For some reason, I followed the 2021 NHL Entry Draft more than any other year’s draft. In fact, I paid more attention to the draft than the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Of course, my LA Kings weren’t in the playoffs, but they didn’t exactly have a shot at a top draft pick like they did in 2020 or 2019. If I had to guess, it was a mixture of boredom from the pandemic plus the sheer chaos surrounding this draft class.
Plenty of hockey writers have opined on the 2021 draft class, calling it weaker than normal, without clear-cut superstars, and oddly composed in its mix of high-end defensemen, two top goalies, and lack of brilliant centers at the high end. And with less access, games, and scouting exposure, it was obvious that NHL teams would have reduced information at their fingertips compared to other years. This meant there would be less consensus on prospect rankings, and a draft order that would be hard to predict. Plus, this draft has the potential to have diamonds emerging from all across the seven rounds, as many of these players had to play limited games in alternate settings and were much harder to assess. (Conversely, there could be a lot more first round duds as well.)
To assess the draft, I started building spreadsheets that aggregated various prospect rankings as July 23 approached. I weighted each ranking source I could get my hands on equally, and tabulated the mean, median, and mode of each top prospect, attempting to determine their likely range and to start grouping the players into tiers. This was initially done to see who the players my LA Kings would have a shot at selecting, and what draft position they needed to secure in order to have a first round pick in one of the elite tiers. But as my database grew, so did my scope of focus for this draft. In the days leading up to the draft, I not only created my ultimate prospect rankings aggregator, but also my own mock draft for the first 10 picks and my draft “board” for whom I felt the Kings should target.
It should surprise no one that I was thrilled with the Kings No. 8 pick; my take on LA’s 2021 draft haul will be the subject of a separate post.
What I’d like to do here is do a retrospective on the 2021 NHL Entry Draft, using my database to evaluate what actually happened with what I expected, or suggested, should happen. Unlike my last post on the Kraken Expansion Draft, this evaluation is going to be fairly data driven and without too much extrapolation beyond what the numbers showed me.
My Method
The main way I’m evaluating the draft picks is by contrasting the average draft ranking of a player against their draft slot. Meaning, if William Eklund’s average draft ranking was a “3.6” across the many sources I scanned, he would be considered a steal for going at number “7” (yes, in this exercise I will even give the Sharks their due). Whereas Zachary Bolduc, who averaged a ranking of “25.6,” would be considered a lousy selection for St. Louis with the 16th pick (at least at this date in time). I am contrasting the players against their aggregate ranking, rather than the aggregate mock draft listing, because the former is a pure attempt at ordering the players by best available, while the latter tries to get inside the head of teams and pretend they are picking for the GM. By this standard, I am rewarding teams for taking the best available players, and knocking those for underperforming their draft slot with a poorer-ranked player.
To say more on this latter point, drafting way in front of the rankings, or going “off the board,” is an important activity to scrutinize. If the player just so happens to hit and become a star, then you look like a genius, though you’ve really lucked out. Because even if Tyler Boucher winds up being the best player produced in this entire draft, Ottawa did not need to spend their No. 10 overall pick to draft him. They very easily could have traded down, perhaps swapping with a team eager to get into the top ten, and collecting a prospect or additional pick in the process. Boucher, with an average ranking of “43.0” would very likely still have been available toward the bottom of the first round, and so you could have your Boucher and another player to boot.
Before jumping into the analysis of the specific picks (and I’ll focus on the first 10), I want to point out one more structural wrinkle. The top 9 or 10 players in this draft were nearly universally agreed upon, before another tier of decent players. But within this top ten, there was little agreement about the ordering of the players, beyond number one and to an extent number two. Of course, all it takes is one scout to rank Owen Power #6 overall and his streak of “1s” is broken and his average jumps up. The number one pick, though typically the likeliest to generate the most value, carries with it some risk each year, as unless you’re drafting Connor McDavid, there is sure to be some pundit who has a different player atop their board and views your pick as too aggressive. This variance, which continued down the draft board, meant that the top three picks in 2021 were nearly pre-destined to overshoot their rankings because of higher averages. This range of averages in the top ten also meant that teams picking towards the latter half had a very good chance of stealing players that had average rankings above their eventual slot. How this played out in practice was that by the time San Jose was picking seventh overall, they could simply pick the best player available and would be stealing a prospect well above his average ranking. (My draft board in fact predicted that this number seven slot would be the tipping point.)
