Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
Whaler1

2015 NHL Entry Draft

Recommended Posts

Again, Lindholm and Barkov were playing in the highest level leagues in Sweden and Finland against men as 17/18 year-olds. Of course they are not going to produce numbers like guys playing against other developing 17/18 year-olds.

Also, Griffin Reinhart isn't a full-time NHLer, and I'm not sure Drouin can be considered a full-time NHLer to this point.

.

Edited by Kyrule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Lindholm and Barkov were playing in the highest level leagues in Sweden and Finland against men as 17/18 year-olds. Of course they are not going to produce numbers like guys playing against other developing 17/18 year-olds.

Also, I'm not sure Drouin can be considered a full-time NHLer to this point.

 

No argument here, I'm just saying most of the top 5 picks have put up big numbers at the junior level.

 

The only player in the top 5 that put up 100+pts in the prior season to his draft so far that hasn't put up at least 50pts has been Druin.  Druin has only played 1 season, and his numbers aren't that far off from Lindholm's.  If we're playing the odds, it wouldn't be a bad bet to draft a high scorer at the junior level if we draft a forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the size argument, I did think a bit about all the emphasis on high scoring in the OHL, especially 100 point or better seasons and how that applies to NHL success.  I looked up all the 100 pt seasons from 02/03 to 11/12.  I wanted to get 10 seasons so there would be a reasonable amount of data, and cut it at 11/12 since anything newer gives too small of a sample size to judge success.  Also, going back to 02/03 allows us to get the season that Chad LaRose scored 117 pts and Eric Staal scored only 98, thus not making the cut.

 

In those 10 seasons, there were 41 players that had 100 pt or better seasons (some had multiple seasons so there were 47 "100 pt seasons").  For our discussion of success on a #5 overall pick, I think that guy needs to at least be a 1/2 point a game player to avoid being a bust with that high of a pick in this draft.  Of those 41 players with 100 pt OHL seasons, 13 have been at least 1/2 point per game NHLers.  Of those 41 players, 10 never put on an NHL uniform and 10 more have played 70 or less games.

 

Now I'm just a simple caveman hockey fan, and I don't understand your fancy "advanced metrics" and such, but it seems from this that you can't place too much emphasis on 100 pt. OHL seasons.  In those 10 years, 31.7% of those players ended up being at least a 1/2 pt per game player, but almost 50% played minimally or not at all in the NHL.  Amazingly, the Canes have 2 of those 100 pt players on the roster or in the system (kind of) with Chris Terry (101 pts in 2007/2008) and Chad LaRose (117 pts in 2002/2003).

 

Keep in mind, for every Patrick Kane, there is an Eric Himelfarb.  For every John Tavares, there is a Daniel Sisca.  For every Steven Stamkos, there is a Tyler Donati.  For every Tyler Seguin, there is an Justin Azevedo.

 

 

 

edit: Just for poops and giggles I did look at height.  21 of the 41 players with 100 pt seasons were listed as under 6' tall.  3 of those players were in the 13 total players with at least a 1/2 ppg NHL career (Patrick Kane, Bryan Little, and Sam Gagner).

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have convinced me that Marner and Crouse are too "boom or bust."

Trade down and grab a tier 3 player (as Coastal listed). I would want a roster player in return along with our trading partner's first rather than a 2nd round pick.

If we can't trade down and Hanifin/Strome are gone, then maybe just take Provorov.

I'm saying this sort of tongue-in-cheek, but one could make a good argument for this point of view.

With all of this stastistical/analytical stuff being put out there, I hope our scouts are still relying heavily on their most valuable tools.

Their eyes and their brain.

.

Edited by Kyrule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake summed up what I am trying to point out pretty well.

 

As to the other:

 

Remember Marner did not score 100 points, he scored 126, in 63 games.

 

100 points in 63 games is 1.59 ppg.

Marner scored 2.0 ppg. 2 points per game!

 

Taylor Seguin and Talyor Hall, the famed Taylor and Tyler year: 1.68 and 1.85. Look, there are duds in the super high scoring range too, but a lot of studs too. As a percentage the uber high scorers have a much much higher NHL success rate than the big average scorers.

