HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

~Grandpabuzz 2013 NHL Draft 7 Round Ranking and Rating~

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-10-2013, 05:09 PM
  #1
Grandpabuzz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 916
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Grandpabuzz
~Grandpabuzz 2013 NHL Draft 7 Round Ranking and Rating~

Well folks, it's that time again. Last year I took an initiative to craft a 'mock draft' based on only data analysis. I spent the past year trying to improve the algorithm and have managed to improve the system for more (hopefully) accurate results. For a deeper description of my method you can see my previous mock draft

Here

And you can also find a more detailed explanation of my entire rating system

Here

I hope to have an updated rating system ready to go before the season starts. However, below I list the same players I rated last year to let the reader see any variance.


Player 2013 Rating 2012 Rating Career Rating
Sidney Crosby: 81 80 77
Bobby Ryan: 56 69 66
Teemu Selanne: 56 60 62
Niklas Hagman: NA 51 58
Andrew Cogliano: 62 52 55
    
Lubomir Visnovsky: 67 65 63
Toni Lydman: 59 50 60
Cam Fowler: 56 55 56
    
Jonas Hiller: 67 53 61
Dan Ellis: 56 58 55

As you can see there was some volatility with some players (Ryan / Hiller) a lot can be explained through the shorten season and less data to use.

As a guiding point a score of 62 or above is first line/pair talent, 58-62 is second line/pair talent, 54-58 is third line/pair talent, and below are fringe/fourth line players.

Notable Players who did not have enough supporting data to be rated and are not on this list:

Sven Ziegler, Ryan Fitzgerald, Daniel LaFontaine, Brian Pinho, Nicolas Beaudin, Brett Boehm, Zach Glienke, Aidan Muir, Zachary Sanford, Miles Wood, Matthias Asperup, Erik Gollenbeck, Alex Coulombe, Connor Light, Brett Pesce, Quin Pompi, Alec Rauhauser
Paul Stoykewych


