rankings and the NHL Draft position. In the first two rounds (60 picks) there is little difference in the rankings. After the second round the variations increase and they have a downward trend showing that players tended to fall from the final ranking to the draft position.

 

Final Ranking – NHL Draft Position

Chart 2-05

Chart 2-06

 

After seeing the data in final rankings vs. NHL Draft position, we evaluated if the trends were the same between Midterm rankings and Draft Rankings. The general idea is similar; the variation increases after the first 2 rounds of draft picks and there is a downward trend showing that midterm prospects are ranked higher in January then on draft day.

 

Midterm Rankings – Draft Position

Chart 2-07

 

Chart 2-08

 

This is not surprising as historical NHL Draft data shows that less than 10% of players drafted 3rd round and beyond will have a career in the NHL so we would expect to see higher variations after the top 60 picks.

It is important to note that these charts are only between players who were listed on Central Scouting and drafted and doesn’t account for players who were ranked by central scouting and not drafted. So, we included those figures here as well to give a more complete vantage point.

 

Chart 2-09

NHL Draft Picks Unranked in Central Scouting

  Midterm    Final   Neither
2016 33 23 21
2017 30 18 17
 

Chart 2-10

CS Ranked Players Not Drafted

Midterm Final Euro+Goalie Mid Net Final Net
2016 101 91 68 33 23
2017 110 98 79 31 19

 

 

What these two charts (2-09 & 2-10) show is that in 2016 and 2017 there were roughly the same number of players in North America drafted without ever being ranked by central scouting and that the number of “misses” decreases from Midterm to Final. The 101 (2016) and 110 (2017) midterm rankings seem like major numbers who were not drafted, but it is important to understand they rank the total number of draft picks so the real number of ranked players undrafted is North American Skaters minus Europeans and Goaltenders.  Therefore, the midterm and final net results are the number of North American skaters who were ranked and not drafted accounting for Europeans and Goaltenders.

 

What does this data tell us?

 

Central Scouting sets the market place by identifying the prospects and assigning those players a value (rank). We see that the value changes over the course of the season from midterm to final rankings. The accuracy from projected draft position versus actual is far more precise in the first two rounds then the next five. In speaking of percentages, we see that 7-10% of North American skaters are drafted from outside of the Central Scouting list and that 13-15% of drafted North American skaters were listed in the final ranking but not the midterm.  We also see that 48-50% of North American skaters ranked in the midterm ranking go undrafted and even after subtracting Europeans and Goaltenders there is still 14-15% of net undrafted prospects.

There are things to learn from all angles here. Players should understand that Central Scouting is not precise science, especially after the second round. They should also note that players change from midterm to final so at no point is their draft stock set in stone as is often said “don’t get happy and don’t get discouraged.”

For NHL teams they should see that while NHL Central Scouting sets the market, it is ultimately up to the NHL teams to decide who they believe are the best prospects. There are players drafted from off the list and there are players the list saw as top 50 picks who didn’t go in the top 100.

Overall, the takeaway is that the NHL Central Scouting is not a science and its not precise after the second round which is consistent with the NHL Draft results over time. What that means is that the market setter

**Another Study Takeaway: Is it better to be left off Central Scouting midterm rankings? Sometimes being on the list can lead to higher scrutiny and teams may have more viewings then a player who is not on the list. Sometimes more viewings improve a player’s stock but it can also do the opposite. There is a theory in scouting circles that the more times you watch a mid-level player the less you like them.

 

  1. League / Size / Positional Correlation & Bias

Bias is a scouts most fierce enemy and something a diligent scout needs to fight constantly. We have done analysis in the past comparing CHL, NCAA, Junior and High School stats compared to NHL production but the reality is that those have very loose correlations. It’s also dangerous to make that kind of cause-effect assumptions because less than 10 players on average will play in the NHL the year after their draft and the average NHL rookie is over 22 years old so those players stats in their draft year will change, sometimes dramatically before they play in the NHL.

With that being said, we picked three important variables in analyzing NHL Drafts. We continue to use the 2016 and 2017 Central Scouting and NHL Draft data used above but focusing here on size (height), league (in draft year) and position (minus goalies).

League Data

Charts 3-01 and 3-02 show the breakdown of draft picks by league. The total number of players drafted from each league is of interest and an important determination of what leagues NHL scouts value; however, the number of players listed in Central Scouting vs. the number of players in that league drafted will help determine any biases.

 

NHL Central Scouting – League Breakdown

Chart 3-01

 2016
League All Players Draft Picks Off List % Drafted % Off List % of CS
OHL 69 44 3 63.8% 4.3% 27.5%
WHL 55 32 4 58.2% 7.3% 21.3%
QMJHL 34 13 1 38.2% 2.9% 13.8%
BCHL 6 3 50.0% 0.0% 2.5%
US High 25 6 1 24.0% 4.0% 10.0%
USHL 25 14 4 58.5% 9.8% 15.4%
CAN HS 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
OJHL 4 2 1 50.0% 25.0% 1.3%
NAHL 6 3 2 50.0% 33.3% 1.7%
CCHL 2 1 50.0% 0.0% 0.8%
NCAA 16 13 5 81.3% 31.3% 4.6%
AJHL 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
MJHL 1 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.4%
NTDP 16 10 62.5% 0.0% 6.7%
 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chart 3-02
 2017
League All Players Draft Picks Off List % Drafted % Off List % of CS
OHL 71 40 3 56.3% 4.2% 27.3%
WHL 59 29 2 49.2% 3.4% 22.9%
QMJHL 34 14 41.2% 0.0% 13.7%
BCHL 4 1 25.0% 0.0% 1.6%
US High 22 13 2 59.1% 9.1% 8.0%
USHL 32 17 6 53.1% 18.8% 10.4%
CAN HS 2 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.8%
OJHL 4 2 50.0% 0.0% 1.6%
NAHL 2 1 1 50.0% 50.0% 0.4%
CCHL 2 1 50.0% 0.0% 0.8%
NCAA 14 6 2 42.9% 14.3% 4.8%
AJHL 4 3 1 75.0% 25.0% 1.2%
NCDC 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
NTDP 14 9 64.3% 0.0% 5.6%

 

 

The OHL is typically known as the best producer of NHL talent in the world. So, if we look at the 2016 and 2017 data we see a lot of similarities. Both years OHL players represented 27% percent of the Central Scouting’s North American skater pool. In both years they had 4% or 3 skaters get drafted from outside of the Central Scouting’s list. In 2016 over 63.8% of the OHL players on Central’s list were drafted but in 2017 it fell slightly to 56.3%.

If we compare the OHL to the QMJHL and USHL we’ll see some difference. The QMJHL represents about 13% of Central’s North American skaters but have a lower conversion rate to draft picks with 38-41% being drafted. The USHL on the other hand showed a smaller fraction of Central Scouting’s list representing 10-15% of the player pool but the conversion rates were much higher at 53-58%. The NCAA and USHL appear to get less respect then the CHL leagues given that in 2017 the USHL had 18% of its pool come from outside of Central’s list and NCAA had 14%. In 2016 the numbers were 10% and 31% respectively. Compare that to the CHL and we see percentages of 0%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 4% and 7%. Therein reflects a bias both on drafts and on Central Scouting in undervaluing the NCAA/USHL route.

The US National Program had an impressive conversion rate at over 60% and the majority of draft eligible players on the team were listed on Central Scouting. However, there are not any “diamonds in the rough” as there wasn’t a single player in 2016 or 2017 who was drafted from NTDP who wasn’t listed on Central Scouting. What this shows is that some players and some leagues get more draft attention then others which makes sense. Central Scouting will see US NTDP U18’s a lot over the course of the season where they may just see Chilliwack (BCHL) a handful of times.

 

Size Data

Chart 3-03 breaks down the players drafted and listed on the 2017 Central Scouting at different heights from below 5’8 to 6’5” and above. It not only analyzes the total number of players but also looks at what round those players were selected.  The data represents a bell curve with the majority of players falling in the middle heights of 5’11” to 6’2” as shown in Chart 3-04.

