HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Are we all homers in regards to our prospects?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-09-2013, 04:39 PM
  #51
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amyklas View Post
I think a lot of the detractors look at the Wings' system and see guys not hitting the NHL until 24, 25, or 26. These guys spend 3-5 years developing in the minors. So SUBJECTIVELY, people look and say "If they were any good they'd be in the NHL already."

When guys aren't drafted and thrown right into the top-6 (see: Tampa Bay), people think there's something wrong with the player. In essence, it's more a reflection of the team and the organization. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Tampa Bay, but I am saying that the way the prospects in the Wings' organization are treated and groomed is different than most other teams.
Good post. Outside views will go exactly this way.

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 05:43 PM
  #52
Guru Meditation
Service Unavailable
 
Guru Meditation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brick Top View Post
Detroit hasn't had a real high-end impact player young guy hit the team in years outside of Howard (again, referring to top 6 F's and potential top pairing D- I know people drool all over Helm, but he's a bottom 6 lifer). Ideally, this year's rookies and next year's crop will change that.
Personally, I'm not convinced that HF as a whole (and this includes us...) is particularly good at evaluating prospects. They didn't see guys like Nino trending downward, and they didn't see Franzen or Howard as having anywhere near the potential that they've now realized.

We look at our prospect group and say "Nope, no Zetterbergs or Datsyuks," but I'm not convinced we have any acceptable way of knowing. If not Zetterbergs and Datsyuks, there's still no way to argue against Franzen or Howard-type results.

But I think that's also a flaw in HF's analysis of prospects: prospects are somehow judged to have potential X at the draft, and it can never increase, regardless of their handling. Only when a prospect is rushed does their potential change, according to this view. I think a more realistic analysis is that smartly managed development can improve a prospect just as readily as poorly managed development can ruin a prospect.

HF takes "potential" to be this weird, immutable quality that players have. I think it's much more fluid than that.

Guru Meditation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 06:00 PM
  #53
The Zetterberg Era
Moderator
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 18,210
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru Meditation View Post
Personally, I'm not convinced that HF as a whole (and this includes us...) is particularly good at evaluating prospects. They didn't see guys like Nino trending downward, and they didn't see Franzen or Howard as having anywhere near the potential that they've now realized.

We look at our prospect group and say "Nope, no Zetterbergs or Datsyuks," but I'm not convinced we have any acceptable way of knowing. If not Zetterbergs and Datsyuks, there's still no way to argue against Franzen or Howard-type results.

But I think that's also a flaw in HF's analysis of prospects: prospects are somehow judged to have potential X at the draft, and it can never increase, regardless of their handling. Only when a prospect is rushed does their potential change, according to this view. I think a more realistic analysis is that smartly managed development can improve a prospect just as readily as poorly managed development can ruin a prospect.

HF takes "potential" to be this weird, immutable quality that players have. I think it's much more fluid than that.
Yeah basically they should start a whole ton of players at between 8 to 9 D, they never do and then they never really update it. You could drop the value significantly at some point, but I guess that doesn't interest them.

The Zetterberg Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 06:58 PM
  #54
Bench
Moderator
Realgud!
 
Bench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Monk's
Posts: 7,318
vCash: 500
I blame video games!

Only half joking.

Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 07:17 PM
  #55
SoupNazi
Global Moderator
No Soup for You!!!
 
SoupNazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kramerica Industries
Country: Argentina
Posts: 16,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bench View Post
I blame video games!

Only half joking.
Sadly, it's pretty true.

SoupNazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 07:42 PM
  #56
Frk It
#FireHolland
 
Frk It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 10,166
vCash: 500
I think for the most part we overrate our prospects as a board, to a degree. Probably because a lot of us invest time in reading up on prospects and take a personal interest. Any time I look at proposed trade threads, we almost always think our own prospects are worth a lot more than they actually are. Kind of like a mother comparing her own children to other people's kids

On the flip side though, on the main boards I think they almost all underrate our prospect pool, mostly out of jealousy/envy IMO. A lot of the people on the main boards don't want to believe or acknowledge we could have drafted as well as we have given our draft position every year. It is hard to believe we could have not missed the playoffs since 1990 and have such a highly rated prospect pool. I think it bugs a lot of people.

I think in actuality our prospect pool probably falls somewhere in the middle.

Frk It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:02 PM
  #57
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
I think the main board underrates the Wings' prospect pool.

I was having a discussion and pointed out the fact that based on last season, the Wings' 2002 propect pool produced top-180 scoring forwards in Zetterberg, Fleischmann, Hudler, and Kopecky as well as top-120 TOI defensemen in Kronwall and Ericsson, and a starting goaltender in MacDonald.