 

Chad Larose can be looked at both ways. Scouts left him undrafted. Yet, despite his deminuative size, he went on to play 500 NHL games.

 

ABSOLUTELY no one thing can be counted on. JUST putting up a lot of points in Juniors in no way guarantees success. But how about this project. Take all guys who put up at least .5 ppg and were over 6.2" in Juniors. What percentage of them played 200 NHL games? We know from the article I posted: about 10%.

 

Points scored, Size, skating, scout's eyeball, work ethic, tough compete, character, leadership, hockey IQ. All have to play into any decision. But points scored is the single most reliable of them.

 

Marner? He hits every one except size. And on points he blows the curve. Guys who scored ppg at Marner's level or better:

 

2015: Conner McDavid

2014: None.

2013: None.

2012: None.

2011: None.

2010: None.

2009: None.

2008: None.

2007: Patrick Kane.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of this stastistical/analytical stuff being put out there, I hope our scouts are still relying heavily on their most valuable tools.

Their eyes and their brain.

.

That was kind of where I was going when I was looking at the 100 pt season thing. Somebody can skew stats to fit their argument, put it on the Internet, and they have a theory. When you look at raw data, it tells a different story. Just looking at OHL scoring isn't enough. It's one metric, sure. You can't base a whole drafting theory simply by looking at OHL scoring.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Edit: Rem, your last post just proves you are so set on being right that you refuse to acknowledge stats that support a a different view. I looked up some raw data personally, and you do not see the validity that scoring at the OHL level does not equate to NHL success. In 2002/2003, Corey Locke scored OHL 151 pts. In 2002/2003, Matt Fox scored 132 OHL pts. In 2005/2006, Rob Schemp scored 145 OHL pts. In 2007/2008, Justin Azevedo scored 124 OHL pts.

Since you had to mention Marner and size again, over half of the 100 pt OHL scorers were under 6' but only 3 turned out to be 1/2 PPG NHLers. Marner may be the next Patrick Kane, but he will be an outlier to the trend if he is. As kyrule said, somebody has to use their brain and eyes.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SD,  in my post above I agreed that points alone is not enough. I listed things that have to be considered. But junior hockey actual points scored is the single best metric of them. (Ironcially this is also true for defenseman, though to a lesser degree). Also, that Marner checks every box except size.  And he is not just a high scorer, he is an uber high scorer. 

 

Do you aknowldege those three points? (points are the single best thing, Marner is an uber high point guy, and Marner also brings every other quality outside of size, not just points). Do you discount all three of those?

 

Size as a lone factor only leas to 10% NHL careers on just size using 6'2" and .5-.75 ppg.

Your post says high points leads to  32%. (And you are setting .5 ppg as the bar, I am just saying 200 NHL games).

The .5 ppg is less than half the forwards in the NHL.

 

So just points: 31%, Just size 10%. Neither is good enough, but one is better.

 

I think it important to note that the vast majority of Junior hockey players do not make the NHL to any signficant degree. So collecting a bunch that scored a lot and showing 31% of them not only made the NHL but put up .5ppg is not damning. Again, only 10% of the big guys that scored .5 - .75 ppg in Juniors made 200 NHL games. Much lower if they scored less.

 

So find some metric of just heart. Just Grit. Just hockey IQ. Just whatever. None of it will outperform just points. But of course it is not the only metric by any means.

 

But again, Marner is not LaRose. Can you acknowldege that? Marner checks all of the boxes: hockey IQ, compete, tough, leadership, skating, vision, passing, scout's eyeballs. LaRose obviously failed the scout's eyeballs since he went undrafted.

 

I am just giving my opinion. I am willing to consider other points of view. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them to have considered them.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring the size argument, I did think a bit about all the emphasis on high scoring in the OHL, especially 100 point or better seasons and how that applies to NHL success.  I looked up all the 100 pt seasons from 02/03 to 11/12.  I wanted to get 10 seasons so there would be a reasonable amount of data, and cut it at 11/12 since anything newer gives too small of a sample size to judge success.  Also, going back to 02/03 allows us to get the season that Chad LaRose scored 117 pts and Eric Staal scored only 98, thus not making the cut.