NHL Central Scouting Size Breakdown

Chart 3-03

> 5’8″ 5’8″ 5’9″ 5’10” 5’11” 6’0″ 6’1″ 6’2″ 6’3″ 6’4″ 6’5″+
Total CS 5 9 9 22 41 53 26 57 16 15 11
% of CS 1.9% 3.4% 3.4% 8.3% 15.5% 20.1% 9.8% 21.6% 6.1% 5.7% 4.2%
0-31 1 1 3 4 1 7 1 1 1
32-62 1 5 3 3 5 1 3
63-93 1 4 3 1 7 2 2
94-124 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 1
125-155 1 1 3 5 6 2
156-186 1 1 3 3 2 2 6 1 2
186+ 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 1 1
Undrafted 4 3 7 12 18 32 10 23 8 8 1
% 80.0% 33.3% 77.8% 54.5% 43.9% 60.4% 38.5% 40.4% 50.0% 53.3% 9.1%

 

Chart 3-04

Size # of Players %
5’10” and Below 45 17.0%
5’11” to 6’2” 177 66.8%
6’3” and Above 42 15.9%

 

What Chart 3-05 shows is the pattern that the taller the players, the lower their percentage of undrafted prospects is. This matches well with the old scout saying “if you are small you need to prove why you should be taken; if you’re tall, you need to prove why you shouldn’t be taken.”

 

Chart 3-05

Size Undrafted %
5’10” and Below 26 57.8%
5’11” to 6’2″ 83 46.9%
6’3″ and Above 17 40.5%
 

Charts 3-06 breaks down the different sizes and where they were drafted. Chart 3-07 breaks down the percentage of players at that size distributed by each round in the draft. The majority of smaller players (57.9%) were drafted in the sixth and seventh round whereas the middle-sized players had a fairly even distribution among the rounds. The tallest group of players were scattered.

 

Chart 3-06

Draft 5’10” & Under 5’11” to 6’2″ 6’3″ & Above
Round 1 2 15 3
Round 2 1 16 1
Round 3 1 15 4
Round 4 3 10 4
Round 5 1 15 2
Round 6 5 13 3
Round 7 6 10 5
 

Chart 3-07

Draft 5’10” & Under 5’11”- 6’2″ 6’3″ & Above
Round 1 10.5% 16.0% 13.6%
Round 2 5.3% 17.0% 4.5%
Round 3 5.3% 16.0% 18.2%
Round 4 15.8% 10.6% 18.2%
Round 5 5.3% 16.0% 9.1%
Round 6 26.3% 13.8% 13.6%
Round 7 31.6% 10.6% 22.7%
 

 

What does this data tell us?

There is certainly a size bias in the draft which is slightly reflected in the number of players at different heights listed on central scouting but more importantly in the actual draft results. The smaller players have the highest percentage of undrafted players off central scouting. Also, the majority of players taken at 5’10” and below are taken in the sixth and seventh round (57.9%). Of the only 11 players who were 6’5” or taller listed on Central Scouting, only 1 of them was undrafted opposed to 5’9” skaters where 7 of the 9 players listed were undrafted.

 

Position

 

Charts 3-08 and 3-09 breakdown all the North American skaters that were listed on Central Scouting or Drafted and analyzes the draft patterns. The data clearly shows a bias towards centers where as centers should in a perfect system represent 33% of the forward group and they represent over 45%. Not only are there more centers being listed on Central Scouting but the conversion rates are the highest in both years at any position between 58-64%. Defense represents about 1/3 of total players listed which is in line with expectations (team rosters have a 2:3 ratio between defenders and forwards). However, defense is second only to centers in conversion rate showing that 54-56% of defenseman listed on central scouting are drafted. In regards to wings there were small variations between left and right wings showing more left wings listed and taken then right wings but the findings are not statistically significant. It does show however that wings are less valuable in the draft then both centers and defenseman as a whole.

NHL Central Scouting Position Breakdown

Chart 3-08

 2016
Position Drafted Undrafted Total Draft % Undrafted %
Center 46 33 79 58.2% 41.8%
Defense 56 44 100 56.0% 44.0%
Left Wing 24 23 47 51.1% 48.9%
Right Wing 16 19 35 45.7% 54.3%
 

 

 

 Chart 3-09
 2017
Position Drafted Undrafted Total Draft % Undrafted %
Center 42 24 66 63.6% 36.4%
Defense 58 49 107 54.2% 45.8%
Left Wing 17 24 41 41.5% 58.5%
Right Wing 21 31 52 40.4% 59.6%

 

Combining Position and Size (2017)

Chart 3-10

> 5’8″ 5’8″ 5’9″ 5’10” 5’11” 6’0″ 6’1″ 6’2″ 6’3″ 6’4″ 6’5″+ Avg Size
Center 2 1 2 6 15 11 6 14 2 4 3 72.36 in
Defenseman 0 2 1 2 16 22 11 28 11 8 6 73.22 in
Right Wing 1 3 5 9 5 13 4 7 2 2 1 71.65 in
Left Wing 2 3 1 5 5 7 5 8 1 1 3 72.02 in
Total 5 9 9 22 41 53 26 57 16 15 13
CS % 1.9% 3.4% 3.4% 8.3% 15.4% 19.9% 9.8% 21.4% 6.0% 5.6% 4.9%

Combining both size and position shows that there is a slight correlation between size and position. Not only is the average height taller for defenders than forwards and that centers tend to be slightly taller then wings. The averages only tell one story, but the fact that there are only 5 defenders drafted or listed at 5’10” or shorter is significant considering there are 11 centers, 18 right wings and 11 left wings. On the opposite end there are 25 defenders listed or drafted at 6’3” or taller oppose to centers at 9, right wings at 5 and left wings at 5.

 

Conclusion

At Neutral Zone, we attempt to dig deeper into questions of the game; questions raised by players, parents, hockey professionals, draft analysts, scouts, coaches, etc. We have analyzed junior to college stats conversion rates to OHL Draft to NHL Draft carryover to freshman production based on what league they came from the year prior, etc.

This analysis was not only a look at the NHL Draft but the process and players behind it. We analyzed the market which is set by NHL Central Scouting and how accurate that is in predicting NHL Draft position. We attempted to discover some of the underlying factors that go into the draft and what makes the success rate beyond the first round so low?

The data showed that there are some built in bias by both NHL teams scouting departments as well as NHL Central Scouting; it shows a relatively low accuracy in predicting draft picks outside of the top 60 picks. Some of these biases include league bias, size bias and positional bias. We saw some evidence in each of those three factors that showed some leagues like the USHL are undervalued by Central Scouting, that players 5’10” and lower are undervalued by NHL teams and that certain positions produce more players in central scouting’s rankings and have varying levels of conversion rates of being drafted.

Overall, there is a strong correlation between NHL Central Scouting’s success in predicting NHL draft picks and the NHL Drafts success rate of producing career NHLers.  It’s a sharp downward curve from first round to second round and then levels from rounds 3-7. Therefore, there are takeaways for both players and hockey professionals from this data.

Players: 

How important is your Central Scouting Ranking? It depends on the ranking. A #1 rank is meaningful and sets a high market price on that player; however, a #100 rank has very little difference to #80 and #150. The probability of those three players to have an NHL career are all similar and are all pretty slim. Therefore, it is important for draft prospects who are NOT listed on Central Scouting to not get discouraged as nearly 10% of the draft will come from off that list and nearly 20% of the NHL is comprised of undrafted players!

The importance to a player should not be the ranking but the trend. In 2016 first round picks Matthew Tkachuk, Jakub Chychrun and Julien Gauthier saw their rankings fall in central scouting from midterm to final and that negative trend showed up in the draft.  Tkachuk fell from #1 midterm to #2 final to #6 in the draft. Chychrun fell from #2 in midterm to #4 in the final to #16 in the draft. Gauthier had the biggest fall starting at #4 in the midterm to #12 in the final to #21 in the draft. Conversely, players who trended up from midterm to final saw that their final ranking was more accurate with their draft position. For example, Dennis Cholowski was ranked #48 midterm in 2016 and he moved up to #23 by the final and was drafted 20th overall. Pierre-Luc Dubois was the #7 midterm rank and rose to #1 by the final rankings and was the first North American skater taken. Some of the biggest movers are players like Wade Allison who was ranked #192 in midterm, climbed to #62 by the final and was drafted #52 overall. Dylan Gambrell is another example of a player ranked #149 in midterm, flew up the list to #67 by final and was drafted #60 overall.

There is data on both sides of the argument but the point remains the same.

