Well the first round of the 2015 NHL entry draft is wrapped up.

It was an exciting day in which the Boston Bruins shook up the draft order (and projections) all day long and with more pick for pick trades then we’ve seen in a while. The Toronto Maple Leafs and Tampa Bay lightning appeared to get into an arms race of trading back for more picks, while the NY Islanders entered the draft with no picks, and left with two (two really good ones we might add).

So without further ado, here are our 2015 NHL entry draft draft cards to give you a brief snapshot of how the draft went.

NOTE: Picks #8 (Zach Werenski-Columbu) #12(Guryanov – Dallas) #20 (Joel Erikson Ek – Minnesota) #29 (Gabriel Carlson) have insufficient data in our system for projections.

Winners of highest % chance of NHL players: (outside of Edmonton and Buffalo)

Arizona:  142% NHL (127% top six) – Dylan Strome, and Nathan Merkley
Philadelphia: 111% NHL (86% top six) Ivan Provorov, and Tyler Konecny
Winnipeg:  113% NHL ( 79% top six) – Kyle Connor, and Jack Roslovic

Honorable mentions: Boston Bruins and NYI (102% NHL total each)

Note: Boston could have done much, MUCH better. Though they win the %’s, they severely under-performed for their pick location. On the other hand, NYI performed very well relative to pick location.

Scouts love size. Every year we see small skilled players passed over at the draft table for behemoths who may or may not be able to play hockey.

While drafting for size has resulted in its fair share of busts, getting a player who has both size and skill remains a home run at the draft table.

To this end, we broke down the draft list into only players 6’3” or taller, ran the comparisons on them and crunched the numbers. The following are the 10 safest players 6’3” or tallerin CSS’s ranking.

Cohort Criteria: +/- 4 NHLE’s in their DRAFT YEAR ONLY(excluding DY-1, projected upon an 82 game schedule). +/- 2 inches in height.

10. Brandon Carlo

Cohort size: 101
NA rank: 25
NHL %: 29%
Third Pair/Depth %: 9%
Top Four %: 20%
Top Pair %: 9%
Elite %: 3%

Every traditionalist’s favorite safe d-man, Brandon Carlo starts off our list as the 10^th safest Big Boy. While you may think “hey, that’s not bad!” or “that makes sense!” Know this: there are 6 skaters on the list ahead ranked below Carlo by ISS. Still, getting a big Defenseman that isn’t incapable of scoring is always a good move.

9. Gabriel Gagne

Cohort: 44
NA Rank: 34
NHL %: 30%
bottom siz/Depth %: 14%
Top Four %: 16%
Top Pair %: 7%
Elite %: 5%

The big 6’4” winger comes in at number nine. Considering he’s ranked a full 10 slots behind Brandon Carlo, Gabriel Gagne could represent decent value for a second round draft pick. Big wingers are hard to come by, and Gagne’s comparable put him at 1/3 chance of becoming an NHL player (about par for the course for a 2^nd round draft selection).

8. Nikita Pavlychev

Cohort: 10
NA rank: 153
NHL %: 30%
Bottom Six/Depth %: 30%
Third line: 30%
Top Six%: 0%)

Nikita who? Pavlychev is a giant man. At 6’6” the big Russian has had a mediocre scoring season in the USHL (16 points in 42 games). That being said, 30% of Pavlychev’s comparable did become career NHLers. NOTE: there was an extremely small sample size for Pavlychev, and furthermore: all but one of the successful NHLers was a career face puncher. If Pavlychev is going to make the NHL, he’s probably not going to be doing it with his goal scoring. Still, ranked at 153 in North America, Pavlychev’s probability of success is extremely high for a skate ranked to go in the last two rounds of the draft.

7.  Chris Martinet

Cohort: 23
NA rank: 81
NHL %: 30%
Third Pair: 30%
Top 4: 22%
First pair: 17%
Elite %: 4%

Ranked 81 In North America, the 6’6” defender is the 7^th safest player over 6’3”. At a 30% success rate and projected to go around the 4^th round, Chris Martinet could represent really good value for a depth pick. Most defenders like Martinet panned out as 3^rd-2^nd pairing defensemen. Though a 17% probability of being a top pairing defenseman is nothing to sniff at for a 4^th round pick.