PickPlayerPositionRating
1 Nathan MacKinnon F 65
2 Jonathan Drouin F 63
3 Taylor Cammarata F 62
4 Hunter Shinkaruk F 62
5 Sean Monahan F 62
6 Nicolas Petan F 61
7 Ryan Pulock D 60
8 Seth Jones D 60
9 Anthony Mantha F 60
10 Aleksander Barkov F 60
11 Shea Theodore D 60
12 Artturi Lehkonen F 60
13 Oliver Bjorkstrand F 59
14 Elias Lindholm F 59
15 Ian McCoshen D 59
16 Lucas Wallmark F 59
17 Frederik Gauthier F 59
18 Brendan Harms F 58
19 Eric Roy D 58
20 Anthony Duclair F 58
21 Tristan Jarry G 58
22 Peter Quenneville F 58
23 Adam Erne F 58
24 Carl Dahlstrom D 58
25 Kerby Rychel F 58
26 Jake Patterson G 57
27 Jacob Sweeney D 57
28 Will Butcher D 57
29 Connor Rankin F 57
30 Morgan Klimchuk F 57
Round 2  
31 Jimmy Lodge F 57
32 Jake Guentzel F 57
33 Amil Krupic D 57
34 Joshua Morrissey D 57
35 Justin Kloos F 57
36 Zachary Fucale G 57
37 Peter Cehlarik F 57
38 Ruzal Galeyev D 57
39 Etienne Marcoux G 57
40 Pavel Buchnevich F 57
41 Stanislav Zinchenko D 57
42 Madison Bowey D 57
43 Nick Sorensen F 57
44 Max Domi F 57
45 Denis Alexandrov D 57
46 Keaton Thompson D 57
47 JT Compher F 57
48 Juuso Ikonen F 57
49 Chris Bigras D 57
50 Gustav Possler F 57
51 Nikita Tryamkin D 57
52 Tomas Dvorak D 57
53 Robert Hagg D 57
54 Alex Kile F 57
55 Luke Johnson F 56
56 Jordan Subban D 56
57 Rasmus Ristolainen D 56
58 Michael Downing D 56
59 Nikita Zadorov D 56
60 Alexandr Barabanov F 56
Round 3  
61 Jason Dickinson F 56
62 Vinni Lettieri F 56
63 Dean Kukan D 56
64 Rinat Valiev D 56
65 Ryan Kujawinski F 56
66 Mattias Norstebo D 56
67 Myles Bell F 56
68 Matthew Murphy D 56
69 Saku Maenalanen F 56
70 Valentin Zykov F 56
71 Rushan Rafikov D 56
72 Marcus Hogberg G 56
73 Linus Arnesson D 56
74 Roni Viirlas D 56
75 Samuel Morin D 56
76 Mitchell Wheaton D 55
77 Curtis Lazar F 55
78 Miles Liberati D 55
79 Mirco Mueller D 55
80 Viktor Baldayev D 55
81 Nolan De Jong D 55
82 Nicholas Baptiste F 55
83 Hudson Fasching F 55
84 Sergei Tolchinsky F 55
85 Andre Burakowsky F 55
86 Ty Stanton D 55
87 Aleksi Makela D 55
88 Teemu Kivihalme D 55
89 Santeri Saari D 55
90 Valeri Nichushkin F 55
Round 4  
91 Ben Harpur D 55
92 Mackenzie Weegar D 55
93 Gustav Olofsson D 55
94 Maxime Gravel D 55
95 Stephen Harper F 55
96 Trevor Moore F 55
97 Dane Birks D 55
98 Darnell Nurse D 55
99 Bo Horvat F 55
100 Eric Comrie G 55
101 Bogdan Yakimov F 55
102 Tim McGauley F 55
103 Gabe Guertler F 55
104 Nikolai Glukhov D 55
105 William Carrier F 55
106 Grigori Vaschenko D 55
107 John Stevens F 54
108 Niklas Hansson D 54
109 Atte Makinen D 54
110 Anton Slepyshev F 54
111 Philippe Desrosiers G 54
112 Spenser Jensen D 54
113 Frank Dichiara F 54
114 Juuse Saros G 54
115 Adam Tambellini F 54
116 Jackson Houck F 54
117 Austin Adam D 54
118 Matias Pulli D 54
119 Marc McNulty D 54
120 David Pope F 54
Round 5  
121 Cole Ully F 54
122 Jerret Smith D 54
123 Roberts Lipsbergs F 54
124 Patrik Bartosak G 54
125 Charlie Graham G 54
126 Viktor Rydberg F 54
127 Jan Kostalek D 54
128 Oskari Siiki F 54
129 Evan Allen F 54
130 Dillon Heatherington D 54
131 Tyler Motte F 54
132 Zachary Leslie D 54
133 Chad Katunar G 54
134 Andreas Johnson F 54
135 Nikolas Brouillard D 54
136 Nick Moutrey F 54
137 Andrew Copp F 54
138 Vincent Dunn F 54
139 Anthony Louis F 54
140 Raphael LaFontaine F 54
141 Henri Ikonen F 54
142 Jonathan Diaby D 54
143 Jacob Rose F 54
144 Marc-Olivier Roy F 54
145 Robin Norell D 54
146 Juuso Vainio D 54
147 Jimi Kuronen D 54
148 Ville Husso G 54
149 Kyle Burroughs D 54
150 Alex Iafallo F 54
Round 6  
151 Carter Verhaeghe F 54
152 Michael Webster D 54
153 Wilhelm Westlund D 54
154 Felix Westermarck F 54
155 Mark Raycroft D 54
156 Joose Antonen F 54
157 Filip Sandberg F 54
158 Saku Salminen F 54
159 Parker Reno D 53
160 Gabryel Paquin-Boudreau F 53
161 Miro Aaltonen F 53
162 Louis-Philip Guindon G 53
163 Jean-Sebastien Dea F 53
164 Clint Lewis D 53
165 Kayle Doetzel D 53
166 Jesper Pettersson D 53
167 Gregory Chase F 53
168 Josh Healey D 53
169 Calvin Petersen G 53
170 Ryan Graves D 53
171 Adam Henry D 53
172 Sean Romeo G 53
173 Justin Bailey F 53
174 Martin Reway F 53
175 Dakota Mermis D 53
176 Tyler Ganly D 53
177 Vyacheslav Osnovin F 53
178 Nick Betz F 53
179 Andrei Mironov D 53
180 Peter Trainor F 53
Round 7  
181 Emile Poirier F 53
182 Steven Santini D 53
183 Otto Rauhala F 53
184 Taylor Green D 53
185 Jared Hauf D 53
186 Wil Tomchuk D 53
187 Dominik Kubalik F 53
188 Cooper Rush D 53
189 Jonny Brodzinski F 53
190 Jeff Corbett D 53
191 Gage Ausmus D 53
192 Quentin Shore F 53
193 Dylan Labbe D 53
194 Jayden Hart F 53
195 Frank Palazzese G 53
196 Anton Cederholm D 53
197 Tyler Lewington D 53
198 Eetu Laurikainen G 53
199 Ryan Lomberg F 53
200 Ayrton Nikkel D 53
201 Spencer Martin G 53
202 Eetu Koivistoinen F 53
203 Brendan Burke G 53
204 Keegan Kanzig D 53
205 Dmitri Yudin D 53
206 Mika Ilvonen D 52
207 Hunter Garlent F 52
208 Santeri Vuoti F 52
209 Daniel Nikandrov F 52
210 Niko Ojamaki F 52


