HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Notices

Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

Corey Pronman - Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-25-2011, 04:32 AM
  #1
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,763
vCash: 500
Corey Pronman - Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=955

Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects
Full List, 1-100

by Corey Pronman

Welcome to the first edition of Hockey Prospectus' Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects!

We don't want you to keep waiting on who our Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects are and how they're ranked, so here's the full list. Follow the links below to detailed scouting reports, Projected Peak GVT and Statistical Comparables of each group of prospects. We've started from 91-100 and will make it all the way through Ryan-Nugent Hopkins and Prospects 1-5 by June 10, in plenty of time for you to digest all of this material by the 2011 NHL Entry Draft, held in St. Paul, Minnesota on June 24-25.

Introduction

A description of the methodology of these rankings, including the Projected Peak and Statistical Comparables (courtesy of Iain Fyffe).

Prospects 1-5

1. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, Center, Red Deer-WHL*
2. Sean Couturier, Center, Drummondville-QMJHL*
3. Ryan Strome, Center, Niagara-OHL*
4. Jonathan Huberdeau, Center, Saint John-QMJHL*
5. Adam Larsson, Defense, Skelleftea-SEL*
*Ranking explanation included

Prospects 6-10

6. Ryan Murphy, Defense, Kitchener-OHL*
7. Mika Zibanejad, Left Wing, Djurgarden-SEL*
8. Nathan Beaulieu, Defense, Saint John-QMJHL*
9. Mark McNeill, Center, Prince Albert-WHL*
10. Rocco Grimaldi, Center, USA Under-18-USHL*
*Ranking explanation included

Prospects 11-15

11. Alexander Khokhlachev, Center, Windsor-OHL*
12. Dougie Hamilton, Defense, Niagara-OHL*
13. Gabriel Landeskog, Right Wing, Kitchener-OHL*
14. Joe Morrow, Defense, Portland-WHL*
15. Joel Armia, Right Wing, Assat-SM-Liiga*
*Ranking explanation included

Prospects 16-20

16. Scott Mayfield, Defense, Youngstown-USHL*
17. Jonas Brodin, Defense, Farjestad-SEL*
18. Sven B�rtschi, Left Wing, Portland-WHL*
19. Nikita Kucherov, Left Wing, CSKA-MHL*
20. Dmitrij Jaskin, Right Wing, HC Slavia Praha-Czech Extraliga*
*Ranking explanation included

full list available at link above

...

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=951

Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects
Introduction

by Corey Pronman


Welcome to the first edition of Hockey Prospectus' Top 100 NHL Draft Eligible Prospects.

In this series, you will find my personal rankings of what I feel are the top prospects in the 2011 draft class, along with detailed reports for each prospect, an explanation for each top ranking and key ones after that, statistical projections and a statistical comparable for each prospect.

Before you dive right into the rankings, I would like to briefly explain the process that went into the rankings and the reports, and to reintroduce several key statistical and scouting analysis techniques used in the rankings.

For the reports, they are based on my personal viewings of each and every prospect, with aid from professional and independent scouts. However, the bulk of the notes are from my personal viewings, predominantly through video scouting, and I have seen each and every prospect at least once and most several times. The reports are littered with references to a scouting language called the 20-80 scale, which is something I've borrowed from the baseball scouting world and have adapted to hockey scouting.

To avoid confusing readers I make as few references to number grades as possible, however I do mix it up here and there to avoid using the words average or above-average over a thousand times in these rankings. Here is how the 20-80 scale works and the words associated with those grades I use in the rankings:

70 is amongst the NHL's elite/plus-plus
60 is plus/top-tier
55 is above-average
50 is NHL average/average/pro-level/decent
45 is below-average
40 is fringe/replacement level

Anytime I say well below-average or well above-average that refers to beyond the 40 grade or 60 range. Solid or solid-average means between 50 and 55, fringe-average means between 45 and 50. The purpose of the 20-80 scale is not to try and quantify scouting, but rather it illustrates a clear and distinguishable language to the reader of exactly how much I value a particular attribute. It also allows me to keep my sanity when evaluating and ranking the prospects.