I had argued that at it was closer to 75% than 50% of the Wings' prospects (including Nyquist and Smith) would reach their potential. Remember that we're starting with numbers of 7/4/1 for top-six/top-four/solid starter based on HF rankings, not including the 2013 draftees.

The Wings' pool is considered to be as deep as it has been since ~1990; it's certainly going to produce at least as many top-six/top-four/#1 as the "bottom of the league" 2002 group.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-09-2013, 10:10 PM
  #58
PelagicJoe
Registered User
 
PelagicJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 341
vCash: 570
Blues fans do it too. Everyone here was creaming their shorts over Tarasenko and Schwartz at the beginning of the season.

PelagicJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 01:26 AM
  #59
Amyklas
Registered User
 
Amyklas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PelagicJoe View Post
Blues fans do it too. Everyone here was creaming their shorts over Tarasenko and Schwartz at the beginning of the season.
did you see the goals Tarasenko netted in game 1 of the season against the Wings? I already wanted to kill that kid for having such skill...mad respect

Amyklas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 08:36 AM
  #60
Brick Top
eeeehhhhhhhhhhh
 
Brick Top's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Grand Rapids
Posts: 1,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru Meditation View Post
Personally, I'm not convinced that HF as a whole (and this includes us...) is particularly good at evaluating prospects. They didn't see guys like Nino trending downward, and they didn't see Franzen or Howard as having anywhere near the potential that they've now realized.

We look at our prospect group and say "Nope, no Zetterbergs or Datsyuks," but I'm not convinced we have any acceptable way of knowing. If not Zetterbergs and Datsyuks, there's still no way to argue against Franzen or Howard-type results.

But I think that's also a flaw in HF's analysis of prospects: prospects are somehow judged to have potential X at the draft, and it can never increase, regardless of their handling. Only when a prospect is rushed does their potential change, according to this view. I think a more realistic analysis is that smartly managed development can improve a prospect just as readily as poorly managed development can ruin a prospect.

HF takes "potential" to be this weird, immutable quality that players have. I think it's much more fluid than that.
Believe me, I'm not making any sort of claim to be a prospect genius (was going with guru there, then thought it'd be weird given your username). I was just looking at the Wings roster over the last 5 or 6 years and feel that they haven't really had any great players hit the team in that span apart from Howard, which is what I'd term a dry spell on top prospects.

We've seen some useful guys come up, like Helm for instance. But with no top-end talent hitting the Wings roster from within in that timeframe, I think there's a clearly visible talent gap on the roster between the high end guys who were drafted a long time ago (D & Z obviously, Kronwall, even Franzen back in 2004) and the crop of young guys who will start their Wings' careers in earnest next season.

Brick Top is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 09:28 AM
  #61
Johnz96*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frk It View Post
I think for the most part we overrate our prospects as a board, to a degree. Probably because a lot of us invest time in reading up on prospects and take a personal interest. Any time I look at proposed trade threads, we almost always think our own prospects are worth a lot more than they actually are. Kind of like a mother comparing her own children to other people's kids

On the flip side though, on the main boards I think they almost all underrate our prospect pool, mostly out of jealousy/envy IMO. A lot of the people on the main boards don't want to believe or acknowledge we could have drafted as well as we have given our draft position every year. It is hard to believe we could have not missed the playoffs since 1990 and have such a highly rated prospect pool. I think it bugs a lot of people.

I think in actuality our prospect pool probably falls somewhere in the middle.
We won the Calder Cup with one of the youngest teams in the league. We had the top d-man in the OHL, QMJHL, CCHA and WCHA last year. And we have a lot of other promising prospects in Jr., college and Europe. The Wings prospect pool is one of the best. When people rank prospects they often consider where they were drafted.
Ranked 3rd by hockey prospectus
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...48705608,d.aWM
11th by hockeysfuture.com
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...9GjEuTddNxc7OQ
10th by Top Shelf Prospects
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...,d.aWM&cad=rja


Last edited by Johnz96*: 07-10-2013 at 10:46 PM.
Johnz96* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 11:22 AM
  #62
Chance on Chance
Registered User
 
Chance on Chance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,223
vCash: 500
We also don't have the flashy name grabbing prospects it would seem

Chance on Chance is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 11:50 AM
  #63
Brick Top
eeeehhhhhhhhhhh
 
Brick Top's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Grand Rapids
Posts: 1,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bench View Post
Bench Bucks!
Everybody loves Bench Bucks!! I wish I had an endless supply of them...

They'd be so abundant, they'd become our currency! 20 Bench Bucks would equal roughly a nickel. Depending on the strength of the yen, I'm not quite sure...