Again, please note that the ratings you see for the prospects is the POTENTIAL that they can become. I'm not saying that Drouin or Domi will come into the league and start producing better than current NHL players, but the rating indicates that these players have the potential to do so. The ratings you see for Crosby, Ryan, etc are their actual ratings - what they've accomplished in the NHL so far. Once you get past the first round, the picks are really up in the air - what you'd expect from a typical draft. Some of the interesting placements are Nichushkin, Lazar, Zykov and Nurse - well below most mock draft expectations.

For your reference, I went ahead and 're-did' the 2012 draft based on my new methodology and compared how the players would have ranked compared to last year. Please note that I've added a lot more variables and different algorithms compared to what I did last year, so the comparison may not be straight apples to apples. Also, you may notice that the ratings for almost all players have fallen compared to last year. That is the result of both the new formula's I've used and the age factor (as you grow a year older, the potential is less).

PickPlayerPositionCurrent RatingLast Yr RatingDifference in Rank
1 Nail Yakupov F 63 66 +2
2 Alex Galchenyuk F 63 66+2
3 Mikhail Grigorenko F 62 69-1
4 Kevin Roy F 62 63 +2
5 Esa Lindell D 61 66 -3
6 Shayne Gostisbehere D 59 62 +9
7 Daniel O'Regan F 59 NA NA
8 Jordan Schmaltz D 59 63 +1
9 Zemgus Girgensons F 59 60 +12
10 Tim Bozon F 59 63 -3
11 Cody Ceci D 59 62 +1
12 Olli Maatta D 58 62 -2
13 Ahti Oksanen D 58 54 +108
14 Peter Quenneville F 58 55 +80
15 Malcolm Subban G 58 56 +54
16 Teuvo Teravainen F 58 59 +7
17 Mathew Dumba D 58 58 +13
18 Filip Forsberg F 58 57 +36
19 Jacob Trouba D 58 54 +101
20 Damir Galin D 58 NANA
21 Morgan Rielly D 58 60 -1
22 Zakhar Arzamastsev D 57 57 +36
23 Justin Kloos F 57 56 +36
24 Griffin Reinhart D 57 57 +31
25 Etienne Marcoux G 57 58 +9
26 Derrick Pouliot D 57 53 +140
27 Ryan Murray D 57 63 -19
28 Matthew Finn D 57 56 +54
29 Nikita Gusev F 57 56 +46
30 Ryan Culkin D 57 62 -17

Grandpabuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 06:43 PM
  #2
Vankiller Whale
#GetJimBinned
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,912
vCash: 1815
I have to say, I'm not a big fan of this ranking. Have you tried applying your algorithm to previous draft years and seen if it projected those draftees careers accurately?