6. Jordan Greenway

Cohort: 45
NA rank: 47
NHL %: 31%
Bottom six: 22%
Third line: 18%
Top six: 9%
First line: 7%
Elite %: 4%

At 6^th on our list is expected 2^nd round draft-pick-to-be Jordan Greenway. Ranked 47 in NA he’s likely to go in the back half of the 2^nd round, and offering a 31% success rate is about par for the course in that slot. Interesting to note: Greenway represents a very similar success rate to previously mentioned Gabriel Gagne, but is ranked 10 slots later in the draft.

5. Lawson Crouse

Cohort: 71
NA rank: 5
NHL %: 37 %
Bottom six: 21%
Third line: 23%
Top six: 15%
First line: 10%
Elite %: 4%

Lawson Crouse is likely the most contentious player in this year’s draft. Having great size, a good WJC tournament, and “not terrible” scoring has caused Crouse to skyrocket up draft rankings, finishing the season at NA 5. Unfortunately, Crouse’s scoring puts his comparable at only a 37% success rate. While a respectable rate, and a decent prospect, according to the projection Crouse should be much lower than his CSS rank of 5.

4. Paul Bittner

Cohort:62
NA rank: 26
NHL %: 40 %
Bottom six: 23%
Third line: 26%
Top six: 18%
First line: 11%
Elite %: 5%

All that separates Paul Bittner from Lawson Crouse is 10 lbs and 20 slots on the CSS draft ranking. With identical height and similar production, Paul Bittner represents a higher chance of success then Lawson Crouse, though their cohorts are very similar. This may be a situation where the scouts are right: while their statistical performances were similar, Bittner played with far superior line mates, playing third wheel to Nicolas Petan and Oliver Bjorkstrand in Portland. It will be interesting to compare the development of Bittner and Crouse over their careers.

3. Pavel Zacha

Cohort: 90
NA rank: 8
NHL %: 46 %
Bottom six: 24%
Third line: 36%
Top six: 21%
First line: 13%
Elite %: 6%

8^th ranked Pavel Zacha is the third safest of the giants. At 46% likelihood of NHL success, Zacha is a legitimately safe prospect, with decent top six upside and first line potential. Furthermore, Zacha’s transition to the NA game has scouts thinking his offense could be much higher.

2. Thomas Schemitsch

Cohort: 40
NA rank: 91
NHL %: 58%
Bottom six: 8%
Third line: 58%
Top six: 50%
First line: 25%
Elite %: 10%

The most surprising player on the list goes to #2, Thomas Schemitsch. At 6’3” and with a very decent scoring pace Schemitsch may be one of the most underrated prospects by CSS in this year’s draft. Ranked as a third-fourth round pick, Schemitsch’s 58% NHL success rate would put him in a 3 way tie for third on our top 10 defensemen draft list. You simply don’t find odds like Schemitsch outside of the 2^ndround and any team would be lucky to land him.

1. Dylan Strome

Cohort: 3
NA rank: 4
NHL %: 100 %
Bottom six: 0%
Third line: 0%
Top six: 100%
First line: 67%
Elite %: 67%

And the number 1 spot for a player over 6’3” goes to Dylan Strome. It’s no surprise as the consensus top 5 pick offers up an elite blend of size and skill that teams drool over. His production marks him as a near lock to succeed in the NHL as a top six player with reasonable elite level upside.

Honorable Mentions:

Ethan Spaxxman ranked number 12 on this list, but holds a CSS scouting rank of just 181. With a 24% success rate, those are odds usually reserved for 2^nd round picks, and he could be a sleeper to watch.

Another notable is Hayden McCool. Other then having the best last name, McCool pulled a similar 24% success rate and would represent great value with where he’s projected to go at #147.

Conclusions:

While some players receive an unwarranted boost in draft ranking due to their height, this study revealed a number of players undervalued by CSS. The question will remain wether a player like Crouse or Carlo is worth their CSS projection and wether or not teams agree with that. It will also be interesting to keep an eye on the mid to late round selections that this study uncovered as being good value players such as: Pavlychev, Martinet, Schemitsche, Spaxxman, McCool, overager Mark Simpson (19%), and the previously unmentioned Philippe Myers (19%).

AMMENDMENT: Thanks to Tiranis for noticing a discrepency. Noah Hannifin was incorrectly unlisted due to a transcription error. This article has been updated to reflect this.

Last week we outlined the top 10 safest forwards expected to go in the first round of the 2015 draft. This week we’ll be doing the same exercise with defensemen.