Brick Top is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 12:21 PM
  #64
Amyklas
Registered User
 
Amyklas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brick Top View Post
Everybody loves Bench Bucks!! I wish I had an endless supply of them...

They'd be so abundant, they'd become our currency! 20 Bench Bucks would equal roughly a nickel. Depending on the strength of the yen, I'm not quite sure...
I'll give you a billion Stanley nickels to never talk to me again!

Amyklas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 01:08 PM
  #65
Flowah
Registered User
 
Flowah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guru Meditation View Post
Personally, I'm not convinced that HF as a whole (and this includes us...) is particularly good at evaluating prospects. They didn't see guys like Nino trending downward, and they didn't see Franzen or Howard as having anywhere near the potential that they've now realized.

We look at our prospect group and say "Nope, no Zetterbergs or Datsyuks," but I'm not convinced we have any acceptable way of knowing. If not Zetterbergs and Datsyuks, there's still no way to argue against Franzen or Howard-type results.

But I think that's also a flaw in HF's analysis of prospects: prospects are somehow judged to have potential X at the draft, and it can never increase, regardless of their handling. Only when a prospect is rushed does their potential change, according to this view. I think a more realistic analysis is that smartly managed development can improve a prospect just as readily as poorly managed development can ruin a prospect.

HF takes "potential" to be this weird, immutable quality that players have. I think it's much more fluid than that.
I don't think we have the next D or Z simply because of how rare those kinds of players are, how impossible it is to find one at the places where Detroit drafts typically, along with projections and performances in the minors.

I'm not sure many even first overalls are at Datsyuks level, in the past decade or so even. A few, and maybe some of those Oilers picks will eventually turn into Datsyuk level talent. But for now... I don't think so.

Flowah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 04:14 PM
  #66
BinCookin
Registered User
 
BinCookin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowah View Post

I'm not sure many even first overalls are at Datsyuks level, in the past decade or so even. A few, and maybe some of those Oilers picks will eventually turn into Datsyuk level talent. But for now... I don't think so.
Lets consider ourselves lucky to have a Z and D.

As for overrating prospects.. i would say it is pretty rampant.

Lets take a look at a few of our "Better" NHL forwards that we developed, and how they did in GR before they got their shot in the NHL:

Filppula: 74GP, 20-50-70 (~1PPG) - 3rd round pick 2002
Hudler: 76GP, 36-61-97 (>1PPG) - 2nd round pick 2002
Franzen: - Sweden: 49GP 12-18-30 (~0.6PPG) - 3rd round pick 2004
Helm: 55GP, 13-24-37 - (~0.8 PPG) - 5th round 2005
Brunner: - Swi: 33GP 25-32-57 (>1 PPG) (with Zetterberg) - undrafted.
Abdelkader: 33GP, 11-13-24 (~0.66PPG) - 2nd round pick 2005

The general trend is... they have to produce at the AHL level.

Tatar: 61GP, 23-26-49 - Earned a shot to play in the NHL
Nyquist: 58GP 23-37-60 - Earned a shot to play in the NHL


I think the trend is this... If you provide massive speed (helm) or alot of size (abdelkader) you have to produce 0.6-0.8 PPG in the AHL to get a shot in the NHL.
To get a chance to be an offensive player, you need roughly a PPG in the AHL.

That being said:

There are alot of people here that are really high on Jurco, Jarnkrok Pulkinnin, sheahan, sproul, ouellet, ferraro, frk , etc etc.

I consider all of these players unlikely to make the NHL until they have a GOOD season in the AHL.

Generally speaking, none of these players have done that yet.

Maybe only 1 will do it, maybe 2, maybe none... and maybe the guy who does it is... not even listed yet!

BinCookin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-10-2013, 04:18 PM
  #67
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinCookin View Post
There are alot of people here that are really high on Jurco, Jarnkrok Pulkinnin, sheahan, sproul, ouellet, ferraro, frk , etc etc.

I consider all of these players unlikely to make the NHL until they have a GOOD season in the AHL.

Generally speaking, none of these players have done that yet.
The competition will be crazy. Everyone does not fit on the team. But the strongest diamond wins the competition. It will be a nice situation to pick those sweetest cherries from that group.

Henkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2013, 10:07 PM
  #68
PelagicJoe
Registered User
 
PelagicJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 341
vCash: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amyklas View Post
did you see the goals Tarasenko netted in game 1 of the season against the Wings? I already wanted to kill that kid for having such skill...mad respect
Unfortunately. lol. Schwartz hasn't panned out all that well so far.

PelagicJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.