Analogy: If you were told that surfing in certain area in Florida had an 88% chance of being bit by a Shark would you really care that a blue board decreases your probability by 8% oppose to a red board? Probably not because the end odds are still largely against you. The same can be said about the NHL Draft; your chances outside of the first round are against you to make a career playing in the NHL, so while being ranked 61st sounds a lot better then being ranked 151st, the data would show neither of those players are likely to have an NHL career. Therefore, focus on the trends and consistently getting better each year. With the average rookie age in the NHL being beyond 22 years old; a lot can happen over the course of 4 years; the players trending upward consistently over their amateur careers are the players with the greatest chance of making it to the NHL.

The data clearly dispels the myths out there in amateur hockey where players are pressured to play in certain leagues in their draft year. There are hundreds of players every year throughout North America rushing their development to prepare for their “draft year” and the effort is largely inefficient. Frankly, a player undrafted has a better chance of succeeding as a free agent than a late round pick because they have the option to sign with a team that is need of their skill set. However, parents and players will look at how many players are being drafted out of the OHL or the USHL and leave their high school teams or midget teams to give themselves the best chance of being drafted. Leaving Minnesota High School for example to play junior hockey in their draft year to move up from a late round pick to a middle round pick is a fruitless effort. Unless you are a top round pick, the probability of a third-round pick to a seventh-round pick of playing at least 200 games are all under 10% so making draft year decisions based on moving up a round or two in the draft are unwise and inefficient. Ignore the hype, play the game and focus on trending upwards over the course of the next 4 years because the NHL cares a lot more about how good you are at 22 then they do at 18!

 

Scouts & Hockey Professionals:

What is troubling about the NHL Draft results is not the fact that over 85% of the players in a given draft will not have an NHL career; but that the trend isn’t improving over time. The results on a year over year basis are relatively similar. If anything, there are more undrafted players in the league today then there were 20 years ago. So, in order to improve scouts, have to check their biases at the door and re-assess the market valuation of these players both in their own scouting rooms and by NHL Central Scouting itself. A good example of the size bias in the data would be a player like Alex Debrincat. He’s a 5’7” winger so he has both a size disadvantage and a positional disadvantage. However, he was the second leading goal scorer in the highest NHL producing league with 14 more goals then teammate Dylan Strome who was drafted a year earlier #3 overall. Strome was a 6’3” center listed at the top of Central Scouting. In fairness to NHL Central Scouting Debrincat was ranked #20 but the NHL passed on him 38 times until Chicago scooped him up with the 39th pick. Today, Debrincat is a legit Calder Trophy contender for NHL Rookie of the Year as a 20 year old.

In regards to league bias we see it more in these data sets with NHL Central Scouting then with the NHL Draft. For example, in 2017 the top 5 highest rated OHL picks were Gabriel Vilardi (#4), Owen Tippet (#7), Nick Suzuki (#10), Jason Robertson (#14) and Isaac Ratcliff (#15). However, come draft day Vilardi slipped from 4 to 11, Tippet 7 to 10, Suzuki 10 to 13, Robertson 14 to 39 and Ratcliff 15 to 35. A similar drop can be seen among USHL players in the first round has Shane Bowers was ranked #16 and fell to 28th overall on draft day and Eeli Tolvanen was ranked #8 and fell to 30th overall.

The key areas that scouts could use to identify diamond in the rough prospects would be to look at the leagues getting high number of players from off the list such as NCAA, USHL, WHL, OHL and NAHL. A league like the NAHL has too few players drafted to see a considerable pattern, but in both years they had skaters drafted from off Central’s list and had 50% conversion rate or higher of listed to drafted players. The NCAA has high conversion rates and high number of players being drafted off the list.

Overall, Central’s list needs to be taken for what it is; an independent ranking snapshoting where players stand at 18 years old relative to their peers. The NHL teams have somewhat of a different lens in that they are looking multiple years out where potential trumps current performance. However, given their different vantage point, their success rates are relatively the same with a highly efficient and accurate ranking system in the first round, considerably less in the second round and then all over the map throughout the rest of the draft.

With 20% of the NHL being undrafted and with roughly 10% of the drafted players coming from outside of NHL Central Scouting it is safe to say the draft process has room to grow. We think the first step would be to improve the accuracy of NHL Central Scouting in the bottom 5 rounds and second to eliminate size, league and positional biases as much as possible. Last year’s draft in the debate between Casey Mittelstadt versus Cody Glass as that Glass was playing in the WHL against better competition while Mittelstadt was playing Minnesota High School against a much weaker field. However, that theory is only half true. You also have to factor in that Mittelstadt wasn’t playing beside other NHL Draft talent while Cody Glass had NHL draft picks up and down the roster in Portland (WHL).

In interviewing several prominent Amateur Scouting Directors throughout the NHL the feedback we learned each team has their own unique process so it would be unfair to pain the whole industry with one brush; however, most all the directors we spoke to admitted that they spend the most amount of time on the top 40-60 players in the upcoming draft and watching games in the top development leagues (CHL, UHSL, NCAA , etc). The reasons varied from budget constraints to putting the highest priority on the players who have the highest chance of helping their teams.

While each scout answered the “where do you spend most of your time/” question differently, it  showed there is a hyper-focus in the early round picks. It was also clear that many amateur scouts are put in a very difficult situation in contextual scouting without seeing the entire draft field. How can a New England scout have the context to rank a freshman in the NCAA against a second-year player in the OHL against a senior in Minnesota High School when they haven’t seen those players. The scouts claim they are not ranking players against others, they are simply evaluating the player based on his skill sets, assigning a grade and pushing that on to the scouting directors. However, grades and evaluations have to be contextual to be accurate regardless of the grading system. Therefore, if the scout watching Minnesota High School is giving the best skater in their region an “A” in skating ability where if that same player in the OHL would be seen as a “B” skater then that is an inefficient and inaccurate process.

What is the solution?

It would be inaccurate and unfair to act as though the draft results could be improved with one or two things because it’s a multi-variable process with many factors. However, there are two areas where both Central Scouting and NHL Scouting Staffs could explore to help improve their results.

  1. Seeing how NHL Central Scouting already does an accurate job identifying the top 60 North American skaters in the draft; there should be more attention and focus from the top down to mid-round and late round prospects.
  2. Organizationally scouts should try to cross-over as much as possible given budget restraints and travel. The current system has very few people at the top who are seeing everyone and the majority of their staff only seeing players within their league or region. This can lead to a lack of overall context throughout the staff and lead to inaccuracies and misguided selections.

If NHL Central Scouting or team’s internal scouting departments were a business the first thing they would do would be to find holes in their business plan and improve them. The holes in their business are in rounds 3-7.

Analogy: The analogy here might not be sharks and surf boards but real estate. In this example the scouting department will be a real-estate mogul who owns 7 properties. The first property is the golden goose and accounts for the majority of the rental income for that year. The second property is steady and earns a solid income, but nothing to boast about. Properties 3-7 were in rough shape and supplied very limited income. So the owners typically focus on the best two properties because they yield the highest return and let the properties 3-7 slip through the cracks because they supply only a small percentage of the overall rental revenue. This is an exaggerated example of the logic in the current draft landscape within the NHL. However, if you consider that Central Scouting is a Free Property Manager and does a good job managing high end properties but not as well with the lower end properties. It would then make more sense for the owner to not ignore the top two properties but allow the new property manager to do their job so it would free up more time to build up the other 5 properties to increase their respective rental values.

In the NHL world that would mean letting NHL Central Scouting weed out the top 60 players which it has shown a track record of doing accurately. The best players will always be the highest value for scouting directors, but it would make sense to make the other players a higher priority as there isn’t much variation between the top round players and there are major variations throughout the middle and end of the draft.