 

In those 10 seasons, there were 41 players that had 100 pt or better seasons (some had multiple seasons so there were 47 "100 pt seasons").  For our discussion of success on a #5 overall pick, I think that guy needs to at least be a 1/2 point a game player to avoid being a bust with that high of a pick in this draft.  Of those 41 players with 100 pt OHL seasons, 13 have been at least 1/2 point per game NHLers.  Of those 41 players, 10 never put on an NHL uniform and 10 more have played 70 or less games.

 

Now I'm just a simple caveman hockey fan, and I don't understand your fancy "advanced metrics" and such, but it seems from this that you can't place too much emphasis on 100 pt. OHL seasons.  In those 10 years, 31.7% of those players ended up being at least a 1/2 pt per game player, but almost 50% played minimally or not at all in the NHL.  Amazingly, the Canes have 2 of those 100 pt players on the roster or in the system (kind of) with Chris Terry (101 pts in 2007/2008) and Chad LaRose (117 pts in 2002/2003).

 

Keep in mind, for every Patrick Kane, there is an Eric Himelfarb.  For every John Tavares, there is a Daniel Sisca.  For every Steven Stamkos, there is a Tyler Donati.  For every Tyler Seguin, there is an Justin Azevedo.

 

 

 

edit: Just for poops and giggles I did look at height.  21 of the 41 players with 100 pt seasons were listed as under 6' tall.  3 of those players were in the 13 total players with at least a 1/2 ppg NHL career (Patrick Kane, Bryan Little, and Sam Gagner).

 

I am completely not taking part of this stat debate, I am just curious.  Of the 100pt players you looked up, how many were considered top 5 prospects?  I looked up all the specific names you've mentioned in your last couple posts, and all of them are 4th rounders or later, or just undrafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super_Dave, the coorelation between points and projected NHL success isn't "how many points a player has in his best junior season". It is how many points a player has in his draft-eligible year. That is a big difference, and likely explains why you are not seeing the same coorelation other "stats" folks are.

 

In juniors, players can range from 16 years old to 20 years old. Obviously the 20 year olds are going to have a distinct advantage over the 16 year olds. And for the better players, they won't still be in juniors when they are 20 years old to put up gaudy numbers. 

 

Comparing Staal and LaRose, for example, shows how accounting for the age of the player affects the analysis. 

 

LaRose played in juniors three seasons, when he was 18, 19 and 20 years old. His points those years were 25, 59 and 117.

 

Staal also played in juniors three seasons, when he was 16, 17 and 18 years old. His points were 49, 62 and 98.

 

So yes, LaRose had more points in his third season (117) as a 20 year old than Staal had in his third season (98) as an 18 year old. But they only played in juniors one year when they were the same age (18). In their 18 year old seasons, Staal outscored LaRose 98 to 25. If Staal had played in juniors as a 20 year old, I think it is safe to say he would have surpassed LaRose's 117 points.

 

As for the other players you mentioned (minus Fox, who I couldn't find any stats on), only one - Locke - achieved his high point total as an 18 year old. The rest?

 

Schemp scored 145 points as a 19 year old. He scored 54 at 18.

Azevedo scored 124 points as a 19 year old. He scored 56 at 18.

Sisca scored 100 points as a 20 year old. He scored 59 at 18.

Donati scored 129 points as a 20 year old. He scored 72 at 18.

Azevedo scored 124 as a 19 year old. He scored 56 at 18.

 

I am curious how many of the 100 point seasons you found were in player's 18 year season? I suspect when that is taken into account, the "bust" rate will diminish by quite a bit. Not to zero, but I think you will be able to see the coorelation a lot better.

 

As for Marner, the "Projection Project" found five players that were in his size and points production range as draft eligible players. One (Drouin) is still developing, but of the other four, every single one has had a successful NHL career. In fact, using their criteria (1+ seasons scoring 70+ pts), all of them are elite players. Sure it is a small sample size, and points aren't everything, but it does give me a lot more confidence that Marner will be successful in the NHL, since it does take size (or at least height) into account. And, as Rem has pointed out, most of the other factors are on his side.