Not to mention it's a lot harder to predict the defensive play of players that project to be shut down defenders or centres based solely on numbers.

Also, the one that stands out the most to me is Nichushkin at the end of round 3. How is he that low in terms of potential?

Vankiller Whale is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 06:47 PM
  #3
Madic
Registered User
 
Madic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,560
vCash: 500
Good stuff. Always dig seeing the number crunchers fool around with the draft.

Madic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 07:14 PM
  #4
Grandpabuzz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 916
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Grandpabuzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I have to say, I'm not a big fan of this ranking. Have you tried applying your algorithm to previous draft years and seen if it projected those draftees careers accurately?

Not to mention it's a lot harder to predict the defensive play of players that project to be shut down defenders or centres based solely on numbers.

Also, the one that stands out the most to me is Nichushkin at the end of round 3. How is he that low in terms of potential?
I did the first round of the 2012 draft at the end of my post.

Nichuskin is that low because of how he compares to other players his age in the leagues he played in and the amount of data that can support that. He hasn't played a ton of games either.

Grandpabuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 08:08 PM
  #5
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,303
vCash: 500
Isn't Marcoux not draft eligible and he's a UFA?

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2013, 08:10 PM
  #6
Kezia
egg
 
Kezia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,763
vCash: 50
I thought Domi would have been higher.

Kezia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 03:08 AM
  #7
Hagged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Props for the immense work you have obviously put in this. But first thing to ask would be about the "career rating" of players in the OP especially of Teemu Selanne. How did your model come to a conclusion that Teemu Selanne is the lowest example of 1st line talent (As Selanne's career rating is 62 and from 62 upwards is the 1st line talent). And how exactly is Bobby Ryan's career better than Teemu Selanne's (by that model). How was Andrew Cogliano's 2013 season an average Selanne's season? Again comparing defensemen and forwards is hard, but Visnovsky having a better career than Selanne is again quite hard to imagine.

Now on to prospects. Let's take Barkov and Lehkonen. What parameters are there to give Lehkonen the upper hand in potential. They are rated the same (second line potential). Yet both are of the same age (Barkov a couple months younger), Barkov is a point per game player and Lehkonen a .6PPG-.7PPG player in FEL at this point. Lehkonen doesn't have edge in size (Barkov is four to five inches and 40lbs bigger), Lehkonen doesn't have edge in defensive game (Barkov is considered the best two-way center in FEL, and I know that your model can't take those considerations into consideration but it shows in the +/- stats as well). What parameter is there that gives Lehkonen his huge boost in the rating compared to Barkov, you might even wan't to tone that down since it seems so obvious flaw?

I'd love to see what your model says about the potential of FEL players like Teemu Selanne or Saku and Mikko Koivu when you put their draft year stats in as Selanne/M. Koivu couldn't crack their FEL teams then. Would their ratings be lower or even higher than Lehkonen/Barkov with higher stats in inferior leagues.

Hagged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 08:06 AM
  #8
gretskidoo
Registered User
 
gretskidoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,145
vCash: 500
I like Wennberg's placement.

gretskidoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 09:22 AM
  #9
Grandpabuzz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 916
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Grandpabuzz
For the comment about Marcoux, I'm getting the player list from the 'official' source on NHL.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkine View Post
Props for the immense work you have obviously put in this. But first thing to ask would be about the "career rating" of players in the OP especially of Teemu Selanne. How did your model come to a conclusion that Teemu Selanne is the lowest example of 1st line talent (As Selanne's career rating is 62 and from 62 upwards is the 1st line talent). And how exactly is Bobby Ryan's career better than Teemu Selanne's (by that model). How was Andrew Cogliano's 2013 season an average Selanne's season? Again comparing defensemen and forwards is hard, but Visnovsky having a better career than Selanne is again quite hard to imagine.