 

Chart 2-01

2016 Central Scouting Data

Draft CS Final CS Mid Mid-Final Final – Draft Mid – Draft Player Pos Last Amateur Club League
3 1 7 6 -2 4 Dubois, Pierre-Luc LW Cape Breton QMJHL
5 5 5 0 0 0 Juolevi, Olli D London OHL
6 2 1 -1 -4 -5 Tkachuk, Matthew LW London OHL
7 9 8 -1 2 1 Keller, Clayton C USNTDP NTDP
8 3 3 0 -5 -5 Nylander, Alexander LW Mississauga OHL
9 8 10 2 -1 1 Sergachev, Mikhail D Windsor OHL
10 16 15 -1 6 5 Jost, Tyson C Penticton BCHL
11 7 14 7 -4 3 Brown, Logan C Windsor OHL
12 13 6 -7 1 -6 McLeod, Michael C Mississauga OHL
13 15 13 -2 2 0 Bean, Jake D Calgary WHL
14 6 9 3 -8 -5 McAvoy, Charles D Boston University NCAA
15 11 16 5 -4 1 Kunin, Luke C U Wisconsin NCAA
16 4 2 -2 -12 -14 Chychrun, Jakob D Sarnia OHL
17 18 18 0 1 1 Fabbro, Dante D Penticton BCHL
18 19 23 4 1 5 Stanley, Logan D Windsor OHL
19 10 12 2 -9 -7 Bellows, Kieffer LW USNTDP NTDP
20 23 48 25 3 28 Cholowski, Dennis D Chilliwack BCHL
21 12 4 -8 -9 -17 Gauthier, Julien RW Val-D’or QMJHL
24 14 11 -3 -10 -13 Jones, Max LW London OHL
25 17 17 0 -8 -8 Tufte, Riley LW Blaine USHS
26 20 24 4 -6 -2 Thompson, Tage C U Connecticut NCAA
27 22 27 5 -5 0 Howden, Brett C Moose Jaw WHL
28 26 38 12 -2 10 Johansen, Lucas D Kelowna WHL
29 47 39 -8 18 10 Frederic, Trent C USNTDP NTDP
30 30 29 -1 0 -1 Steel, Sam C Regina WHL
32 24 21 -3 -8 -11 Benson, Tyler LW Vancouver WHL
34 57 50 -7 23 16 Peeke, Andrew D Green Bay USHL
35 34 45 11 -1 10 Kyrou, Jordan C Sarnia OHL
36 28 31 3 -8 -5 Laberge, Pascal C Victoriaville QMJHL
37 31 26 -5 -6 -11 Hajek, Libor D Saskatoon WHL
38 42 57 15 4 19 Mascherin, Adam LW Kitchener OHL
39 21 20 -1 -18 -19 Debrincat, Alexander RW Erie OHL
40 46 59 13 6 19 Morrison, Cameron LW Youngstown USHL
41 35 19 -16 -6 -22 Bastian, Nathan RW Mississauga OHL
44 25 32 7 -19 -12 Katchouk, Boris LW Sault Marie OHL
45 53 30 -23 8 -15 Krys, Chad D USNTDP NTDP
46 54 63 9 8 17 Smith, Givani RW Guelph OHL
47 38 40 2 -9 -7 Girard, Samuel D Shawinigan QMJHL
49 49 51 2 0 2 Lindgren, Ryan D USNTDP NTDP
51 27 22 -5 -24 -29 Clague, Kale D Brandon WHL
52 62 192 130 10 140 Allison, Wade RW Tri-City USHL
56 41 35 -6 -15 -21 Dube, Dillon C Kelowna WHL
58 36 34 -2 -22 -24 Raddysh, Taylor RW Erie OHL
60 67 149 82 7 89 Gambrell, Dylan C U Denver NCAA
63 52 46 -6 -11 -17 Niemelainen, Markus D Saginaw OHL
64 108 69 -39 44 5 Lockwood, William RW USNTDP NTDP
65 29 56 27 -36 -9 Abramov, Vitaly RW Gatineau QMJHL
66 50 67 17 -16 1 Fox, Adam D USNTDP NTDP
67 51 64 13 -16 -3 Filipe, Matt LW Cedar Rapids USHL
68 39 117 78 -29 49 Dineen, Cam D North Bay OHL
69 75 83 8 6 14 Pu, Cliff RW London OHL
70 43 42 -1 -27 -28 Bitten, William C Flint OHL
71 60 62 2 -11 -9 Anderson, Josh D Prince George WHL
73 56 52 -4 -17 -21 Anderson, Joseph RW USNTDP NTDP
74 68 122 54 -6 48 Elynuik, Hudson C Spokane WHL
76 93 141 48 17 65 Pitlick, Rem C Muskegon USHL
77 100 NR 23 Hall, Connor D Kitchener OHL
78 32 36 4 -46 -42 Allard, Frederic D Chicoutimi QMJHL
79 40 37 -3 -39 -42 Green, Luke D Saint John QMJHL
80 98 132 34 18 52 Gignac, Brandon C Shawinigan QMJHL
81 59 43 -16 -22 -38 Day, Sean D Mississauga OHL
82 64 95 31 -18 13 Twarynski, Carsen LW Calgary WHL
84 86 93 7 2 9 Cairns, Matthew D Georgetown OJHL
85 NR NR Josh Mahura D Red Deer WHL
86 156 108 -48 70 22 Fitzgerald, Casey D Boston College NCAA
87 109 187 78 22 100 Pilon, Garrett C Kamloops WHL
92 72 107 35 -20 15 Brooks, Adam C Regina WHL
93 33 33 0 -60 -60 Kopacka, Jack LW Sault Marie OHL
94 95 137 42 1 43 Ang, Jonathan C Peterborough OHL
99 83 73 -10 -16 -26 Murray, Brett LW Carleton Place CCHL
100 74 58 -16 -26 -42 Mete, Victor D London OHL
101 71 55 -16 -30 -46 Middleton, Keaton D Saginaw OHL
103 185 203 18 82 100 Burgess, Todd RW Fairbanks NAHL
104 77 66 -11 -27 -38 Zimmer, Max LW Chicago USHL
106 92 NR -14 Duhaime, Brandon RW Tri-City USHL
109 87 81 -6 -22 -28 Bunnaman, Connor C Kitchener OHL
111 45 75 30 -66 -36 Gregor, Noah C Moose Jaw WHL
113 171 136 -35 58 23 Noel, Nathan C Saint John QMJHL
114 66 88 22 -48 -26 Stillman, Riley D Oshawa OHL
115 192 NR 77 Dostie, Alex C Gatineau QMJHL
116 NR NR Rhett  Gardner C North Dakota NCAA
118 89 NR -29 Colton, Ross C Cedar Rapids USHL
119 79 76 -3 -40 -43 Kaspick, Tanner C Brandon WHL
121 NR NR Ryan Jones D Lincoln Stars USHL
122 203 NR 81 Bobylev, Vladimir RW Victoria WHL
124 159 NR 35 Staum, Casey D Hill-Murray USHS
125 209 NR 84 Stevens, Nolan C Northeastern NCAA
126 61 49 -12 -65 -77 Mattson, Mitchell C Grand Rapids USHS
127 65 84 19 -62 -43 Stallard, Jordan C Calgary WHL
130 90 61 -29 -40 -69 Budik, Vojtech D Prince Albert WHL
133 44 41 -3 -89 -92 Lajoie, Maxime D Swift Current WHL
136 NR NR Cameron Clarke D Lone Star NAHL
137 96 90 -6 -41 -47 Sambrook, Jordan D Erie OHL
138 143 146 3 5 8 Harper, Patrick C Avon Farms USHS
140 85 65 -20 -55 -75 Candella, Cole D Hamilton OHL
141 37 28 -9 -104 -113 Gettinger, Timothy LW Sault Marie OHL
142 NR NR Mikey Eyssimont C St. Cloud State NCAA
144 NR NR Conner Bleackley C Red Deer WHL
145 73 124 51 -72 -21 Malenstyn, Beck LW Calgary WHL
146 69 148 79 -77 2 Caamano, Nicholas RW Flint OHL
148 130 87 -43 -18 -61 Paquette, Christopher C Niagara OHL
149 110 92 -18 -39 -57 McPhee, Graham LW USNTDP NTDP
150 NR 161 -150 11 Wiederer, Manuel C Moncton QMJHL
152 NR NR Jack Walker LW Victoria Royals WHL
154 82 113 31 -72 -41 Stukel, Jakob LW Calgary WHL
158 NR NR Patrick Kudla D Oakville Blades OJHL
159 104 114 10 -55 -45 Hagel, Brandon LW Red Deer WHL
160 197 NR 37 Pezzetta, Michael C Sudbury OHL
161 187 NR 26 Clurman, Nathan D Culver Academy USHS
164 139 80 -59 -25 -84 Carroll, Noah D Guelph OHL
166 81 NR -85 Phillips, Matthew C Victoria WHL
169 99 101 2 -70 -68 Laczynski, Tanner C Lincoln USHL
170 NR NR Collin Adams LW Muskegon USHL
171 NR NR Gabriel Fontaine C Rouyn-Noranda QMJHL
172 84 126 42 -88 -46 Salinitri, Anthony C Sarnia OHL
173 NR NR Blake Hillman D Denver NCAA
177 126 183 57 -51 6 Priskie, Chase D Quinnipiac NCAA
179 136 103 -33 -43 -76 Mattinen, Nicolas D London OHL
180 NR NR Mark Shoemaker D North Bay OHL
181 118 105 -13 -63 -76 Masonius, Joseph D U Connecticut NCAA
183 NR NR Vincent Desharnais D Providence NCAA