Below is a table showing the players in their drafted order, their average prospect ranking according to my aggregator, and the difference between that ranking and their draft slot (or “delta”). Because of Arizona’s forfeited pick at #11, for this table all picks after that slot are moved up in draft order because the #12 pick was effectively the eleventh player selected, #13 was twelfth, and so on.
| Draft# | Player | Avg. Rank | delta |
| 1 | Owen Power | 2.1 | -1.2 |
| 2 | Matthew Beniers | 3.2 | -1.3 |
| 3 | Mason McTavish | 10.0 | -7.2 |
| 4 | Luke Hughes | 5.0 | -1.1 |
| 5 | Kent Johnson | 8.3 | -3.2 |
| 6 | Simon Edvinsson | 8.6 | -2.6 |
| 7 | William Eklund | 3.6 | 3.4 |
| 8 | Brandt Clarke | 5.6 | 2.4 |
| 9 | Dylan Guenther | 5.5 | 3.5 |
| 10 | Tyler Boucher | 43.0 | -33.0 |
| 11 | VOID | ||
| 11 | Cole Sillinger | 12.9 | -2.0 |
| 12 | Matthew Coronato | 17.1 | -5.3 |
| 13 | Isak Rosén | 21.4 | -8.6 |
| 14 | Sebastian Cossa | 17.2 | -3.4 |
| 15 | Brennan Othmann | 19.9 | -5.2 |
| 16 | Zachary Bolduc | 25.6 | -10.0 |
| 17 | Chaz Lucius | 11.4 | 5.7 |
| 18 | Fyodor Svechkov | 19.0 | -0.7 |
| 19 | Jesper Wallstedt | 8.8 | 10.2 |
| 20 | Fabian Lysell | 14.8 | 5.1 |
| 21 | Xavier Bourgault | 21.9 | -0.8 |
| 22 | Wyatt Johnston | 43.3 | -21.3 |
| 23 | Mackie Samoskevich | 31.6 | -8.6 |
| 24 | Corson Ceulemans | 21.3 | 2.3 |
| 25 | Carson Lambos | 20.1 | 5.0 |
| 26 | Zachary L’Heureux | 28.4 | -2.2 |
| 27 | Oskar Olausson | 23.5 | 3.7 |
| 28 | Chase Stillman | 67.3 | -39.3 |
| 29 | Zach Dean | 31.5 | -2.3 |
| 30 | Logan Mailloux | 56.3 | -26.3 |
| 31 | Nolan Allen | 66.5 | -35.5 |
Grading the Top Ten Picks
I’ve been dancing around it, but let me dive into my assessment of these initial picks. I don’t blame Buffalo for selecting Power first, as he was the highest average ranking, with a mean and median ranking of “1” as well [Grade = A-]. There is some risk as scouts have identified, but Power seems to be safe and represents the Best Player Available philosophy. So too did Matt Beniers to Seattle, who though I criticized them mightily in my last post, must receive credit for taking the closest thing to a consensus number two pick [Grade = A-].
At number three things got interesting, for scouts and pundits putting together their mock drafts. Anaheim could have gone in many directions, all of them ensuring skepticism in some corners, but there were clearly some safer picks among skaters with high averages (Eklund being the most obvious). Mason McTavish, though he came shooting up draft boards at the end, still averaged a “10.0” ranking in my aggregator, and thus was way in front of his slot [Grade = C-]. I don’t think he would have dropped to #10 based on what I was reading, but I also think Anaheim may look with regret at some of the players they passed on.
With Eklund the next highest player in the rankings on the board, it was fascinating to watch him drop to #7. I can’t criticize New Jersey too much for selecting Luke Hughes, who beyond appearing to be a thrilling prospect (and the brother of Jack), was the next highest ranked player in my averages [Grade = A-]. I will, however, criticize Columbus for their needless gamble on Kent Johnson, who ranked behind several other players (including forwards) that were picked after [Grade = B]. Detroit similarly took a risk with the polarizing Simon Edvinsson, gambling on upside and size to take a player again ahead of his ranking while leaving several players, including a higher ranked defenseman, on the board [Grade = B].
I’ve heaped enough praise already on San Jose for simply doing the right thing and selecting the best available player, which in this case was a supreme steal, though through their draft slot they were almost pre-ordained to do [Grade = A+]. The Kings were similarly in a good position to steal a player who fell, especially as other teams ahead of them kept underperforming their slot, and LA had the fortune of fulfilling a team need while also capturing the best player available [Grade = A]. To that end, Arizona at #9 still had an opportunity to take a player ranked much higher, and scored with the obvious selection of the best available player in hired gun Dylan Guenther [Grade = A+].