Now on to prospects. Let's take Barkov and Lehkonen. What parameters are there to give Lehkonen the upper hand in potential. They are rated the same (second line potential). Yet both are of the same age (Barkov a couple months younger), Barkov is a point per game player and Lehkonen a .6PPG-.7PPG player in FEL at this point. Lehkonen doesn't have edge in size (Barkov is four to five inches and 40lbs bigger), Lehkonen doesn't have edge in defensive game (Barkov is considered the best two-way center in FEL, and I know that your model can't take those considerations into consideration but it shows in the +/- stats as well). What parameter is there that gives Lehkonen his huge boost in the rating compared to Barkov, you might even wan't to tone that down since it seems so obvious flaw?

I'd love to see what your model says about the potential of FEL players like Teemu Selanne or Saku and Mikko Koivu when you put their draft year stats in as Selanne/M. Koivu couldn't crack their FEL teams then. Would their ratings be lower or even higher than Lehkonen/Barkov with higher stats in inferior leagues.

Thanks for the feedback. When I said 'career' rating, I should have been more clear and said the past seven years. I could only get certain data from the 2006 season on, so that's when the 'career' of every player begins. It's entirely possible that Selanne's real career rating is much higher. Cogliano had a great 'year' with his score, as previously he had been in the 51-55 range. A lot of it was a result of his defensive performance and goal performance compared to other years.

Visnovsky is modeled as top 20 in terms of current defensemen. For your reference my top 5 defense is McDonagh, Mitchell, Garrison, Chara and Keith.

As far as your comparison of Lehkonen / Barkov, there are a couple of other variables that your missing such as team performance and league productivity relative to the NHL. However, the biggest reason Lehkonen's rating is close to Barkov is due to his performance in the junior Finnish league compared not only to Barkov but to other players in that league as well. I understand the rebuttal that the FEL is a 'real' league compared to the Fin Jr, but because Lehkonen's performance was so much better than other players who have played in the league, his rating gets boosted up. I also understand that Barkov went into the FEL at an earlier age (which is taken into account with the formula) and is what makes him an top prospect, but because Lehkonen exceeded the standard deviation of performance in the Fin Jr league and has sufficient games played to corroborate that, there is some merit for him having a rating like that.

Don't have enough data for Saku or Selanne, but as for other current players, here's what their rating would be when drafted from the Finnish leagues based on the model

Player / Draft Rating / Current Rating

M. Koivu: 58 | 56
V. Filppula: 58 | 58
T. Ruutu: 60 | 56
J. Jokinen: 58 | 55

All current ratings are lower than the 'draft potential' rating which is to be expected, but are generally within range. I know your next question will be about Koivu's rating, but he's been very consistent over the past few years in the 54-59 range: 54/56/55/56/57/56/59.

Grandpabuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 09:30 AM
  #10
Dr Quincy
Registered User
 
Dr Quincy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,204
vCash: 500
Emile Poirier a 7th rounder. Cammarata 3rd overall.

Algorithm needs work.