184 NR 121 -63 Abols, Rodrigo C Portland WHL
185 206 NR 21 Thurkauf, Calvin C Kelowna WHL
186 91 79 -12 -95 -107 Falkovsky, Stepan D Ottawa OHL
188 131 125 -6 -57 -63 Stewart, Dean D Portage MJHL
189 135 153 18 -54 -36 Osmanski, Austin D Mississauga OHL
191 94 60 -34 -97 -131 Barron, Travis LW Ottawa OHL
192 NR NR Jeremy Davies D Bloomington USHL
193 112 100 -12 -81 -93 Pastujov, Nick LW USNTDP NTDP
194 NR NR Brett McKenzie C North Bay OHL
195 NR NR Ben Finkelstein D Kimball Union USHS
196 129 91 -38 -67 -105 Sokolov, Dmitry RW Sudbury OHL
198 NR NR Adam Smith D Bowling Green NCAA
200 144 201 57 -56 1 Quenneville, David D Medicine Hat WHL
201 88 82 -6 -113 -119 Ronning, Ty RW Vancouver WHL
202 NR NR Jacob Friend D Owen Sound OHL
203 114 116 2 -89 -87 Ryczek, Jake D Waterloo USHL
204 NR NR Brayden Chizen D Kelowna WHL
205 150 NR -55 Soy, Tyler C Victoria WHL
206 78 47 -31 -128 -159 Somppi, Otto C Halifax QMJHL
207 NR NR Dmitriy Zaitsev D WBS Knights NAHL
208 NR NR Ryan Lohin C Waterloo USHL
48 25 -23 Stransky, Simon LW Prince Albert WHL
55 44 -11 Kuznetsov, Vladimir RW Acadie-Bathurst QMJHL
58 53 -5 Gleason, Benjamin D Hamilton OHL
70 54 -16 Luce, Griffin D USNTDP NTDP
63 68 5 Burke, Brayden LW Lethbridge WHL
102 70 -32 Vala, Ondrej D Kamloops WHL
113 71 -42 Bajkov, Patrick LW Everett WHL
107 72 -35 Neveu, Jacob D Rouyn-Noranda QMJHL
76 74 -2 Sylvestre, Gabriel D Shawinigan QMJHL
106 77 -29 Babenko, Egor RW Lethbridge WHL
142 78 -64 Gerlach, Maxwell C Medicine Hat WHL
128 85 -43 Graham, Michael C Eden Prairie USHS
119 86 -33 Suthers, Keenan LW USNTDP NTDP
132 89 -43 Eliot, Mitchell D Muskegon USHL
97 94 -3 O’Brien, Brogan LW Prince George WHL
182 96 -86 Crawley, Brandon D London OHL
117 97 -20 Johnson, Kenneth D Shattuck St. Mary USHS
80 98 18 De Wit, Jeffrey C Red Deer WHL
123 99 -24 Rifai, Marshall D Hotchkiss School USHS
105 102 -3 Miromanov, Daniil LW Acadie-Bathurst QMJHL
NR 104 104 Chernyuk, Konstantin D Kingston OHL
172 106 -66 Salituro, Dante C Ottawa OHL
207 107 -100 Buinitsky, Dmitri LW Madison USHL
161 109 -52 Perunovich, Scott D Hibbing/Chisholm USHS
190 110 -80 Campoli, Michael D USNTDP NTDP
103 111 8 Maksimovich, Kyle LW Erie OHL
193 112 -81 Balmas, Mitchell C Charlottetown QMJHL
120 115 -5 Sevigny, Mathieu LW Drummondville QMJHL
141 118 -23 McInnis, Luke D Youngstown USHL
134 119 -15 Lyszczarczyk, Alan LW Sudbury OHL
NR 120 Galipeau, Olivier D Val-D’or QMJHL
111 123 12 Commisso, Domenic C Oshawa OHL
160 127 -33 Printz, Gregory RW Selects Academy USHS
121 128 7 Greenway, James D USNTDP NTDP
152 129 -23 Dodero, Christopher LW Sioux City USHL
149 130 -19 Knierim, William RW Dubuque USHL
151 131 -20 Olischefski, Kohen RW Chilliwack BCHL
124 133 9 Armstrong, Jamie LW Avon Farms USHS
208 134 -74 Dusek, Filip D Stanstead College CAN HS
146 135 -11 Sanchez, James LW USNTDP NTDP
170 138 -32 Grant, Owen D Carleton Place CCHL
167 139 -28 Felhaber, Tye C Saginaw OHL
177 140 -37 Hebig, Cameron C Saskatoon WHL
189 142 -47 Felixson, Oliver D Saint John QMJHL
NR 143 143 Rymsha, Drake C Ottawa OHL
116 144 28 Westlund, Gustaf C The Gunnery USHS
145 145 0 Fortier, Maxime RW Halifax QMJHL
115 147 32 Pasichnuk, Brinson D Bonnyville AJHL
168 150 -18 Coleman, Luke LW Prince Albert WHL
164 152 -12 Soustal, Tomas C Kelowna WHL
NR 154 154 Jeffers, Jack LW Orangeville OJHL
NR 155 155 Berg, Adam LW Regina WHL
133 156 23 Bilodeau, Gabriel D Gatineau QMJHL
147 157 10 Betts, Kyle C Powell River BCHL
153 158 5 Bower, William C Moncton QMJHL
NR 159 159 Hawerchuk, Benjamin LW Barrie OHL
148 160 12 Saigeon, Brandon C Hamilton OHL
154 162 8 Karashik, Adam D Avon Farms USHS
166 163 -3 Walker, Zachary RW USNTDP NTDP
125 164 39 Verbeek, Hayden C Sault Marie OHL
NR 165 Huber, Mario C Victoriaville QMJHL
NR 166 Kirwan, Luke LW Flint OHL
173 167 -6 Gardiner, Reid RW Prince Albert WHL
NR 168 Jette, Tyler D Farmington USHS
174 169 -5 Ottenbreit, Turner D Seattle WHL
127 170 43 Spaxman, Ethan D Merrimack NCAA
137 171 34 Murray, Justin D Barrie OHL
191 172 -19 Hampton, Robert C Chicago USHL
101 173 72 Kachyna, Ondrej D Hamilton OHL
NR 174 Picard, Miguel C Blainville QMJHL
195 175 -20 Rossini, Samuel D Waterloo USHL
NR 176 Westgard, Ty C Victoria WHL
155 177 22 Coghlan, Dylan D Tri-City WHL
194 178 -16 Hakkarainen, Mikael C Brookings NAHL
122 179 57 O’Neil, Kevin C Albany USHS
NR 180 Kutkevicius, Luke C Hamilton OHL
188 181 -7 De Jong, Brendan D Portland WHL
NR 182 Mieritz, Christian D Guelph OHL
196 184 -12 Gosiewski, Matt C Cedar Rapids USHL
NR 185 Dillon, Matt D Cushing Academy USHS
178 186 8 Grannary, Colin C Merritt BCHL
NR 188 Maltsev, Artem D Chicoutimi QMJHL
NR 189 Jerry, William C St. Thomas USHS
NR 190 Fryer, Callum D Umass NCAA
NR 191 Werbik, Nicolas C Rimouski QMJHL
138 193 55 Dickinson, Josh C Georgetown OJHL
194 Kislinger, Maximilian LW North Bay OHL
195 Malmquist, Dylan C Notre Dame NCAA
210 196 -14 Klima, Kevin C Moncton QMJHL
197 Davidson, Dawson D Kamloops WHL
198 Murphy, Liam C Moncton QMJHL
199 Poirier, Zachary C North Bay OHL
200 De Mey, Vincent RW Shattuck St. Mary USHS
163 202 39 Mcewan, James C Guelph OHL
198 204 6 Maher, Jordan RW/C Acadie-Bathurst QMJHL
NR 205 Long, Carter D Selects Academy USHS
NR 206 Volcan, Nolan LW Seattle WHL
179 207 28 Brazeau, Justin RW North Bay OHL
175 208 33 Matthews, Brian D Belmont Hill USHS
NR 209 D’astous, Charles-Edouard D Rimouski QMJHL
NR 210 Aamodt, Wyatt D Hermantown USHS
140 NR Sissons, Colby D Swift Current WHL
157 NR Fear, Erich D Springfield NAHL
158 NR Laberge, Samuel LW Rimouski QMJHL
162 NR Duehr, Walker RW Tri-City USHL
165 NR Bavaro, Vito RW Brooks School USHS
169 NR MacNab, Jackson RW Culver Academy USHS
176 NR Topping, Jordan LW Tri-City WHL
180 NR Jordan, Zachary RW Des Moines USHL
181 NR Truchon Viel, Jeffrey LW Acadie-Bathurst QMJHL
183 NR Luff, Matt RW Hamilton OHL
184 NR Hirano, Yushiroh RW Youngstown USHL
186 NR Nother, Tyler D Windsor OHL
199 NR Steenbergen, Tyler C Swift Current WHL
200 NR Russell, Rourke D Wichita Falls NAHL
201 NR Amonte, Ty RW Thayer Academy USHS
202 NR Allen, Sean D Oshawa OHL
204 NR Bobyk, Colton D Red Deer WHL
205 NR Muzito Bagenda, Daniel RW Mississauga OHL