The tools referenced throughout commonly are skating, puck skills, shot, physical game and hockey sense. Skating and shot are self-explanatory, puck skills is play with the puck and passing, but will be differentiated in the profiles if there is a distinct difference. Physical game refers to physical assets, but with a heavy emphasis on actual effectiveness in the physical game as opposed to just relying on size/weight projections. Hockey sense is the entire mental aspect of the game and will be differentiated in the profiles amongst the many aspects if needed.

The ranking process started by finding out exactly how valuable certain skills are in today's NHL market. Gabe Desjardins explained this pretty clearly here:

"Together, Fenwick/Corsi and Luck account for around 3/4 of team winning percentage. What's the remainder? Goaltending talent - which Tom Awad estimates at about 5% - and special teams, along with a very small sliver that's due to shooting talent and the oft-mentioned "shot quality." So I don't think there's a false dichotomy here - there are five factors in this model, all of which are given credence in proportion to their predictive power."

To those unfamiliar with Corsi/Fenwick, they are basically indicators of possession skill, as Vic Ferrari has shown many times at his blog, on top of showing the overwhelming importance of possession.

These insights into the modern day NHL and the valuations of certain skills played a huge part in my rankings. Possession skills are the primary factor used in my rankings by a significant margin. While players' shooting percentage drives results, the persistence of shooting percentage is low due to the high degree of luck in shooting percentage in a single season. Thereby players who make their mark by beating the percentages shooting-wise through mid-distance shooting were debited due to uncertainty of the skill due to luck.

Tom Awad has estimated goaltending is worth about 5% of winning percentage, and has done several good columns on the goaltending market and talent distribution here and here to help illustrate the goaltending situation. Combine that with how long goalies take to develop and the development uncertainty and goalies are given very low value in my rankings.

With the possession skill in mind as to what I primarily wanted to focus on, I polled several NHL executives who also put a focus on possession in their drafting and pulled on my own experience to figure out which tools I wanted to emphasize. For defensemen, the answer was always to put hockey IQ high up there along with puck-moving ability. For forwards, it's puck skills, along with hockey IQ. Other factors obviously come into play as skating, physical game, and other areas are important. Skating tends to be a little more important for forwards and physical game more so for defenders so this is all scaled accordingly. Everything plays into the possession game, but those aforementioned abilities are qualities that are of a higher importance to that skill and this play a larger part in the formation of these rankings.

Other factors that influenced the rankings are things like position scarcity and upside/risk. I took a glance at positional scarcity at different production points and Tom Awad looked at it in his Good Players series. In regards to upside/risk, I looked at Goals Versus Salary/value numbers at different GVT points I listed in a previous column to see how much risk was warranted in terms of uncertainty of a projection if it meant a certain jump/upside in Goals Versus Salary/value. The basic conclusions from this are that top-tier defensemen are more valuable than forwards as long as they have offensive skills. When you started getting into the average player and the meat of the distribution, forwards are more valuable than defenders. Risk on upside is less wise to take towards the top of the draft, but as you start comparing average to somewhat above-average players it's better to take smart risks on upside. Signability factors were not accounted for as they can be case by case, so for Europeans with transfer questions I kept the rankings talent-based.

Statistics used in these rankings are Projected Peak GVT and it is used as an aid during the ranking process. Goals Versus Threshold was created by Tom Awad and is Hockey Prospectus' proprietary metric that shows how many goals above replacement level a player is, with replacement level being defined as the talent level that is interchangeable between the worst NHL players and the easily accessible players from other sources such as the AHL. League average GVT amongst players in the 2010-11 season with at least 30 GP was 5.44 with one standard deviation being 4.92 GVT. Iain Fyffe will explain how the projections are done.

Iain Fyffe: Projectinator Ratings

The Projectinator is a system that produces objective ratings of draft-eligible players. It's objective in the sense that numbers are plugged in to the system, and a rating comes out, without any subjective judgment from the user. It takes the player's junior numbers and produces an estimate of his future value to an NHL team, expressed in GVT. This GVT is meant to represent a player's peak GVT (per 82 games), defined as the five best seasons in the first 10 after his draft year. This time period is chosen to reflect the number of seasons a typical player will be under a team's control before becoming a free agent. The rating is also normalized for the fact that goaltenders and defensemen play more minutes per game than forwards do; if not, goaltenders would always be considered the best prospects available.