Dr Quincy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 10:14 AM
  #11
Hagged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpabuzz View Post
Thanks for the feedback. When I said 'career' rating, I should have been more clear and said the past seven years.
Thank you for a rapid and thorough answer. The past seven years makes things more clear obviously since Selanne has been more of a PP specialist. I have a bit more to say so I'll slice your post to a couple of smaller quotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpabuzz View Post
Cogliano had a great 'year' with his score, as previously he had been in the 51-55 range. A lot of it was a result of his defensive performance and goal performance compared to other years.
So I guess that the whole Cogliano-Koivu-Winnik line has gotten a great rating for this year. And much of it is well earned as they did most of it with third line minutes and I take it your model somehow counts for TOI also. But now I understand your model a bit better so the reasons behind year by year fluctuation is more clear to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpabuzz View Post
As far as your comparison of Lehkonen / Barkov, there are a couple of other variables that your missing such as team performance and league productivity relative to the NHL.
I have troubles understanding this comment. Barkov and Lehkonen played in the same league on same tier teams (It was only because of Barkov's rise to occasion from the third line role that gave Tappara the center depth to become a contender). But let's say you mean the season before (the season when Lehkonen played U20 with 1.35PPG pace and Barkov played in FEL 3rd line with 0.5PPG pace with best +/- on the team). So the difference would come from that season as the next quote of your post leads to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpabuzz View Post
However, the biggest reason Lehkonen's rating is close to Barkov is due to his performance in the junior Finnish league compared not only to Barkov but to other players in that league as well. I understand the rebuttal that the FEL is a 'real' league compared to the Fin Jr, but because Lehkonen's performance was so much better than other players who have played in the league, his rating gets boosted up. I also understand that Barkov went into the FEL at an earlier age (which is taken into account with the formula) and is what makes him an top prospect, but because Lehkonen exceeded the standard deviation of performance in the Fin Jr league and has sufficient games played to corroborate that, there is some merit for him having a rating like that.
So now Lehkonen's performance was so much better than other players who have played in U20 with 1.35PPG, yet one year younger Barkov played in U20 with 0.7PPG and Lehkonen couldn't crack the U20 team (unless you can call 2 games played with one lucky assist and a -4 cracking the team) so he played U18 league with 1.2PPG. Barkov played five games that season in U18 with 1.8PPG so he got a spot in U20 and never looked back.

So now I have to argue again that your parameters considering the variable, the league productivity relative to NHL between Finnish junior U20 and FEL must be somewhat off in your model since Barkov has outplayed Lehkonen in all stages they have been at the same time. Barkov just has taken the steps towards pro hockey on average one season younger than Lehkonen. I have hard time understanding how Barkov could be penalized for not playing in U20 and playing third line duties in FEL instead as Barkov has shown he is ready to take the next step Lehkonen couldn't have been able to take.

The other thing might be that your model emphisizes too much the seasons before the last season for the prospects. As looking at this year when Lehkonen and Barkov are easy to compare as they both are playing in the same league in similar tier teams Barkov comes ahead. Miles ahead of Lehkonen. Or it might be that these two are just outliers in otherwise great model. Or it might be that Lehkonen is a greater prospect than I give him credit for .

Anyways thanks for a great read these always makes you think what is it we look in prospects that we see. And somekind of models like these we have in our heads when we compare two prospects from different leagues or NA vs European prospects. And it's obviously better to put those thoughts to paper than just trust our intuition/instincts to come up with who of the prospects is better than the others.


EDIT: One question. Do you have possibility of calculating on your model what kind of rise in production would have to have been seen from Barkov this year in FEL for him to be at 65 rating if all other inputs than the offensive stats would have looked the same. The hypothetical #1 overall prospect from FEL.

EDIT2: There is something badly off in Tuomo Ruutu's draft rating relative to Barkov's. Less than .5PPG in FEL in draft year with not much of two-way game. Less than PPG in U20 league the year before. Almost a year older than Barkov when drafted. And he has the same rating. I guess somewhere there is your knot that has to be opened. While Ruutu had potential which he never reached, he is two tiers below Barkov even as a prospect (and maybe I'll up Lehkonen to a tier above Ruutu as his stats are impressive, but I consider him more or less of the same value as Ruutu at his draft year at least they are closer to each other than to Barkov).


Last edited by Hagged: 06-11-2013 at 10:49 AM.
Hagged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 11:02 AM
  #12
Grandpabuzz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 916
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Grandpabuzz
Thanks Henkine. Yes, the ratings for current players have TOI as a pretty big variable.