 

 

Chart 2-02

2017 Central Scouting Data

Draft CS Final CS Midterm Mid-Final Final-Draft Mid-Draft Name Pos Team League
1 2 2 0 1 1 HISCHIER, NICO C Halifax QMJHL
2 1 1 0 -1 -1 PATRICK, NOLAN C Brandon WHL
4 9 10 1 5 6 MAKAR, CALE D BROOKS AJHL
6 6 8 2 0 2 GLASS, CODY C PORTLAND WHL
8 3 5 2 -5 -3 MITTELSTADT, CASEY C Eden Prairie USHS
9 5 6 1 -4 -3 RASMUSSEN, MICHAEL C TRI-CITY WHL
10 7 4 -3 -3 -6 TIPPETT, OWEN RW MISSISSAUGA OHL
11 4 3 -1 -7 -8 VILARDI, GABRIEL C KINGSTON OHL
13 10 16 6 -3 3 SUZUKI, NICK C OWEN SOUND OHL
14 12 12 0 -2 -2 FOOTE, CALLAN D KELOWNA WHL
16 11 9 -2 -5 -7 VALIMAKI, JUUSO D TRI-CITY WHL
19 34 46 12 15 27 NORRIS, JOSHUA C USNTDP NTDP
20 22 28 6 2 8 THOMAS, ROBERT C HAMILTON OHL
22 17 17 0 -5 -5 YAMAMOTO, KAILER RW SPOKANE WHL
23 27 42 15 4 19 JOSEPH, PIERRE-OLIVIER D CHARLOTTETOWN QMJHL
25 13 14 1 -12 -11 POEHLING, RYAN C ST. CLOUD STATE NCAA
27 31 29 -2 4 2 FROST, MORGAN C SAULT STE. MARIE OHL
28 16 13 -3 -12 -15 BOWERS, SHANE C Waterloo USHL
29 19 22 3 -10 -7 JOKIHARJU, HENRI D PORTLAND WHL
30 8 7 -1 -22 -23 TOLVANEN, EELI RW Sioux City USHL
32 18 26 8 -14 -6 TIMMINS, CONOR D SAULT STE. MARIE OHL
33 23 21 -2 -10 -12 LIND, KOLE RW KELOWNA WHL
34 20 11 -9 -14 -23 HAGUE, NICOLAS D MISSISSAUGA OHL
35 15 20 5 -20 -15 RATCLIFFE, ISAAC LW GUELPH OHL
39 14 34 20 -25 -5 ROBERTSON, JASON LW KINGSTON OHL
40 26 36 10 -14 -4 HEPONIEMI, ALEKSI C SWIFT CURRENT WHL
41 21 40 19 -20 -1 ANDERSON-DOLAN, JARET C SPOKANE WHL
43 67 43 -24 24 0 SAMBERG, DYLAN D MINN-DULUTH NCAA
47 29 24 -5 -18 -23 FORMENTON, ALEX LW LONDON OHL
49 78 107 29 29 58 FERRARO, MARIO D Muskegon USHL
50 30 15 -15 -20 -35 COMTOIS, MAXIME LW VICTORIAVILLE QMJHL
51 143 164 21 92 113 LAUZON, ZACHARY D ROUYN-NORANDA QMJHL
52 61 67 6 9 15 MARTIN, LUKE D USNTDP NTDP
53 120 80 -40 67 27 STUDNICKA, JACK C OSHAWA OHL
55 39 60 21 -16 5 GADJOVICH, JONAH LW OWEN SOUND OHL
56 49 75 26 -7 19 BROOK, JOSH D MOOSE JAW WHL
57 35 45 10 -22 -12 MITCHELL, IAN D SPRUCE GROVE AJHL
59 32 57 25 -27 -2 RASANEN, EEMELI D KINGSTON OHL
60 53 54 1 -7 -6 MORAND, ANTOINE C ACADIE-BATHURST QMJHL
61 24 30 6 -37 -31 MISMASH, GRANT LW USNTDP NTDP
62 42 31 -11 -20 -31 LESCHYSHYN, JAKE C REGINA WHL
66 54 76 22 -12 10 GILDON, MAXWELL D USNTDP NTDP
67 45 50 5 -22 -17 GEEKIE, MORGAN C TRI-CITY WHL
68 90 153 63 22 85 WALFORD, SCOTT D VICTORIA WHL
69 44 35 -9 -25 -34 ENTWISTLE, MACKENZIE RW HAMILTON OHL
71 92 89 -3 21 18 KOTKANSALO, KASPER D SIOUX FALLS USHL
73 38 23 -15 -35 -50 MATTHEOS, STELIO RW BRANDON WHL
74 155 NR 81 KOVACEVIC, JOHNATHAN D MERRIMACK NCAA
75 47 32 -15 -28 -43 SCHNARR, NATE C GUELPH OHL
77 63 48 -15 -14 -29 MIRAGEAS, BENJAMIN D CHICAGO USHL
79 52 70 18 -27 -9 ZABLOCKI, LANE RW VICTORIA WHL
81 60 65 5 -21 -16 WALSH, REILLY D PROCTOR USHS
82 89 68 -21 7 -14 CROTTY, CAMERON D BROCKVILLE CCHL
83 64 71 7 -19 -12 GALLANT, ZACH C PETERBOROUGH OHL
84 69 122 53 -15 38 SAMORUKOV, DMITRI D GUELPH OHL
85 36 37 1 -49 -48 LODNIA, IVAN RW ERIE OHL
87 62 74 12 -25 -13 FLEURY, CALE D REGINA WHL
90 65 55 -10 -25 -35 BARRATT, EVAN C USNTDP NTDP
91 NR NR Jack Badini C CHICAGO STEEL USHL
92 46 52 6 -46 -40 FARRANCE, DAVID D USNTDP NTDP
93 99 72 -27 6 -21 PHILLIPS, CLAYTON D FARGO FORCE USHL
94 25 25 0 -69 -69 HENRY, NICK RW REGINA WHL
95 57 78 21 -38 -17 RATHBONE, JACK D DEXTER SCHOOL USHS
97 55 63 8 -42 -34 SHAW, MASON C MEDICINE HAT WHL
98 28 18 -10 -70 -80 POPUGAEV, NIKITA LW Prince George WHL
99 -99 -99 Jacob Bryson D PROVIDENCE NCAA
101 141 NR 40 HAWEL, LIAM C GUELPH OHL
102 40 47 7 -62 -55 REEDY, SCOTT C USNTDP NTDP
103 51 56 5 -52 -47 ANDERSON, MICHAEL D Waterloo USHL
106 33 19 -14 -73 -87 STROME, MATTHEW LW HAMILTON OHL
107 72 73 1 -35 -34 SUSHKO, MAKSIM RW OWEN SOUND OHL
108 75 41 -34 -33 -67 HOEFENMAYER, NOEL D OTTAWA OHL
109 37 27 -10 -72 -82 RUZICKA, ADAM C SARNIA OHL
116 85 101 16 -31 -15 MISLEY, BRYCE C OAKVILLE OJHL
118 50 62 12 -68 -56 PHILLIPS, MARKUS D OWEN SOUND OHL
121 117 NR -4 BATHERSON, DRAKE C BLAINVILLE-BOISBRIAND QMJHL
122 56 58 2 -66 -64 OLSON, KYLE RW TRI-CITY WHL
123 199 NR 76 CRAWLEY, BRANDON D London Knights OHL
126 109 117 8 -17 -9 KAROW, MICHAEL D YOUNGSTOWN USHL
128 70 138 68 -58 10 STEENBERGEN, TYLER C SWIFT CURRENT WHL
130 136 NR 6 NOEL, DAVID D VAL-D’OR QMJHL
131 197 206 9 66 75 FRASER, COLE D PETERBOROUGH OHL
133 68 64 -4 -65 -69 INAMOTO, TYLER D USNTDP NTDP
134 NR NR HULTS, COLE D MADISON USHL