The numbers used aren't just the player's individual scoring stats; many factors are considered in the calculations. A player's birth month is a crucial piece of information. Given identical stats, a player born in June is a much better prospect that one born the previous December. Team factors are also considered. Playing on a good team is an advantage for any player, and in particular for a goaltender. Playing on a good defensive team is a positive sign for a defenseman. A blueliner who takes too many penalties suffers (he puts his team down a man too often), but so does one who takes too few (he likely doesn't play physically enough). Several other factors are considered, including a player's size, which while severely overrated by most scouts, does have some effect, particularly for defensemen and goalies.

In addition to the projected GVT, we have provided comparable players. It's one thing to have a number, it's another to have a concrete representation of that number in terms of a player you're familiar with. None of the comparisons are perfect, of course, but they give you some idea of the player the Projectinator expects these prospects to become.

It should be noted too that US High School Players and USNTDP projections were unavailable. The comparables are derived from similar players the Projectionator finds in its objective rating system and is not an indication of my personal feeling of similar skill sets or scouting projections.

With all of that being said, we now present you our Top 100 Draft Eligible Prospects. Hope you enjoy it and while I have explained everything here in as much detail as possible, if you have any questions about anything in these rankings you can reach me at cpronman@hockeyprospectus.com or at my twitter account @coreypronman


Last edited by DaveG: 05-25-2011 at 07:59 AM.
Mathletic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:27 AM
  #2
helicecopter
Registered User
 
helicecopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: give me higher shots
Posts: 7,957
vCash: 500
shocking list.

surprisingly it looks completely biased towards europeans.
definitely a bold one

helicecopter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:38 AM
  #3
The Saw Is the Law
Registered User
 
The Saw Is the Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,836
vCash: 500
11. Khokhlachev
19. Kucherov
23. Namestnikov
31. Zakhar Arzamastsev
34. Alexei Marchenko
37. Albert Yarullin

Pretty much Russians in TOP40.

After RNH it is pure crapshooting

The Saw Is the Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:49 AM
  #4
Foppa
Registered User
 
Foppa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
I applaud the attempt at using a detailed statistical analysis but no matter how complex and even if combined with some old-fashioned scouting, I think it results it a highly skewed ranking.

I think it (besides the obvious differences at the top of the list from most) totally underrates guys like Miller (#54), Siemens (#62) and Klefbom (#68). And while terms like "intangibles" do perhaps get overblown too much, it's almost as if this list completely ignores them. And after watching the video sessions of the Avs scouting department, I think it's pretty obvious, to them anyway, that "compete level" and other such highly immeasurable by number factors are extremely important to their thought process.

Should be an interesting discussion here...

Foppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:51 AM
  #5
Tormentor
Registered User
 
Tormentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Too Far
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,731
vCash: 500
I appreciate the work and time invested to this. Interesting rankings and I’m looking forward seeing what the explanation behind Duncan Siemens' ranking at #61 is.

Strange that the statistical comparable which 'The Projectionator' found for Miikka Salomäki was Marco Tuokko. Tuokko was 21 when he was drafted and never produced the same way in juniors as Salomäki did. What are the biggest differences between Sean Bergenheim and Miikka Salomäki in this 'objective rating system’? To me they seem like fairly good statistical comparables.

Tormentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 06:23 AM
  #6
Foppa
Registered User
 
Foppa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
...the prospect write-ups are a nice read too.

Maybe I'm not being forward thinking enough or not tapping my inner-Billy Beane but throw out the rankings, the GVT, the "projectionator" comparables and just reading your honest to god scouting reports about what you saw...well, those are great.

Foppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 07:17 AM
  #7
Faidh ar Rud Eigin
Modhnóirí Claonta
 
Faidh ar Rud Eigin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Transcendent
Country: Guernsey
Posts: 15,946
vCash: 500
The explanations are definitely neccesary. But I suspect they won't be fufilling a good enough reason.