A couple things for the Barkov / Lehkonen argument. First off, each season is treated the same in terms of final ratings weighting. So even if a player played much better in 2013 versus 2012, his performance in 2012 (assuming the same number of games) will be equally weighted with 2013 (age adjusted however).

Second, the first line / third line argument is too much a variable to use. Players change lines on a game-by-game basis and I don't think I would be able to find that data anyway (not sure how many Massachusetts high school hockey publications are out there!). TOI would be ideal, but pretty much no junior hockey database shows that stat (If I'm mistaken, please tell me). As a result I have to use GP as a proxy.

As a rebuttal, I will say that both players got the opportunity to 'prove' themselves, despite different leagues. The way my model works is that it gives extra 'points' to younger players who play in leagues with higher ages. I have the average age in the Fin U20 of about 18, while the FEL average age is ~20. As a result, Barkov was receiving extra 'points' for being in the FEL at such a young age, and Lehkonen was getting less 'points' for playing the FIN U20 compared to Barkov. So this helps fix your issue with the third/first line question. I probably should have mentioned that earlier.

So it might actually be that Lehkonen is better than you think. Truthfully, Barkov is ranked maybe 5 spots lower than most mock drafts out there, while Lehkonen is 5 spots higher than most mock drafts.


EDIT: Forgot your question on Barkov. He would have to score about 45 goals and 45 assists (ONLY THIS YEAR - Last year remains stagnant) in the FEL to be rated 65 overall. Big dreaming I know!

Grandpabuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 11:29 AM
  #13
Hagged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpabuzz View Post

As a rebuttal, I will say that both players got the opportunity to 'prove' themselves, despite different leagues. The way my model works is that it gives extra 'points' to younger players who play in leagues with higher ages. I have the average age in the Fin U20 of about 18, while the FEL average age is ~20. As a result, Barkov was receiving extra 'points' for being in the FEL at such a young age, and Lehkonen was getting less 'points' for playing the FIN U20 compared to Barkov. So this helps fix your issue with the third/first line question. I probably should have mentioned that earlier.

FIN U20 the average age is propably close to 19 as some overagers are allowed to my knowledge and even if there wouldn't be any overagers most of the 17 year olds play in U18 league wich has a average age close to 17 as there is also the U16 league. But obviously the OHL is a better junior league than Finnish U20 so you might have had to use it as an adjustment parameter.

But FEL average age is 25 (at the moment about 24.5 but I believe 25 can be used as the average over time). FEL is the best pro league the country has to offer. For finnish junior's it means adjustment from junior's to pro's exactly like there is a transition from OHL to AHL/NHL. 0.5PPG in FEL is much better and much more rare for a 16 year old than over PPG in U20.

EDIT: so a 90 point season from Barkov would have put him to a level of McKinnon. Even a 21 year old Selanne couldn't have pulled it off (but he would have become close with his PPG, if he could have handled 60 games without losing pace) and we know how he faired the next season in the NHL . Maybe a bit of tweaks to put the European/NA equivalencies right on but otherwise thanks for giving something to think about. Lehkonen should be able to become an NHL player if he reaches his potential and avoids the fate of some other small european offensive players.

Hagged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 12:37 PM
  #14
dwanmaster*
Rap Game Adam Banks
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Paris
Country: Qatar
Posts: 2,470
vCash: 500
Seth Jones at #8 and tied with Pulock and Theodore = hahahahhahahaahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahha haha WTF ARE YOU ON

dwanmaster* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 01:12 PM
  #15
Hagged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwanmaster View Post
Seth Jones at #8 and tied with Pulock and Theodore = hahahahhahahaahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahha haha WTF ARE YOU ON
As I have already got some answers from the original poster I might be able to help with this.

Seth Jones tied with Pulock ratings wise is mostly due to season 11-12. It might be that USHL/USDP vs WHL equivalency parameters are off that Pulocks 11-12 season (with .85PPG +33 in WHL) is considered as a better season than Seth Jones' (.6PPG +5) season in USHL/USDP. And since 11-12 and 12-13 seasons are only adjusted by age they weigh as much when calculating the rating.