 

Note that of the "busts" you mentioned that I have above - all of them scored more their 18 year season than Crouse. Which is where some of the concern comes with his numbers. Again, points not being everything, he may very will succeed, and I actually think he will, but I am concerned that he will end up a second or third line player. 

 

I am hoping the 'Canes won't have too many (more) opportunities to draft 5th - and in this draft the 5th has been equated to a 3rd. Perhaps I am greedy, but I don't want a second or third line player from this lousy season. I want an elite player. And I think Marner has a better chance of becoming that. While he has seemed like a boom or bust type pick, seeing how well "similar" players have done, and seeing McKenzie's "can't go wrong" statement, make me think there is not really a big "bust" risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, we want who we want.  I'm not going to discredit Crouse or Rantanen because of their lack of offensive production, and i'm not going to overly praise Marner because he averaged 2ppg.  I'm just going to start posting draft profiles and stay more informed (also in slim hope of ending these debates).  Starting with Dylan Strome.

 

Dylan Strome

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=228107

 

Ranked #6 by Hockeyprospect.com
Ranked #3 by ISS Hockey
Ranked #4 by Future Considerations
Ranked #8 by McKeen's Hockey
Ranked #4 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=228107#sthash.KhUtq35n.dpuf

 

“He has that competitive edge and grittiness; he wants to succeed, wants the puck, wants to score and wants to win. He’s a skilled, driven player, a strong skater with the agility and reach that scouts love.”

 
The quote was from nhl.com.  This is who I wish the Hurricanes somehow end up drafting, even if it means moving up.  I know the majority of Toronto fans want him and seems to think he ends up there.  Arizona is rumored to be kicking tires as far as trading down, which leads me to believe they're not sold on him.  Perfect blend of size, skill, grit, leadership, hockey IQ, etc.  His biggest knock has been his skating.  With Eric's slow transition to wing, and Jordan not a great #1 center, having a guy like Strome to take over the top spot wouldn't be a bad look.
 
***edit to add*** According to hockey fans across the net, Strome's stock is falling.  Apparently, he's been a real letdown in the OHL playoffs.  Maybe he falls to us.
Edited by PenaltyKiller17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My posts are long. Really? yes.

 

I will try to sum up my overall opinion. I am absolutely aware I could be wrong.

 

We are a smallish softish team and have been for a long time. Scouts in general tend to favor size, arguably too much, but in general size does matter. About 75% of the top 20 points NHL players are over 6 feet. Even though the points vs size data favors points, size IS a real factor also. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for a team, but especially our team, to put an outsized bonus on size and especially toughness in this draft.

 

However, our exact draft position may very well leave us with a stark choice in this regard if it comes down to Marner vs. Crouse. While we all want to get bigger, to do so would be to pass on a singular talent. In my opinion, Marner brings all intangibles except size, and is not just a high scorer but a rare uber high scorer, and in this case those factors outweigh even need that we have for a big tough guy who can score. Crouse's massive size and beastly physicality are tempting, but Crouse has a red flag on points. If Marner was not there, it might be different, but he will be (or Hanifin or Strome). So, despite me also wanting big and tough, the margin is just too big and I take Marner despite it.

 

I would even bias our second round pick even more to size and grit to try to make up for it.

 

I have come full circle on Hanifin though. The more I watch tape and listen to analysis, the more I think he should be the pick if he is there. He has the preternatural calm and pefect positioning that remind me of a bigger Faulk looking that good at an earlier age. I have very high hopes for Fleury, but Hanifin seems like a surer thing to join Faulk as our #1 pair for years to come.

 

So I take Hanifin, then Strome, then Marner at #5 and smile a big smile. That's what I do. If I'm GM I'm done w/ the first round after that.

 

However, since I am no the GM, and in Francis I trust, If Franicis likes Crouse big time, then I take Crouse, but if not, I would trade down. Say #8, pick up a high second rounder, and take Crouse, Barzal, Provorov or Werenski, or possilby Ratanen, plus two very very nice, very high second rounders.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading through the methodology on the site Invisible posted earlier.