Siemens @62 bellow Harrington who is worse in just about everyway is unexcusable. Too many others to list that I suspect won't have a good reason.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:04 AM
  #8
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 7,153
vCash: 500
Some of the ones I saw and said "what??" :

35. Tomas Jurco, Right Wing, Saint John-QMJHL
41. Victor Rask, Center, Leksand-Allsvenskan
47. Stefan Noesen, Left Wing, Plymouth-OHL
56. Seth Ambroz, Right Wing, Omaha-USHL
62. Duncan Siemens, Defense, Saskatoon-WHL*
68. Oscar Klefbom, Defense, Farjestad-SEL
78. Tyler Biggs, Right Wing, USA Under-18-USHL*

Crede777 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:08 AM
  #9
Corey Pronman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tormentor View Post
I appreciate the work and time invested to this. Interesting rankings and I’m looking forward seeing what the explanation behind Duncan Siemens' ranking at #61 is.

Strange that the statistical comparable which 'The Projectionator' found for Miikka Salomäki was Marco Tuokko. Tuokko was 21 when he was drafted and never produced the same way in juniors as Salomäki did. What are the biggest differences between Sean Bergenheim and Miikka Salomäki in this 'objective rating system’? To me they seem like fairly good statistical comparables.
The comps weren't done by me, but by my colleague at HP Iain Fyffe, but from what I understand the factors are similar production at similar ages, body types, leagues played in etc. Some of the comps are not going to fit but the point was to make it completely computerized/objective rather than us forcing comps more or less.

Re: the rankings, yes I'm aware of how off the board they are and throughout the columns I try to emphasize why certain players are where they are. The introduction details the ranking process/what I emphasize, and the reports/explanations for certain players should take care of the rest. Am open and happy to answer questions.

Cheers

Corey Pronman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:21 AM
  #10
asmodeanreborn
Registered User
 
asmodeanreborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Longmont, CO
Country: Sweden
Posts: 549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey Pronman View Post
The comps weren't done by me, but by my colleague at HP Iain Fyffe, but from what I understand the factors are similar production at similar ages, body types, leagues played in etc. Some of the comps are not going to fit but the point was to make it completely computerized/objective rather than us forcing comps more or less.

Re: the rankings, yes I'm aware of how off the board they are and throughout the columns I try to emphasize why certain players are where they are. The introduction details the ranking process/what I emphasize, and the reports/explanations for certain players should take care of the rest. Am open and happy to answer questions.

Cheers
That still doesn't explain Duncan Siemens... one of the youngest kids in the draft, very solid numbers offensively, and a great size for a defenseman. That's unless you punish him a LOT for playing on a very good team.

That said, it's a very interesting and thoughtprovoking list, and there are actually many things on it that I do agree with in general, such as Landeskog not being nearly as high on this list as he is on most common ones.

asmodeanreborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:36 AM
  #11
John-Eric Iannicello
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Windsor
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,280
vCash: 500
Bruins 2010 Draft Watch had Siemens ranked 36th. So there's another opinion on Siemens that doesn't match with the common consensus.

That being said it's a player ranking and not a mock-draft. Most teams probably have him in their top 30, some NHL teams may not have Siemens ranked in their top 30.

