I understood your point, and wasn't singling you out. Multiple people in the draft thread referred to Holland picking badly.
Yanetti’s measure for success, fwiw, is averaging 1.5 players per draft that play 200+ games in the NHL. Kings draftees are all over the league. Now, I understand the argument that none of the Kings picks have really “hit,” but I think that’s a pretty nuanced topic.
thehockeywriters.com
Success Rates of NHL Draft Picks - The Hockey Writers NHL Entry Draft Latest News, Analysis & More
Scouting and luck combine to make for a successful draft in the NHL. Here are the success rates of the top 32 picks & each individual round.
I can't remember now where I have seen them, but you're correct - these stats exist, and the Kings' drafting has been well above average.
I’ve yet to find a detailed comparison like that.
Yanetti and the Kings are considered up there with best in class when it comes to draft stats. One key measure is guys that have played 200 games and the Kings are cream of the crop (depending on timeframe). To me, the issue is that the Kings are rarely in a place where they can draft a home run player as they usually draft towards the end of the last round. The exceptions being Byfield, Turcotte and Clarke. 2 of those 3 should be standout NHL players and the 3rd is still TBD, if he can meet expectations following concussion issues. Here's an unbiased opinion from an "expert" in the draft field.
Yanetti is in the average range which I can't fully hold him accountable for as he has been overruled by GMs in the past, but being overruled has both helped and hurt him. This draft, however, was extremely vanilla, as though he was going for lower ceiling safe picks, and he had full control over it. Our 1st round pick was not bad, but it was a reach and there were better options available (still I like the pick). I like our 3rd and 5th round picks, and I'll give him credit for taking a gamble with our 120th overall but for a team that needs size I do not see it addressed in even the slightest.
| ROUND | OVERALL | NAME | POS | COUNTRY | HT | WT | TEAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 31 | Henry Brzustewicz | D | USA | 6-2 | 203 | London (OHL) |
| 2 | 59 | Vojtech Cihar | LW | CZE | 6-1 | 180 | Karlovy Vary (Czechia) |
| 3 | 88 | Kristian Epperson | LW | USA | 6-0 | 180 | Saginaw (OHL) |
| 4 | 120 | Caeden Herrington | D | USA | 6-2 | 204 | Lincoln (USHL) |
| 4 | 125 | Jimmy Lombardi | C | CAN | 6-0 | 175 | Flint (OHL) |
| 5 | 152 | Petteri Rimpinen | G | FIN | 6-0 | 176 | K-Espoo (Finland) |
| 6 | 184 | Jan Chovan | C | SVK | 6-3 | 190 | Tappara Jr. (Finland Jr.) |
| 7 | 196 | Brendan McMorrow | C | USA | 6-0 | 173 | Waterloo (USHL) |
| 7 | 216 | William Sharpe | D | CAN | 6-0 | 195 | Kelowna (WHL) |
I think the Hoven podcast looked at a different window of time compared to the article.
2007-2020
That makes sense
Worth a read:Yanetti is in the average range which I can't fully hold him accountable for as he has been overruled by GMs in the past, but being overruled has both helped and hurt him. This draft, however, was extremely vanilla, as though he was going for lower ceiling safe picks, and he had full control over it. Our 1st round pick was not bad, but it was a reach and there were better options available (still I like the pick). I like our 3rd and 5th round picks, and I'll give him credit for taking a gamble with our 120th overall but for a team that needs size I do not see it addressed in even the slightest.
Still time will tell.
Los Angeles Kings
ROUND OVERALL NAME POS COUNTRY HT WT TEAM 1 31 Henry Brzustewicz D USA 6-2 203 London (OHL) 2 59 Vojtech Cihar LW CZE 6-1 180 Karlovy Vary (Czechia) 3 88 Kristian Epperson LW USA 6-0 180 Saginaw (OHL) 4 120 Caeden Herrington D USA 6-2 204 Lincoln (USHL) 4 125 Jimmy Lombardi C CAN 6-0 175 Flint (OHL) 5 152 Petteri Rimpinen G FIN 6-0 176 K-Espoo (Finland) 6 184 Jan Chovan C SVK 6-3 190 Tappara Jr. (Finland Jr.) 7 196 Brendan McMorrow C USA 6-0 173 Waterloo (USHL) 7 216 William Sharpe D CAN 6-0 195 Kelowna (WHL)
If you use 200 games as the metric, then Kuprai was a successful 1st round pick and Kaliyev was a good 2nd round pick... that bar is simply too low. The true test of a GM (or in this case Yanetti) is how many high impact players he drafted, or steals in the late rounds.
Since 2014 the Kings have drafted 7 high impact players (average), 2 of which have been late round steals (above average). But then when you look at the level of impact, versus other organizations, I'd rate the Kings slightly below average. End result, the Kings have been pretty average when it comes to drafting.
In the below article, the Kings are rated 17th out of all teams when it comes to drafting (article is form 2024)
Which NHL teams have been most successful at the draft?
This series will take a look at how teams have performed in the draft and how those picks are shaping the NHL today. This isn’t meant to be a deep evaluation of how teams develop and build their rosters. Instead, it is a look at which teams have shown to be the best at identifying players in the...www.sportsnet.ca
17. Los Angeles Kings
Skaters drafted: 60 | Percentage who played 200 games: 21.67% (13 players)
Notable hits: Tyler Toffoli, Tanner Pearson, Adrian Kempe, Erik Cernak, Mikey Anderson
Toffoli and Pearson contributed to the 2014 Stanley Cup win and Kempe and Anderson are key pieces on the current roster, but the Kings have been forced to turn to free agency and trades to plug a lot of holes when draft picks didn’t pan out.
That was a good read, thank you. The prospect rating system is what I have seen in the past, but there were a few good takeaways within:
Totally agree. The Penguins were the first team I thought of as having had good playoff runs while still being successful in the draft. When I looked back over the last 10 years, I was surprised how many draft picks they had traded away.
That was my takeaway as well. This analysis doesn't differentiate between a top-5 overall pick and a 7th rounder, it essentially assumes that over time everyone's picks have the same value on aggregate, which is just not true.
Below are the only results that matter. Do you really consider this success?
2024-2025 NHL 82 43 25 - 5 9 250 206 105 1.28 4 Conference QF loss 2023-2024 NHL 82 37 27 - 7 11 256 215 99 1.21 7 Conference QF loss 2022-2023 NHL 82 37 25 - 10 10 280 257 104 1.27 5 Conference QF loss 2021-2022 NHL 82 35 27 - 9 11 239 236 99 1.21 6 Conference QF loss 2020-2021 NHL 56 21 28 - - 7 143 170 49 0.88 25 Did not make playoffs 2019-2020 NHL 70 29 35 - - 6 178 212 64 0.91 28 Did not make playoffs 
2018-2019 NHL 82 31 42 - - 9 202 263 71 0.87 30 Did not make playoffs 2017-2018 NHL 82 45 29 - - 8 239 203 98 1.2 12 Conference QF loss 2016-2017 NHL 82 39 35 - - 8 201 205 86 1.05 22 Did not make playoffs 2015-2016 NHL 82 48 28 - - 6 225 195 102 1.24 8 Conference QF loss 2014-2015 NHL 82 40 27 - - 15 220 205 95 1.16 18 Did not make playoffs