136 200 200 0 64 64 GAWANKE, LEON D CAPE BRETON QMJHL
137 121 145 24 -16 8 CATES, NOAH LW STILLWATER USHS
138 118 NR -20 RYMSHA, DRAKE C SARNIA OHL
140 NR NR FISCHER, ZACK RW MEDICINE HAT WHL
141 104 188 84 -37 47 GORDEEV, FEDOR D FLINT OHL
142 108 82 -26 -34 -60 DUGAN, JONATHAN LW NORTHWOOD USHS
143 101 86 -15 -42 -57 STUDENIC, MARIAN RW HAMILTON OHL
144 NR NR FOO, PARKER LW BROOKS BANDITS AJHL
146 66 185 119 -80 39 MAKSIMOV, KIRILL RW NIAGARA OHL
147 144 143 -1 -3 -4 GOLDEN, JACOB D LONDON OHL
148 128 129 1 -20 -19 HOWARTH, KALE LW Trail Smoke BCHL
149 41 33 -8 -108 -116 TYSZKA, JARRET D SEATTLE WHL
156 167 131 -36 11 -25 SMIRNOV, DENIS RW PENN STATE NCAA
158 73 111 38 -85 -47 CAMPOLI, NICK C NORTH YORK OJHL
159 NR NR MCGREW, JACOB RW SPOKANE WHL
162 NR NR Jack Adams C Fargo Force USHL
163 142 142 0 -21 -21 DAVIS, BRETT RW KOOTENAY WHL
164 NR NR Reilly Webb D Hamilton OHL
165 177 NR 12 DURANDEAU, ARNAUD LW HALIFAX QMJHL
166 87 109 22 -79 -57 DE JONG, BRENDAN D PORTLAND WHL
169 NR 187 187 18 PERBIX, NICKLAUS D ELK RIVER HS USHS
171 102 125 23 -69 -46 JOLY, D’ARTAGNAN RW BAIE-COMEAU QMJHL
172 107 79 -28 -65 -93 MCGREGOR, RYAN C SARNIA OHL
173 146 203 57 -27 30 PARE, CEDRIC C SAINT JOHN QMJHL
174 98 88 -10 -76 -86 BARRON, MORGAN C ST. ANDREWS CA HS
175 154 NR -21 BOURQUE, TRENTON D OWEN SOUND OHL
176 83 44 -39 -93 -132 KOLTYGIN, PAVEL C DRUMMONDVILLE QMJHL
177 157 202 45 -20 25 BRIND’AMOUR, SKYLER C SELECTS ACADEMY USHS
179 151 116 -35 -28 -63 MEYER, CARSON RW MIAMI NCAA
180 NR NR Cole Guttman C DUBUQUE USHL
181 NR NR Petrus Palmu RW OWEN SOUND OHL
182 159 158 -1 -23 -24 MAASS, BENTON D ELK RIVER USHS
185 43 38 -5 -142 -147 CHMELEVSKI, ALEXANDER C OTTAWA OHL
187 119 114 -5 -68 -73 LEIVERMANN, NICK D EDEN PRAIRIE USHS
188 137 NR -51 BRASSARD, MATT D OSHAWA OHL
189 170 99 -71 -19 -90 JONES, BEN C NIAGARA OHL
191 126 95 -31 -65 -96 CHAINEY, JOCKTAN D HALIFAX QMJHL
192 139 NR -53 WEISSBACH, LINUS LW TRI CITY USHL
193 NR NR GILMOUR, BRADY C SAGINAW OHL
196 NR NR KALYNUK, WYATT D BLOOMINGTON USHL
198 176 -22 MCKENZIE, SKYLER LW PORTLAND WHL
200 NR NR WALKER, SAMUEL C Edina HS USHS
201 214 192 -22 13 -9 COCKERILL, LOGAN LW USNTDP NTDP
203 208 NR 5 O’CONNELL, RYAN D ST. ANDREWS CA HS
204 173 NR -31 BUKAC, DANIEL D BRANDON WHL
208 175 179 4 -33 -29 KEMP, PHILIP D USNTDP NTDP
209 138 182 44 -71 -27 SWANEY, NICK RW WATERLOO USHL
210 88 108 20 -122 -102 STUCKER, ROBBIE D ST. THOMAS USHS
211 NR NR EVINGSON, CROIX D SHREVPORT NAHL
212 71 51 -20 -141 -161 CHEKHOVICH, IVAN LW BAIE-COMEAU QMJHL
214 NR NR HELLICKSON, MATTHEW D SIOUX CITY USHL
215 NR NR ESS, JOSHUA D LAKEVILLE SOUTH USHS
216 105 90 -15 -111 -126 PAQUETTE, JACOB D KINGSTON OHL
217 NR NR Will Reilly D RPI NCAA
93 39 -54 93 39 MEIRELES, GREG C KITCHENER OHL
51 43 -8 51 43 SALDA, RADIM D SAINT JOHN QMJHL
58 49 -9 58 49 MINULIN, ARTYOM D SWIFT CURRENT WHL
48 53 5 48 53 LYLE, BRADY D OWEN SOUND OHL
96 59 -37 96 59 THILANDER, ADAM D NORTH BAY OHL
81 61 -20 81 61 MILLER, THOMAS D USNTDP NTDP
76 66 -10 76 66 CRETE-BELZILE, ANTOINE D Blainville QMJHL
94 69 -25 94 69 BINNER, ALEXIS D GREEN BAY USHL
84 77 -7 84 77 TEASDALE, JOEL LW BLAINVILLE QMJHL
NR 81 MILLER, MATT C SIOUX CITY USHL
103 83 -20 103 83 PRATT, AUSTIN RW REGINA WHL
77 84 7 77 84 COGHLAN, DYLAN D TRI-CITY WHL
114 85 -29 114 85 ALEXEYEV, YAROSLAV LW SHERBROOKE QMJHL
86 87 1 86 87 PECKFORD, RYAN LW MOOSE JAW WHL
82 91 9 82 91 BELLERIVE, JORDAN C LETHBRIDGE WHL
115 92 -23 115 92 KEATING, AUSTEN LW OTTAWA OHL
110 93 -17 110 93 MOILANEN, SAMI RW SEATTLE WHL
125 94 -31 125 94 ST. IVANY, JOHN D SIOUX FALLS USHL
150 96 -54 150 96 COSKEY, COLE RW SAGINAW OHL
171 97 -74 171 97 BUCEK, SAMUEL LW SHAWNIGAN QMJHL
149 98 -51 149 98 SMART, JONATHAN D KOOTENAY WHL
123 100 -23 123 100 SEITZ, DYLAN C MONCTON QMJHL
100 102 2 100 102 NYMAN, LINUS RW KINGSTON OHL
185 103 -82 185 103 BOUDRIAS, SHAWN RW GATINEAU QMJHL
NR 104 WASHE, PAUL C FARGO FORCE USHL
59 105 46 59 105 LEWIS, TY LW BRANDON WHL
79 106 27 79 106 KNOEPKE, NATHAN D USNTDP NTDP
135 110 -25 135 110 PLOUFFE, DYLAN D VANCOUVER WHL
204 112 -92 204 112 BOWEN, RYAN RW LETHBRIDGE WHL
162 113 -49 162 113 SIROTA, JAKUB D CEDAR RAPIDS USHL
122 115 -7 122 115 DOW, BOBBY RW PETERBOROUGH OHL
97 118 21 97 118 JOHNSON, ISAAC LW TRI-CITY WHL
140 119 -21 140 119 RUBINCHIK, MARK D SASKATOON WHL
147 120 -27 147 120 GORDA, BRAYDEN D EDMONTON WHL