Quote:
36. Duncan Siemens, D Saskatoon (WHL) 6-3, 197 09/07/1993
We can hear the screams of disagreement all the way to Saskatoon on this one and are prepared to take our lumps. Here's the disclaimer up front: We *know* that Siemens is a first-round pick and an NHL scout we talked to doesn't have a problem with where we have him, but told us- "You'll have to be OK with him going 15-20 spots before where you put him." Check. At the end of the day, we just don't see the upside with this guy. Yes, he can skate and his September birthdate is appealing given that he's one of the younger kids in this class. That said, we've been underwhelmed in each and every one of our viewings of him...admittedly all of them via stream. Video does not do any player justice, especially a defenseman where so much happens behind the play. That said, the same NHL scout said that Siemens' 43 points in 72 games were "phony" and said he reviewed the video on them- assists were throw it into the corner and forward then makes the play. While tough, Siemens is nowhere near as intimidating as Dylan McIlrath (who admittedly had a poor year) and Colten Teubert. Want evidence of that- look at his fight with Musil at the top prospects game. Siemens went looking for it, and the Canadian-born Czech more than held his own. Look, we know he's likely a top-20 selection and we're probably being a bit harsh, but we'll almost guarantee that there are NHL teams who do not have him in their top-30. Those decisions will never see the light of day to be criticized, but we're OK laying it on the line by saying that we don't see Siemens as being the No. 1/No. 2 NHL defender worthy of that top-10 or 11 selection where some have him. Heresy, we know, but we keep hearing about how Stefan Elliott had a lot to do with his partner's success and how underwhelming Siemens was in the playoffs. Add it all together and you have a guy we've been up-and-down on all season, but in the end, are a little down.

John-Eric Iannicello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:23 AM
  #12
AUAIOMRN
Registered User
 
AUAIOMRN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,582
vCash: 500
Does someone have the link to previous years? I found last year's thread here but the link goes to a dead page. Do they go back further than one year?

These lists contain some bold predictions which makes them more interesting than usual, I'd like to see how they turned out.

AUAIOMRN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:34 AM
  #13
Corey Pronman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodeanreborn View Post
That still doesn't explain Duncan Siemens... one of the youngest kids in the draft, very solid numbers offensively, and a great size for a defenseman. That's unless you punish him a LOT for playing on a very good team.

That said, it's a very interesting and thoughtprovoking list, and there are actually many things on it that I do agree with in general, such as Landeskog not being nearly as high on this list as he is on most common ones.
Siemens ranking/explanation should go up today/tonight, but I'll explain it briefly. I don't hate Duncan Siemens, despite what the ranking may indicate. I think he's good at what he does, above-average skater for a big man, will move with pros well, really good physical projection and physical game, and impressive for a few days removed from the 2012 draft. However I highly emphasize puck possession skills as stated in the introduction in detail, and I think Duncan lacks those skills.

He got a lot of points, but based on observation and scouts I talked to his production was a result of a lot of 2nd assists, first passes up etc. and some things that can be attributed to team effects and random chance as opposed to true talent puck-moving skills and I don't think he will be able to move the puck at the next level. I'm also not a fan of his defensive game asides from the fact he can knock forwards off the puck so while I like his upside/physical/athletic qualities, I don't think the necessary components of an NHL defenseman are quite there in terms of controlling the play, keeping the puck out of his zone and keeping it in the opponent's end.

Corey Pronman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:42 AM
  #14
Cujomi
YNWA
 
Cujomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,916
vCash: 500
Interesting. I've always wanted to see a list like this, and a draft ranking that was based more on statistical analysis because I believe that as a tool it can really be used as long as it takes into account the proper statistics and also takes into account the environment.

Also the only thing I disagree with about the top 8 is that Hamilton and Landeskog should be in there. I also think that RNH's statistics are a bit phony and protected, but I'm very interested in the write-ups.

Cujomi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:56 AM
  #15
The Old Master
Registered User
 
The Old Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: burgh
Country: United States
Posts: 5,435
vCash: 500
i'm very impressed with the work you put in this.....but as for your results, not as much.

The Old Master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 11:05 AM
  #16
Pietraneglo222
WwWwW
 
Pietraneglo222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Gatineau
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,271
vCash: 500
I like the way you work Corey. Discriminating in terms of possession skill sounds like a very smart thing to do. Building a team with this criteria in mind should pay dividends.

Pietraneglo222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 11:13 AM
  #17
asmodeanreborn
Registered User
 
asmodeanreborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Longmont, CO
Country: Sweden
Posts: 549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey Pronman View Post
Siemens ranking/explanation should go up today/tonight, but I'll explain it briefly. I don't hate Duncan Siemens, despite what the ranking may indicate. I think he's good at what he does, above-average skater for a big man, will move with pros well, really good physical projection and physical game, and impressive for a few days removed from the 2012 draft. However I highly emphasize puck possession skills as stated in the introduction in detail, and I think Duncan lacks those skills.