 

One thing that peaked my interest (thanks Kyrule) was comparing guys, for example, playing in a Euro league in their draft year, with players in the same league to produce the NHLEs.  It wasn't possible but that would be a nice option.

 

It would also be really nice, and pertinent to the current discussion, to be able to filter by the draft position of comparable players.

 

Weights would be nice to go with height, but I imagine it would be impossible to track that back to a guys draft year.

 

Some of this could certainly affect the original rankings Invisible posted, but how much does that even matter when there are so many options with the 5th pick?

 

I still like the D, so Hanifin-Provorov for me.  Both are safe picks.  And that's defendable. B)

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In juniors, players can range from 16 years old to 20 years old. Obviously the 20 year olds are going to have a distinct advantage over the 16 year olds. And for the better players, they won't still be in juniors when they are 20 years old to put up gaudy numbers. 

 

I didn't want to copy your entire quote, and I really don't want to pile on SD, but your analysis is excellent and I had not considered that. It does change the analysis pretty strongly. I still say size matters, but points matter more, and it is points in the draft eligible year, indeed.

 

And since Coastal posted above me, I have add.

 

Weight is an issue, and the study I posted said it was just too hard to confirm, and so many guys add weight.

 

and

 

It really is tough to gauge these Europeans who go play in men's Pro leagues. They don't always get top line time, and they are much younger in some cases. Then they also play on the big ice.  Rantanen seems to be formost here w/ our first pick, but other guys w/ our second pick. Rantanen sure looks smooth and skilled for his size.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you guys started posting things about OHL scoring and how that is the metric that best predicts success in the NHL. When I start looking at that, it's scoring during the draft eligible year or it isn't 100 pts. it's 126 pts.  What I'm guilty of is trying to get folks to realize that you can't put all your faith in a single metric that best supports the guy you like.   I didn't look at the 100 pt scorer because I made up that number.  It was posted here somewhere in relation to somebody's thesis on who to draft.  I thought it would be interesting to see for myself what that number meant and translated into NHL success rather than to take somebody's work that could be skewing data to match their point and ignoring other data. 

 

It's pretty simple.  OHL scoring alone doesn't mean squat.   For one thing, you have to take into consideration the other players on the team and how that affects the number.  Qualify it however you want as far as draft year, age, whether or not it was a top prospect etc.  You can't just say it's the best indicator and then say "don't include this and that".

 

I quit the size argument and tried to look at it another way, to no avail.  Whoever the Canes take is fine, that hasn't been my point.  If you want to take Marner and aren't going to change you mind, then just say so.  Since they seem to be the opposites of the equation, I'd say most of the hockey world has Marner rated 5th or 6th and Crouse anywhere from 5th to 10th.  I just hope he's taken prior to 5 and Strome or Hanifin is left.  I am wary of the size issue.  I didn't say that I wouldn't take him, but I think it has to be a concern when you look at the physicality of this team.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawson Crouse

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=205155

 

Ranked #8 by Hockeyprospect.com
Ranked #4 by ISS Hockey
Ranked #9 by Future Considerations
Ranked #6 by McKeen's Hockey
Ranked #5 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=205155#sthash.VG4ZkkvQ.dpuf

 

"A big-bodied power winger with the ability to physically dominate, making him a prominent forechecking presence every night. Possesses good hands that can be used to make crisp passes or to let loose accurate, NHL-level shots; paired with his strength and skating ability, his skill set allows him to contribute offensively, as well as create space for teammates." (Curtis Joe, EP 2014)

- See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=205155#sthash.VG4ZkkvQ.dpuf

 

I really really really really would not mind having Crouse on the Hurricanes, I think the loud protesters (lol myself and Remkin) are ultimately trying to say that drafting him at #5 isn't the best use of our resources.  The difference between him and all three of Marner/Strome/Hanifin is the other three right now are projected to be all star/top line/franchise players.  I have no doubt that Crouse is going to be a full-time NHL player, and I would love to see a #2 checking line of Lindholm/J Staal/Crouse, but I just don't see him being more than a 2nd line player.  I would be happy if Carolina drafted him, I would be happier if we traded down to get him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Coastal.  And just because of the kind words:

 

Ivan Provorov

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=242584

 

Ranked #7 by Hockeyprospect.com
Ranked #7 by ISS Hockey
Ranked #8 by Future Considerations
Ranked #5 by McKeen's Hockey
Ranked #7 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=242584#sthash.1HLEoFBC.dpuf

 

"An offensively gifted defenceman who can direct the game's pace when the puck is on his stick. Provorov is a quick and agile skater with an accurate release on his shot, which he can get off anywhere below the blue line; creates many chances on the power play and can even create offense during the penalty kill. Is an adroit and creative passer who knows how to use his teammates well. All-in-all, a complete defenceman who knows how goals are scored and executes accordingly." (Curtis Joe, EP 2014) 

- See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=242584#sthash.1HLEoFBC.dpuf

 

This guy, similar to Dylan Strome, meets the perfect blend of size and skill, but that doesn't even begin to tell his story.  I've read about this guy, and he is the true exception to drafting a Russian if there was no other.  This guy wanted to move to North America at the age of 14 to have the best chance of playing against the best players at his age and develop his skills.  He didn't speak a lick of english, and is now pretty fluent.  I've watched highlights, and his game, to me, is nearly identical to one Justin Faulk.  I think he has a real will to win and play at a high level, leadership written on his forehead.  If the Hurricanes drafted him, they could accomplish something this franchise has never done, which is field a legit top defensive line.  He is the one player outside of Strome/Marner/Hanifin who I'd feel completely comfortable drafting at #5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, you guys started posting things about OHL scoring and how that is the metric that best predicts success in the NHL. When I start looking at that, it's scoring during the draft eligible year or it isn't 100 pts. it's 126 pts.  What I'm guilty of is trying to get folks to realize that you can't put all your faith in a single metric that best supports the guy you like.   I didn't look at the 100 pt scorer because I made up that number.  It was posted here somewhere in relation to somebody's thesis on who to draft.  I thought it would be interesting to see for myself what that number meant and translated into NHL success rather than to take somebody's work that could be skewing data to match their point and ignoring other data. 

 

It's pretty simple.  OHL scoring alone doesn't mean squat.   For one thing, you have to take into consideration the other players on the team and how that affects the number.  Qualify it however you want as far as draft year, age, whether or not it was a top prospect etc.  You can't just say it's the best indicator and then say "don't include this and that".

 

I quit the size argument and tried to look at it another way, to no avail.  Whoever the Canes take is fine, that hasn't been my point.  If you want to take Marner and aren't going to change you mind, then just say so.  Since they seem to be the opposites of the equation, I'd say most of the hockey world has Marner rated 5th or 6th and Crouse anywhere from 5th to 10th.  I just hope he's taken prior to 5 and Strome or Hanifin is left.  I am wary of the size issue.  I didn't say that I wouldn't take him, but I think it has to be a concern when you look at the physicality of this team.

 

s-d, I hope you don't feel some of us are ganging up on you here.  I'm more interested in the general principles/ concepts we're discussing than a Marner vs. Crouse debate, so I'll limit my discussion to those.  

 

You are absolutely right about there not being a single metric that predicts draft success. 

 

Your concern about cherry picking metrics is a valid one.  Metrics should be defined before the analysis in order to avoid bias. A flag for biased analyses is when "odd" cutoffs are picked (e.g., 92 points rather than 100 points).  What I've seen posted here are quick and dirty "looks" rather than preplanned analyses. I haven't gotten a feeling that people have cherry picked data, but sure, the possibility exists.

 

Stating that something is the "best single indicator" doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good indicator; just that it's better than the other individual indicators.  I think we all agree that no one single indicator should dictate a draft choice.