165 121 -44 165 121 TORTORA, JACOB LW USNTDP NTDP
112 123 11 112 123 BOOMHOWER, SHAW LW OTTAWA OHL
156 124 -32 156 124 AHCAN, JACK D ST. CLOUD STATE NCAA
193 126 -67 193 126 FLOWER, WALTER D HALIFAX QMJHL
106 127 21 106 127 KHODORENKO, PATRICK C MICHIGAN STATE NCAA
111 128 17 111 128 ANDERSON, MATT D HOLY FAMILY USHS
133 130 -3 133 130 LEASON, BRETT C PRINCE ALBERT WHL
179 132 -47 179 132 PIETRONIRO, MATTEO D BAIE COMEAU QMJHL
182 133 -49 182 133 KASTELIC, MARK C CALGARY WHL
210 134 -76 210 134 WED, MATTHEW C SEATTLE WHL
213 135 -78 213 135 DEAKIN-POOT, NICHOLAS C SAINT JOHN QMJHL
181 136 -45 181 136 FORTIER, MAXIME RW HALIFAX QMJHL
198 137 -61 198 137 VESTERINEN, SAKU D CHARLOTTETOWN QMJHL
124 139 15 124 139 DURZI, SEAN D OWEN SOUND OHL
168 140 -28 168 140 HALBGEWACHS, JAYDEN C MOOSE JAW WHL
132 141 9 132 141 MCINDOE, ETHAN LW SPOKANE WHL
127 144 17 127 144 STINIL, MICHAL LW SO. SHORE KINGS NCDC
180 146 -34 180 146 SLAGGERT, GRAHAM C USNTDP NTDP
215 147 -68 215 147 MACHALA, ONDREJ LW NIAGARA OHL
91 148 57 91 148 HANCOCK, KEVIN LW OWEN SOUND OHL
NR 149 GREEN, CORSON D SIOUX FALLS USHL
160 150 -10 160 150 THOMPSON, TYCE RW SALISBURY USHS
NR 151 KRIEF, ALEXANDER D SHERBROOKE QMJHL
202 152 -50 202 152 HAYES, ZACKARY D PRINCE ALBERT WHL
134 154 20 134 154 WARM, WILL D EDMONTON WHL
129 155 26 129 155 EVANS, FINN RW OTTAWA CCHL
172 156 -16 172 156 HARTIKAINEN, SANTERI C NORTHWOOD USHS
161 157 -4 161 157 MILLER, MICAH RW CEDAR RAPIDS HS USHS
188 159 -29 188 159 LELLIG, HUNTER D WATERLOO USHL
190 160 -30 190 160 WILKINS, JOSHUA C PROVIDENCE NCAA
NR 161 DEMEO, ANTHONY D SAULT STE. MARIE OHL
NR 162 MICHNAC, ALBERT LW MISSISSAUGA OHL
205 163 -42 205 163 PATERSON, JOSH RW SASKATOON WHL
74 165 91 74 165 KELLENBERGER, MATTHEW D OAKVILLE OJHL
NR 166 SVOBODA, MATYAS LW SIOUX CITY USHL
NR 167 RUBINS, KRISTIANS D MEDICINE HAT WHL
148 168 20 148 168 ISAACSON, NICK LW PETERBOROUGH OHL
NR 169 BJUGSTAD, JESSE D STILLWATER USHS
NR 170 LE COULTRE, SIMON D MONCTON QMJHL
116 171 55 116 171 LAGUNOV, PHILLIP C BURLINGTON OJHL
163 172 9 163 172 GANSKE, NOAH D MN MAGICIANS NAHL
152 173 21 152 173 PHILIP, MATTHEW C NIAGARA OHL
194 174 -20 194 174 CONRAD, COLT C WEST MICHIGAN NCAA
187 175 -12 187 175 BURKE, BRAYDEN LW MOOSE JAW WHL
145 176 31 145 176 MCHUGH, NICHOLAS LW KITCHENER OHL
169 177 8 169 177 HUGHES, RYAN C PORTLAND WHL
191 178 -13 191 178 MCMANUS, BRANNON RW OMAHA USHL
113 180 67 113 180 ROBERTS, ZACHARY LW OWEN SOUND OHL
NR 181 HOLT, DAWSON C VANCOUVER WHL
NR 183 CARSON, MACAULEY C SUDBURY OHL
NR 184 SCHEERER, BRAM LW EDINA USHS
NR 186 LEE, CAMERON D WEST MICHIGAN NCAA
164 189 25 164 189 CASTLEMAN, OLIVER LW NIAGARA OHL
NR 190 SEMCHUK, BRENDAN RW EDMONTON WHL
NR 191 GARREFFA, JOSEPH LW KITCHENER OHL
NR 193 MIKHNIN, DENIS RW RIMOUSKI QMJHL
189 194 5 189 194 PURBOO, COLE RW WINDSOR OHL
184 195 11 184 195 ANDONOVSKI, COREY RW CHILLIWACK BCHL
178 196 18 178 196 SHEA, NEIL LW LAWRENCE USHS
174 197 23 174 197 GRISHAKOV, ANDREI RW VICTORIA WHL
186 198 12 186 198 KOSORENKOV, IVAN RW VICTORIAVILLE QMJHL
95 199 104 95 199 YERYOMENKO, VLADISLAV D CALGARY WHL
NR 201 MOYLE, NOLAN RW GREEN BAY USHL
212 204 -8 212 204 DUQUETTE, MARC-OLIVIER D DRUMMONDVILLE QMJHL
NR 205 HEDBERG, TOM D Barrie Colts OHL
NR 207 NEWPOWER, WYATT D UCONN NCAA
NR 208 ROBERTS, ELIJAH D NIAGARA OHL
NR 209 GRIMA, NICHOLAS D SARNIA OHL
NR 210 WALKER, ZACHARY RW BOSTON COLLEGE NCAA
201 211 10 201 211 BOKA, LUCAS RW WINDSOR OHL
NR 212 PASICHNUK, BRINSON D ARIZONA STATE NCAA
NR 213 GOURLEY, JARROD D SPRUCE GROVE AJHL
NR 214 CHARLEBOIS, MATHIEU D VICTORIAVILLE QMJHL
NR 215 MENDEL, GRIFFIN D PENTICTON BCHL
NR 216 CAMERON, JACK D LAWRENCE USHS
NR 217 BERKOPEC, JOEY D MERRITT BCHL
80 NR PASTUJOV, MICHAEL RW USNTDP NTDP
130 NR PODDUBNYI, GERMAN C ERIE OHL
131 NR HUFF, SAM RW WATERLOO USHL
153 NR KREBS, DAKOTA D CALGARY WHL
158 NR PEHRSON, KEATON D TRI-CITY USHL
166 NR TYANULIN, ARTUR RW OTTAWA OHL
183 NR SOLOW, ZACH RW DUBUQUE USHL
192 NR KELLY, PARKER C PRINCE ALBERT WHL
195 NR GUAY, NICOLAS C DRUMMONDVILLE QMJHL
196 NR DZHIOSHVILI, VLADISLAV RW BLOOMINGTON USHL
203 NR JOSLING, SEAN RW SARNIA OHL
206 NR BRAZEAU, JUSTIN RW NORTH BAY OHL
207 NR MARTEL, JORDAN RW BAIE-COMEAU QMJHL
209 NR MACLEAN, KYLE LW OSHAWA OHL
211 NR MAKINEN, OTTO C Salut St. Marie OHL
216 NR DOBAY, JAYSON D THAYER ACADEMY USHS
217 NR BRICKEY, RONALD D DES MOINES USHL
HUTSKO, LOGAN RW BOSTON COLLEGE NCAA