He got a lot of points, but based on observation and scouts I talked to his production was a result of a lot of 2nd assists, first passes up etc. and some things that can be attributed to team effects and random chance as opposed to true talent puck-moving skills and I don't think he will be able to move the puck at the next level. I'm also not a fan of his defensive game asides from the fact he can knock forwards off the puck so while I like his upside/physical/athletic qualities, I don't think the necessary components of an NHL defenseman are quite there in terms of controlling the play, keeping the puck out of his zone and keeping it in the opponent's end.
That makes perfect sense to me, and I don't see him as a big contributor offensively in the NHL either. I've only seen him in limited outings and base pretty much all my opinion about him on a friend in Toontown who watches him a lot - but he's obviously biased, and I tend to listen to him more than I should because he raves about Elliott.

My next question would be about Puempel - typically I get the feeling that he's fallen down the rankings because he's played on a team in a rebuild, along with his unfortunate injury. Is there a feeling that the injury will permanently hamper him, or is there another good reason for him being ranked in the 30's? I know he's not a defensive mastermind, but to me he always seemed very confident in the offensive zone, with the ability to pick his spots seemingly at will whenever he has a shooting lane, and getting the shots off in a hurry too. Am I overrating his ability to put pucks in the net?

asmodeanreborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 11:20 AM
  #18
wej20
Registered User
 
wej20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Swansea,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 21,172
vCash: 500
Is there much point of the Statistical comparable when you're comparing them to a player who plays completely differently?

wej20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 03:25 PM
  #19
Corey Pronman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodeanreborn View Post
My next question would be about Puempel - typically I get the feeling that he's fallen down the rankings because he's played on a team in a rebuild, along with his unfortunate injury. Is there a feeling that the injury will permanently hamper him, or is there another good reason for him being ranked in the 30's? I know he's not a defensive mastermind, but to me he always seemed very confident in the offensive zone, with the ability to pick his spots seemingly at will whenever he has a shooting lane, and getting the shots off in a hurry too. Am I overrating his ability to put pucks in the net?
I briefly explained with links to studies in the Introduction, but players who offense is derived from goal-scoring or more specifically from scoring from a distance were hurt somewhat during the ranking process due to the uncertainty of the shot tool. You need so many reps to get a true feel for that tool, and as we've seen in the NHL goal-scoring fluctuates so rapidly year to year for individuals that the uncertainty of whether or not the skill is true talent or random chance/fluctuation is taken into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wej20 View Post
Is there much point of the Statistical comparable when you're comparing them to a player who plays completely differently?
The point is to show a comparable statistical career path based on body type, leagues, position, PIM, and G/Pts production adjusting for G:A ratio, team strength and league quality. Then to show a projectable and comparable peak for that player.

Corey Pronman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 03:32 PM
  #20
Latex*
DM is good
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Helsinki,Helsingfors
Posts: 5,551
vCash: 500
Only reason Ma.Granlund is being ranked above Salomäki is Ma.G's older brother.

Latex* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 03:52 PM
  #21
BluechipBulletin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
I'm a big fan of people ranking players based on what they've seen or their own form of analysis rather than taking everyone else's lists and re-ordering based on personal biases. That said, any ranking that puts Landeskog at 13th should raise significant red flags.

I think a thorough explanation of your methodology would help. You tossed around some terms and mentioned what types of things you factored into your rankings, but you didn't tell us what exact criteria you used and how you weighted them.

Further, I don't think you should be portraying your list as objective when a large portion of what you did was opinion-based. I can see the utility in having advanced statistical evidence to support a clearly subjective ranking, but you are subjectively assigning numerical values to non-quantifiable variables then running them through a formula.

I think your list would be better if you were ranking players based on what you saw with your own eyes and supplementing it with some of the advanced statistical evidence that you've talked about here rather than trying to make it into a Moneypuck formula.

On a side note, the Hockeyprospectus guys and mc89 were obviously heavily influenced by Moneyball and Sabrmetrics, but I think that they would be well-served to look into what was done with horse racing in the late-70s through early-90s to put things into perspective. Everyone and their brother published a formula that you could buy for the low-low price of just $25, and while there was a nugget of truth in most of them, none of them worked.

