Strong Links: Using the NHL Draft To Acquire Strong Links and Draft Pick Value Charts

[SDS]

“Basically, there are two types of sports, strong and weak link. In a strong link game, star power drives success, while in a weak link game, teams with superior depth are better off. To answer the question, what kind of game is hockey?”
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/lastwordonsports.com/hockey/2018/05/30/draft-pick-value-charts/amp/

[SDS]

Quote

For the draft, this piece provides rigorous evidence supporting the belief that tanking works, since tanking is one of the best ways to acquire elite talent (once again, see Moneypuck). Finally, I’d argue that this has implications for coaching as well: hockey is about creating goals, not avoiding mistakes, and there is a compelling case to give top players the freedom to make plays and win games.

https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/14/strong-and-weak-links-talent-distribution-within-teams/

The latter part is exactly what Dan Granato has said/done.

Personally, although this seems to be the case in the regular season I almost believe the opposite is true in the playoffs.

[LGR4GM]

Yup. Linking plays together is becoming more and more important for scouting work as things like shot assists get tracked. It is why a guy like Eklund really pops with super effective plays but a guy like Kent Johnson doesn't. Eklund is linking multiple plays together and manipulating multiple layers of the defense. Johnson is stickhandling and doing little of value to get to the next play. 

[SDS]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Yup. Linking plays together is becoming more and more important for scouting work as things like shot assists get tracked. It is why a guy like Eklund really pops with super effective plays but a guy like Kent Johnson doesn't. Eklund is linking multiple plays together and manipulating multiple layers of the defense. Johnson is stickhandling and doing little of value to get to the next play. 

This isn’t what the article is talking about. Completely different definition of link.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

This isn’t what the article is talking about. Completely different definition of link.

I am reading it now. 

[Thorner]

Cleveland needed LeBron to go on deep playoff runs. The Oilers already have their LeBron and it doesn't get them half the distance. You generally need "star" players in hockey, but it just doesn't stop there.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

Alright, after power reading those... 

I find it compelling to a degree. I think in hockey need 4-5 stars to win a cup and without them you can't do it. Buffalo only ever reached 2 stars in the Eichel era and maybe could have reached 3 if Reinhart had been given some different chances away from Eichel. I think the important part now is that Buffalo can be far better in an Eichel trade if they manage to get 2 strong players (Zegras and 3) for Eichel which is the hard part. This reminds me a little of talking about "critical mass" or having enough talent in your lineup to makeup for its deficiencies. Granato wanting to allow Dahlin to basically display his talent is a good step in the right direction as well. 

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Cleveland needed LeBron to go on deep playoff runs. The Oilers already have their LeBron and it doesn't get them half the distance. You generally need "star" players in hockey, but it just doesn't stop there.

Edmonton has 2 star players and then nothing. Just like Buffalo had 1 star player and then meh. You need multiple star players and then you can find the role players to fill the gaps. It is about amassing a core which we have talked about for decades now. 

[Weave]

The biggest takeaway for me was, for all of the bluster that is expended regarding this prospect or that prospect, in the big picture they are statistically interchangeable.

And it looks like GMTMs draft strategy was definitely in line with the strong link concept.  He swung for the fences.

[SDS]

44 minutes ago, Weave said:

The biggest takeaway for me was, for all of the bluster that is expended regarding this prospect or that prospect, in the big picture they are statistically interchangeable.

And it looks like GMTMs draft strategy was definitely in line with the strong link concept.  He swung for the fences.

At least in this analysis, that seems to be true outside of the top three. I would suggest going to the second link that I posted that goes into more detail.

Clearly this wasn’t meant to be a recipe for success. In fact the data seems to be diffuse enough to show that even if there’s a correlation, outcomes are widely varying.

honestly, I was more intrigued about the thought of upgrading your weakest link in soccer being better for the team than getting the best player. They fully admit hockey is sort of in between a sport like soccer and a sport like basketball.

[Weave]

17 minutes ago, SDS said:

At least in this analysis, that seems to be true outside of the top three. I would suggest going to the second link that I posted that goes into more detail.

Clearly this wasn’t meant to be a recipe for success. In fact the data seems to be diffuse enough to show that even if there’s a correlation, outcomes are widely varying.

honestly, I was more intrigued about the thought of upgrading your weakest link and Soccer being better for the team than getting the best player. They fully admit hockey is sort of in between a sport like soccer and a sport like basketball.

Thats just it, the variance is huge.  And it passes the eye test.  So many ways to build a contender.

I’ll stop there.  

[SDS]

19 minutes ago, Weave said:

Thats just it, the variance is huge.  And it passes the eye test.  So many ways to build a contender.

I’ll stop there.  

So if there is some causation there, it’s basically saying you can do it but it will be harder without that strong link.