In some versions of the draft, Kent Johnson or Mason McTavish might be going to the Senators at number 10; with these individuals already selected, it meant the Senators could fill a goalie need and select the best player available in Jesper Wallstedt. That would have neatly put a bow on my top ten, with them sorting into a different order but all in all fitting in where I assumed they’d be in the upper tier. Wallstedt’s fall, and Boucher’s leap, threw that all on its head. Suffice to say, there was a full round’s worth of players that should have been selected ahead of Tyler Boucher, who I wasn’t really tracking [Grade = F]. If a goalie was verbotten, Ottawa could have taken a solid center like Chaz Lucius or Cole Sillinger, who were the next ranked players. Fortunately, Columbus did the sensible thing with the following pick in taking Sillinger [Grade = B+], but the draft had had its first dose of crazy pills, and the round continued to wobble once in the double digits.
Good, Bad and the Mailloux of Round One
Rather than grade every pick of the first round, I’d like to just focus on those selections that represented supreme gambles (read: lousy draft approach) or standout selections (read: did their homework). I’ve symbolized my judgement with old-school emojis.
#14 = Isak Rosen. [=(] I couldn’t find a single ranking list that had Isak Rosen going this high, and some even had him pegged towards the second round. Buffalo had multiple high picks, but that still is no reason to squander a top 15 pick on a player that is comfortably ranked outside that range.
#17 = Zach Bolduc. [=(] St. Louis here jumps ahead of his ranking (#25.6) to grab their player in the middle of the round. They might be forgiven if there weren’t several other centers, including the next pick Chaz Lucius, still available with higher rankings.
#18 = Chaz Lucius. [=)] Beyond an awesome name, Winnipeg picks up a projectable center that many had pegged as the likely next pick after the top ten were gone.
#20 = Jesper Wallstedt. [=D] Huge get here by Minnesota, who can be forgiven for trading assets to move up a couple slots to guarantee this selection. Not sure what the previous ten teams were thinking in passing up this top goalie prospect, but they will likely be kicking themselves when they’re throwing big money at FA goalies in a few years. You know the Wild made a great pick when you hear how fervently the Kings were fighting to get back into Round 1 to snag this keeper.
#21 = Fabian Lysell. [=)] Of course Boston snags the player with some of the highest upside in the draft. A controversial forward who ranked as high as #3 on some boards, I pegged him going in the teens rather than twenties.
#23 = Wyatt Johnston. [=C] A real wild card, but probably not worth the gamble at #23 for Dallas. Nearly all the rankings I saw had him in the second round, and considering Dallas traded with Detroit already for this pick, you think they could have traded down again if this was the top player on their board.
#26 = Carson Lambos. [=)] Another polarizing player in the draft, Lambos was certainly worth a roll of the dice at this slot, particularly for a Columbus team that had already snagged a couple of forward prospects in Round One. This strong move helps offset the needless riskiness of the Rosen selection.
#29 = Chase Stillman. [=(] New Jersey leaves dozens of better-ranked players on the board by selecting Stillman a round ahead of where he belonged.
#31 = Logan Mailloux. [!!] Fail. If you don’t know about the player who asked to not be drafted after his appalling act and then was picked anyway, feel free to read other great writing about this situation. I will weigh in to note that in addition to being a disgusting move by Montreal, the draft pick also does not line up with the player’s ranking that would have had him squarely in the second round (BEFORE he revoked his draft status).
#32 = Nolan Allen. [=(] Piling bad on top of worse. Chicago already gave up with their high 2021 pick to acquire over-hyped defenseman Seth Jones (along with much more and then a boatload of cash through an extension). But they squandered this consolation prize of pick #32 by selecting someone better suited for the end of Round Two.
Later steals
I don’t know enough about the mid-level prospects to lambast teams for underperforming their slots on Day Two of the Entry Draft, and with these later rounds it feels much harder for a team to really screw up, with lower probabilities of picks outside the First Round making it to the big leagues. But what I was able to track were players that fell down the draft boards much more than they should have, compared to my aggregate rankings. Without any fanfare, here are the Day Two steals:
#42 = Francesco Pinelli (GO KINGS!)
#46 = Samu Tuomaala (PHI)
#47 = Logan Stankoven (DAL)
#50 = Nikita Chibrikov (WIN)
#52 = Aatu Raty (NYI) – former No.1 projected pick
#61 = Sean Behrens (COL)
#66 = Sasha Pastujov (ANA)
#69 = Stanislav Svozil (CBJ)
#71 = Simon Robertsson (STL)
#73 = Ayrton Martino (DAL)
#84 = Kirill Karsonov (WOOHOO KINGS!)
Okay, I’ll admit I stopped paying much attention once the Kings were off the clock. With all their trading up and pick flipping, the were done before the start of Round Four. For more on my analysis on LA’s draft selections and overall strategy, stay tuned for my next post.
The Kings of Kings 