The ONLY thing that Moneyball did that had any profound effect on baseball was that it got people to open their eyes to guys they had overlooked and it gave those players opportunities they wouldn't have otherwise had. Some of them were successful, some of them flopped, but the overall lesson that should have been learned was lost on everyone.

Edit - I should say that your writeups are some of the best I've read, and they're definitely worthy of publication - I'd buy your draft guide without question. It's just your rankings that are messed up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathletic View Post
The numbers used aren't just the player's individual scoring stats; many factors are considered in the calculations. A player's birth month is a crucial piece of information. Given identical stats, a player born in June is a much better prospect that one born the previous December.
That's faulty logic. I get what you're going for - that a younger prospect in the same draft year is more valuable than an older prospect because he's younger and thus has more time to develop before he reaches the age of the late birthdate. But think it through for a second - who had to be more talented? A late birthdate or an early birthdate? Who had to battle harder against kids that were bigger than he is?

A late birthdate is almost always going to be the smallest kid in his age group, and that's why there's such a glaring disparity between late birthdates and early birthdates at every level of hockey. A late birthdate is often one of the more talented guys on a team because he has to be - his talent is what helps him overcome the size disparity and the advanced development of the early birthdate. Look at the late birthdates taken in the first round of the 2010 Draft if you doubt me.

If I were an NHL team, I would be looking at both ends of that spectrum. I'd be looking at the 93s with the latest birthdates, and I'd be looking at the late 92s, since they are undervalued due to the bias against them.


Last edited by BluechipBulletin: 05-25-2011 at 04:05 PM.
BluechipBulletin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 03:55 PM
  #22
wej20
Registered User
 
wej20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Swansea,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 21,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey Pronman View Post
I briefly explained with links to studies in the Introduction, but players who offense is derived from goal-scoring or more specifically from scoring from a distance were hurt somewhat during the ranking process due to the uncertainty of the shot tool. You need so many reps to get a true feel for that tool, and as we've seen in the NHL goal-scoring fluctuates so rapidly year to year for individuals that the uncertainty of whether or not the skill is true talent or random chance/fluctuation is taken into account.



The point is to show a comparable statistical career path based on body type, leagues, position, PIM, and G/Pts production adjusting for G:A ratio, team strength and league quality. Then to show a projectable and comparable peak for that player.
Ryan Sproul was compared to Bryan Allen, Sproul is a raw offensive dmen and Allen's a slow crease clearer type.

wej20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 04:07 PM
  #23
Corey Pronman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
The objective statistics aspect is not what formed the ranking. The birth date stuff is in respect to the projections and is based on studies Iain Fyffe at HP has done before, and as stated in the Introduction the projections were used as an aid, but their influence was purely supplementary.

The analytical aspects that were significant influences was the skills analysis which is a combination of subjectivity and objectivity... all stated in full in the Intro. If there's something there you want explained in more detail I'd be happy to oblige.

Thanks for the questions and comments, am happy to answer as many as needed.

Corey Pronman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 04:12 PM
  #24
bebl
Registered User
 
bebl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latexi84 View Post
Only reason Ma.Granlund is being ranked above Salomäki is Ma.G's older brother.
Salomäki is better player now but imo Granlund is better prospect and this is Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects

bebl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 04:48 PM
  #25
Tormentor
Registered User
 
Tormentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Too Far
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bebl View Post
Salomäki is better player now but imo Granlund is better prospect and this is Top 100 NHL Draft Prospects
For the most part Markus Granlund has a better offensive game and probably a higher offensive upside than Salomäki, but many also think that Markus Granlund’s chances of developing into a NHL player are almost nonexistent. He’s small, soft and not overly competitive. His puck skills aren’t quite as good as his older brother’s and he doesn’t have elite speed. Salomäki on the other hand has a decent chance of developing into a NHL level checking line forward, therefore I strongly believe that he’ll be drafted before Markus Granlund. We'll have to wait and see.

Tormentor 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 01:40 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.