I have no doubt that this model gives Seth Jones a better rating for this season than Pulock in WHL.

This is kind of the same thing as Barkov/Lehkonen situation we are talking in details in some posts above.

EDIT: As for Theodore the thing is mostly about his age. One year can be huge in this age and mostly it is (Pulock is somewhat of an outlier himself). Theodore is a full year younger and if you think about it Theodore has improved his offensive output by fourty percent in one year. One year from now he will be of the same age as Jones and Pulock and if he improves his offensive output as much as he did from last season to this season. He will be a PPG D in WHL. But thanks for the feedback on behalf of Grandpabuzz, it's good to keep the conversation on as we all make these same models in our head about league equivalencies/stats/intangibles. So are you sure the model in your head is better than that of Grandpabuzz's on his drawing board.


Last edited by Hagged: 06-11-2013 at 01:40 PM.
Hagged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 01:20 PM
  #16
Tigers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Hamilton
Country: Cayman Islands
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
Surely you don't expect
a) the draft to unfold this way or
b) this to be a more or less accurate depiction of future potential
so, why bother? Seriously. Surely you would expect MacKinnon's potential upside to be more 5% above Cammarata? If not, I'm sure you could get a great line from a bookie on that.

Also, why design a predictor that crams the top 200 prospects into a 10 point band. At least leave a decimal or something (since ultimately that floating digit represents 10% of the players "potential" given the limitations of the ranking).

Tigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 01:49 PM
  #17
Grandpabuzz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 916
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Grandpabuzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers View Post
Surely you don't expect
a) the draft to unfold this way or
b) this to be a more or less accurate depiction of future potential
so, why bother? Seriously. Surely you would expect MacKinnon's potential upside to be more 5% above Cammarata? If not, I'm sure you could get a great line from a bookie on that.

Also, why design a predictor that crams the top 200 prospects into a 10 point band. At least leave a decimal or something (since ultimately that floating digit represents 10% of the players "potential" given the limitations of the ranking).
It's not supposed to be A, but it is supposed to be B. From the data we have so far, this is how the player will potentially end up. Cammarata did so much better than all of his peers, including players that previously played in the USHL and are currently regulars in the NHL. Why can't his potential be that high?

I could have added the decimals, as you are right about the score band. I kept it short because the rating system I have for current players is usually between 65-45 with a few outliers above/below that range.

Grandpabuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2013, 02:05 PM
  #18
Hagged
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers View Post
Also, why design a predictor that crams the top 200 prospects into a 10 point band. At least leave a decimal or something (since ultimately that floating digit represents 10% of the players "potential" given the limitations of the ranking).
Why to say "prospect x has y line potential". That crams the top 200 prospects into a 4point band.

You can argue that the 2011-12 season has less value than the 12-13. But I didn't come up with good reasons to it. You can argue that the league where Cammarata plays in is more inferior to CHL than the model expects. I don't know have the data to back that claim.

But to interpret that the three rating points that is between McKinnon and Cammarata is 5% in potential is something I wouldn't do.

As in the OP there is the guidelines what these ratings mean. So those 3points in ratings is something that differentiates a lower echelon first line player from a lower echelon 2nd line player. So looking at 2011-12 season that would mean the difference between a 60 point player and a 40 point player. Now, Cammarata has a rating of 62 which basically says he has first line potential but just barely so his potential is around that 60 point mark (of course this is not only about offensive ability but just to make an example I use offensive player as an example). So now looking at McKinnons rating of 65 what does that mean. Difference between a barely first line player and one line above a first line player. Well, if we use that offensive player example that might mean that McKinnon would have that 50% more points than that "barely first line player" So he would have 90 point potential. But this is just me guessing how the model works.

Hagged 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 08:03 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.