The idea of “safe” is even more heavily applied to defensemen than forwards by the scouting community. So let’s see how many “sure bets” crack the list from a statistical perspective…

MASSIVE CAVEAT: Scoring should be held at a lower standard for defensemen than for forwards. That being said, it has been proven to be a good indicator of future success. Please keep in mind that our “tiers” of NHL defensemen are based on scoring. This is obviously not the best way to do this but does give a decent picture of what a player could be expected to become.

Cohort Criteria: +/- 4 NHLE’s in their DRAFT YEAR ONLY(excluding DY-1, projected upon an 82 game schedule). +/- 2 inches in height.

1. Mitchell Vande Sompel

CSS NA RANK: 34
Cohort size: 3
NHL %: 100% (3)
Third Pair/Depth %: 0%
Top Four or better %: 100% (3)
Top Pair or better %: 100 % (3)
Elite %: 0%

The small high scoring Vande Sompel makes for a very interesting case this year. While his scoring was off the charts, he was also sometimes used as a center. From a statistical standpoint though, Vande Sompel’s comparables all became top pairing (via point production) defensemen.

2. Ivan Provorov

CSS NA RANK: 7
Cohort size: 27
NHL %: 67% (18)
Third Pair/Depth %: 7%(2)
Top Four or Better: 59% (16)
Top Pair or Better: 33 % (9)
Elite: 7% (2)

Ivan Provorov has been one of the highest rated defensemen in this years draft and with good reason. At 67% success rate including Elite potential, there’s a lot to like about Provorov. To boot, scouts are in love with his defensive game and he could actually be the “safest” defenseman in the draft.

3. Jeremy Roy

CSS NA RANK: 21
Cohort size: 36
NHL %: 58% (21)
Third Pair/Depth %: 6% (2)
Top Four or Better: 53% (19)
Top Pair or Better: 31% (11)
Elite %: 15% (4)

Projected to go in the back half of the first round, Jeremy Roy represents a 58% chance of becoming an NHL player from statistical standpoint. With a 53% chance of being a strong top 4 defensemen Roy could represent great value in the late first.

4. Vince Dunn

CSS NA RANK: 32
Cohort size: 36
NHL %: 58% (21)
Third Pair/Depth %: 6% (2)
Top Four or Better: 53% (19)
Top Pair or Better: 31% (11)
Elite %: 15% (4)

Vince Dunn’s statistical production catapults him from unlikely first round pick to one of the safest defensemen ranked in the top 40. Dunn pulled an identical cohort to the higher ranked Jeremy Roy. With both being seen as late first/second round talents it will be interesting to see how many picks separate these two defenders.

5. Noah Hanifin (AMMENDMENT)

CSS NA RANK: 3
Cohort size: 44
NHL %: 55% (24)
Third Pair/Depth %: 9% (4)
Top Four or better: 45% (32)
Top Pair or better: 23% (17)
Elite %: 7% (6)

The highest ranked defensemen in this years draft drops to number five (much better then the previous omission). Hannifin DOES in fact project as a likely NHL caliber defensemen at 55% success. Whether or not he provides more value then some of the forwards available will be the question come draft day.

6. Jakub Zboril

CSS NA RANK: 12
Cohort size: 64
NHL %: 42% (27)
Third Pair/Depth %: 3% (2)
Top Four or Better: 39% (25)
Top Pair or Better: 20% (13)
Elite %: 8% (5)

Jakub Zboril’s statistical production puts him as the 6^th safest defenseman, behind 3 skaters CSS ranked far after him. Zboril represents a 20% chance of becoming a top pairing defenseman and is the first on the list to show a below 50-50 shot at being a top 4 defender. Scouts see a lot to like in his game, and his statistics are not low enough to raise serious concerns about his viability as mid 1^st round pick.

7. Noah Juulson

CSS NA RANK: 22
Cohort size: 67
NHL %: 39% (26)
Third Pair/Depth: 6% (4)
Top Four or Better: 33% (22)
Top Pair or Better: 16% (11)
Elite : 8% (4)

Ranked to go in the top half of the second round, Noah Juulson is in a three way tie with the next defenders based on their projections. With a 33% chance of being an effective top 4 defenseman, teams picking in the 25+ range could do a lot worse than Noah Juulson.

