Draft Philosophy
I’m going to start off by saying I don’t know the first thing about how the Red Wings determine who they are going to draft and how they decide they want to select a particular player in a particular round. The scouting services and the mock drafts have been helpful in getting a general idea of what certain players bring to the table and what I’ve been trying to do is just piece that information together.
Two blogs that are daily reads for me have both mentioned Paul DePodesta’s blog within the past week or so. DePodesta works in management for the San Diego Padres and is a Moneyball afficianado who once worked under Billy Beane in Oakland.
Now I can’t tell you whether the Red Wings management has a similar philosophy to the one espoused by DePodesta. But there are some key passages in a post he made about how the Padres approached the draft that might be applicable to the recently completed NHL draft. Let’s take a look.
1. Analyze the draft at hand. Here is what DePodesta had to say:
This year our scouting staff determined that the 2008 draft class was particularly deep in high quality college hitters, thin in college pitching, and a bit disappointing in terms of depth at the high school level.
…
Approximately five days before the draft we started having conversations about the reality of the draft class and began formulating our strategy. What if we didn’t take a pitcher the entire first day? Given the class, we decided, we were prepared to do just that.
This NHL draft was purported to be a very deep draft but I get the impression the Red Wings likely felt it wasn’t very deep on forwards who drew their interest early on. My basis for drawing that conclusion is they didn’t draft a forward with either the #30 or the #91 draft pick. In fact they didn’t draft a forward until the #121 pick, more than halfway through the draft - when you would suspect they are drafting projects who have long odds of making it to the NHL level. This fits with what DePodesta’s group felt about the quality and depth of pitching available in the MLB draft.
2. Draft from the pool of the strongest talent, regardless of perceived need.
As a group we felt strongly about this evaluation of the draft class, so we spent a lot of time on the college hitters, trying to get them in the right order for selection. Ultimately, Grady Fuson and Chief Gayton did a masterful job of game planning the draft, and we truly maximized our number of targeted hitters.
One of the biggest complaints about most drafts is that certain players were “overdrafted”. I’ll be honest - I don’t really believe in that concept. First of all, our knowledge in terms of where players will be selected is imperfect to put it mildly. Remember, it only takes one team out of thirty to step up and take a player, and then he’s gone. There are no do-overs.
My guess is there were probably some defensemen the Red Wings would have liked to draft with that #30 pick. Erik Karlsson would seem like a natural fit. It was funny hearing Bryan Murray try and justify the selection of Karlsson when he was pressed by the TSN reporter who pointed out that just last year Murray was touting the importance of drafting size. The one forward that seemed like a good fit for Detroit was Anton Gustafsson so it would have been interesting to see if they would have drafted him if he was available.
DePodesta comments that he felt some minor amount of regret at the time as teams took pitchers he liked, but I suspect the Red Wings didn’t have that same approach and would have snagged Gustafsson if he was available. But once the Wings were up at the plate for the #30 pick, they took a high-end prospect in an area that was a modest need. Then with the #91 pick they went with a D-man, likely indicating that was where the strongest pool of talent was still available.
3. Draft for need based on when that pick makes sense.
…despite not taking a pitcher in the first four rounds, we’re pleased with the pitching that we acquired throughout the draft. Who’s going to be the best of the group? I wish I knew.
It looks like the Red Wings had a similar approach with regards to forwards. Their last four picks were all forwards, so they clearly felt like this was a good area to draft for need. Two draftees are big guys [Cayer, Johnston] which are certainly lacking within the pipeline of talent, and two [Nyquist, Samuelsson] are small, speedy, skilled guys.
With that being said, what are some of the key characteristics that can be found in the descriptions for most of the players drafted?
Nicastro: good skater, moves puck well
Nyquist: very speedy, good hockey sense, good skills, plenty of creativity
Samuelsson: good skater, very good hockey sense, good at [moving] the puck
Johnston: strong skater, very good skills, excellent hockey sense
They all fit the profile of a Detroit Red Wings draftee: good skater [Homer is the exception of course], high skill level, and good to very good hockey sense. As far as hitters go DePodesta was looking for guys who can hit with skill and power. Overall I don’t think there’s a huge amount of difference in the way both franchises approached their recent draft.
Pete over at Yzerman is God has a good post on the benefit of drafting players who will go to college.
2008 NHL draft Red Wings1 Comment(s)
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
[…] Dave at Gorilla Crouch wrote two great posts on the Wings’ picks at this year’s draft. […]