The Best Player Available myth

It's commonly held that a dichotomy exists in fundamental draft strategy in hockey: pick for need versus best player available. Sensibly, most hockey fans and pundits eschew the first strategy: outside of picking a generational Crosby-like talent in the first round, a vast majority of prospects won't contribute anything valuable at the NHL level for at least 5 years, at which time the needs of the big club may have drastically changed.

But outside, say, the first five choices in every entry draft, is picking the "best player available" actually possible? From my own investigations into the matter, chances of picking an actual NHL player drop from 95% in the top 5 to about a coin flip by the end of the first round. Chances fall precipitously after that, to about 25% in round 2, 19% in round 3 and so on. In fact, as the draft progresses, the talent tends to be scattered more liberally throughout each round, rather than clustered close to the top as it is in first.

What I'm getting at is: things turn into a crap shoot pretty quickly in the draft. That means there isn't a lot to choose from once you get beyond the few sure-fire NHLers that exist at the very pinnacle of the prospect pyramid. This issue occurred to me while doing up profiles for potential Flames targets in this year's up coming roll of the dice - Rundblad, Kreider, Budish, Holland, Ferraro, etc - pretending all of them are available when the Flames take the stage on the 26th, which amongst those named is the "best player available"?

The challenges for an NHL scout extend beyond projecting the potential future contributions of some teenager some five years hence, but also -

1.) Comparing relative values of players across positions is problematic and rife with subjectivity and
2.) Many of these kids play at different levels in different leagues against different competition.

For example, let's talk about David Rundblad, a Swedish prospect who played as a teen in the SEL last season versus Zach Budish, an American High School winger. Rundblad garnered 10 points as a defender in the top professional level in Sweden last year against grown men. Budish collected more than 60 points in 30 games against pimply-faced HS kids in Minnesota. How does one even go about comparing the two players? Not only do they play different positions, but they performed against vastly different levels of competition - even subjective viewership and analysis would be effected. For intance, I would look like a thoughtful tactician and sniper if you put me on the ice against 12 year olds, but would be completely lost if I squared off against, say, the UofC mens team. That's an extreme example, but the principle is the same. This may be why clubs develop what I call "fishing holes", by which I mean they concentrate their scouting in certain amateur/developmental leagues (for the Flames, it's the WHL/CHL) - they can become familiar with the relative degree and value of the competition and therefore can more capably gauge a prospects level of performance. But I digress.

As such, I think it would be foolhardy to ignore an organizations areas of weakness when drafting. By that I certainly don't mean the woeful Florida Panthers should show up on the 26th this year and look to pick as many scoring forwards as possible because the big club had issues putting pucks in the net last year. That would be silly. However, simply due to the variable and unpredictable nature of developing prospects, every org is going to have certain areas that are weaker than others heading into the draft every year.

Taking the Flames again as an example, the club is relatively healthy at center and defense, but thin in terms of scoring wingers. Dustin Boyd - Warren Peters - Mikael Backlund - Mitch Wahl - Brett Sutter - John Armstrong are the young, promising pivots in the system. Calgary also has Phaneuf - Giordano - Pardy - Palin - Pelech - Aulie - Negrin - Brodie as young 20 something's and below on the blueline. However, aside from Moss and Glencross on the big club (who have already passed the quarter century mark), the org boasts overager Kyle Greentree, Greg Nemisz and tweeners like David Van Der Gulik and Kris Chucko on the wings. And that's about it.

As such, I honestly think this issue should inform if not dictate the Flames draft strategy heading into next week. We know that the org needs some offensively capable talent at the winger position. Therefore, unless they have the chance to pick Victor Hedman or perhaps Ryan Ellis in the first round, doesn't preferring a winger to a defender make sense from a Flames perspective? Back to the Rundblad and Budish example - since there's little chance of definitely determining which is the better player (either now or in the future), I would prefer the Flames emphasize the latter (Budish) over the former (Rundblad), given the clubs organizational strengths and weaknesses. In fact, considering we're dice rolling, Calgary should have a goal of claiming more wingers than defensemen and centers over the course of the 7 rounds in order to increase the chances of scoring a "hit" in that area.

Obviously clubs develop draft lists based on who-is-better-than whom and taking a 60th ranked forward ahead of the 12th ranked defender simply because the org has a greater need up front would be nonsensical. If an opportunity to choose a player who is *apparently* head and shoulders above the rest of the list occurs, it has to be taken. My guess is this seems more likely in theory than what happens in practice, however, especially due to the scouting challenges described above and especially once the cream of the crop has been skimmed. Overall, outside a few rare or extreme circumstances, I've come to think of the "BPA" draft strategy as rather meaningless and the whole "team need versus best player" dichotomy as a false one.