8. Ryan Pilon

CSS NA RANK: 24
Cohort size: 26
NHL %: 39% (26)
Third Pair/Depth: 6% (4)
Top Four or Better: 33% (22)
Top Pair or Better: 16% (11)
Elite : 8% (4)

The second of the three way tie, Ryan Pilon pulled an identical cohort to Noah Juulson. Scouts seem consistent in their ranking of these two defenders, with CSS having them only 2 picks apart. It will be interesting to see how each skater develops given their similarities.

9. Nicolas Meloche

CSS NA RANK: 40
Cohort size: 26
NHL %: 39% (26)
Third Pair/Depth: 6% (4)
Top Four or Better: 33% (22)
Top Pair or Better: 16% (11)
Elite : 8% (4)

Nicolas Meloche is the third member of the tie. Ranked over 15 slots later then the previously mentioned Juulson and Pilon, Meloche is an identical match to the previous two based on cohort alone. If Juulson and Pilon represent good value at the back of the first, Meloche should be considered a steal if taken at his projected mid-second round location.

10. Sebastian Aho

CSS EU RANK: 13
Cohort size: 14
NHL %: 39% (5)
Third Pair/Depth %: 0%
Top Four or Better: 33% (5)
Top Pair or Better: 16% (3)
Elite : 8% (1)

Sebastian Aho is the 13^th ranked European skater and the first to crack our top 10 lists. What does this mean? Well, in actuality it means Aho is probably even more likely to make the NHL then these numbers suggest (Pro euro leagues represent weak NHLE translations for prospects primarily due to the difficulty 17-18 year-olds face in getting ice-time on pro-level teams in non-development leagues).

Note: Aho is an Over-Age player. This comparison was done using his stats from his first year of eligibility. If we adjust to include his DY +1 production his NHL success rate drops to 30%. Please note that DY + DY+1 may not be a better indicator of success then Draft Year production alone

11. Thomas Chabot

CSS NA RANK: 16
Cohort size: 123
NHL %: 31% (38)
Third Pair/Depth %: 5% (6)
Top Four or better: 26% (32)
Top Pair or better: 14% (17)
Elite %: 5% (6)

Thomas Chabot, ranked 16 by CSS in NA, is the final defensemen on our list. Scouts love Chabot because of his defensive game and size, and while his comparisons are not as favorable as some of the smaller defenders ranked behind him, they are decent. Chabot is the type of defender scouts love to call “safe”, even if historically they are less likely to succeed then smaller, scoring defenders.

Honorable Mentions:

Just outside of the top 10 are swede Oliver Kylington and the big, mean, Brandon Carlo. While Kylington has seen his draft stock fall throughout the year, Carlo has been on the rise. Carlo is a decent prospect but his scoring does raise some flags about his value at his projected draft slot.

Kylington on the other hand is likely to be significantly undersold by these numbers due to the difficulty a 17 year-old defender can have earning ice time and scoring points in the non-developmental, pro-level SHL.

The Big Omissions:

The most interesting omission on the top 10 list is #3 ranked Noah Hanifin.

Hanifin’s scoring leaves a lot of questions, especially for a prospect so highly regarded. Still, playing a big roll on an NCAA team at 17 is no easy feat. The question remains, can a player succeed to a level equivalent of Hannifin’s ranking without scoring? or is this a classic case of scouts outsmarting themselves?

Originally not on the list due to a transcription error, Noah Hanifin is in fact a top 10 defenseman from a statistical standpoint.

Note: Zach Werenski has also been omitted due to errors in retrieving data. We will update this article appropriately in the future once that data is available.

Conclusions (ammended):

The most startling conclusions would be the extremely high success rate of the small, high-scoring, Vande Sompel, and the relatively low rating of the highest ranked defensemen in the draft, Noah Hanifin

While the scouts had the top 4 forwards accurately ranked in order by projection, there was far more disagreement with defensemen.

It will be an interesting study to keep tabs on the draft and the development of these players as teams have historically had far less success in identifying top flight defensemen in the draft as compared to forwards.

It is also important to note the disparity between “safe” forwards and defensemen.  While the lowest ranked forward on our top 10 still held a nearly 50% chance of success, the lowest defenseman was a paltry 30%. This trend lines up with team’s history of struggling to identify defensive talent at the same level as forwards in the draft.

Furthermore, other research has shown that at least one other defenseman, who we’ll explore in our next article, was ranked so low by the css that we did not include him in this study even though he would have debuted at number 5.