 

For prediction purposes, the more refined your metrics are the better.  P_K first mention of "100 OHL points" was used on the subset of top 5 draft picks.  I'd bet he used that subset and cutoff because they were convenient rather than cherry picked, but it could be the latter. Either way, "top 5 drafted" indirectly invokes the kind of refinements that Invisible astutely pointed out would lead to more accurate predictions (that is if you agree that Invisible's point about age effecting production among teenagers makes common sense). You showed an example that suggests that using "raw 100 OHL points" wasn't a good predictor in and of itself. I know you just grabbed it because p-k mentioned it first, but when you removed "among top 5 picks" you made it a coarser and therefore less precise metric. That's not to say it's not valid, but if you use it, the question that pops into my head is "what's the success rate (.5ppg NHL) of OHL players that scored less than 100 points in a season?  I bet it's way lower than 32%. 

 

Or, think if you did the exact same analysis but using size (height) instead of points.  It would involve taking every OHLer over the years you analyzed who was 6'4" and above and looking at their NHL success rates.  I know it's not practical (if even possible) to actually do it, but do you think the success rate for every OHL player bigger than 6'4" would be close to the 32% success rate you found for the 100 point scorers?  I'd be very surprised if that were the case . . .   That wouldn't mean that size doesn't matter, just that a metric that raw isn't going to be very precise without additional refinements.

 

What I'd love to see is an analysis modeling NHL success using the following factors:

Dependent ("success") variable: a stat that combines NHL ppg and # of games played (in relation how far out the player is from being drafted).

Independent variables: league, points(in draft year), age, height, and heck, let's throw in a "scouts rating" factor (average of the top 4 or 5 services?)

 

Any takers? :P

 

Ok, my head hurts.  I think I'll stick with PKs player summaries from here on out.  Can't wait till he gets to Zacha; from the little I've heard, sounds very similar to Crouse in many respects but with a bit of a mean streak.  :boarding:

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it. 100 pt seasons, by top 5 prospects, on Tuesdays, on a full moon, but only on even numbered days in October and January. It's crystal clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it. 100 pt seasons, by top 5 prospects, on Tuesdays, on a full moon, but only on even numbered days in October and January. It's crystal clear.

 

I actually got a good chuckle off this.

 

And I promise this will be the very last thing I comment on as far as this stat subject.  My initial post had absolutely nothing to do with 100+pt scorers, it was top ranked prospects that average 1ppg, rather that be 100pts in 65 games or 65pts in 65 games.  All I said was among top prospects, it seems like every forward in the top 5 picks in the last 5 drafts that have been given full time roles have scored at least 50pts in a season except Druin and last year's draft (most of them haven't played or received enough playing time) except Barkov and Lindholm.

 

This 100pt thing was either misconstrued on taken the wrong way.  But there is a clear difference between Patrick Kane and Chad Larose.  If every draft was based purely on points, then the one's SD mentioned would also be included in the top 10 prospects.  These scouts look at more than points, which is the reason why players like Crouse and Rantanen are in most top 10's.  But it's also the reason Marner is in the top 10.  At the beginning of the season, even when he was tearing it up offensively, Marner was not a top 10 prospect.  Scouts saw all the intangibles that Remkin mentioned that warrant the bump in rankings.  We can only go by the information we are given, unless we got some posters that go to OHL games on a regular basis.

 

 

Now.................................More Scout Reports coming tomorrow.  Since someone mentioned him, I'll do Zacha next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to see what OHL scoring itself had to do with projecting success at the NHL level. It seems obvious (to me) that by itself, it does not predict success. I'm not saying that it has no importance, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. I looked at it because seemingly every time the discussion questioned a particular player's size and how that was a concern, OHL scoring was continuously thrown out there as the Holy Grail of stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it. 100 pt seasons, by top 5 prospects, on Tuesdays, on a full moon, but only on even numbered days in October and January. It's crystal clear.

 

You forgot: by prospects whose last name doesn't contain the anagram for a flower.  ^_^

 

I just wanted to see what OHL scoring itself had to do with projecting success at the NHL level. It seems obvious (to me) that by itself, it does not predict success. I'm not saying that it has no importance, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. I looked at it because seemingly every time the discussion questioned a particular player's size and how that was a concern, OHL scoring was continuously thrown out there as the Holy Grail of stats.

 

I think we're all in agreement on that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pavel Zacha

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=130786

 

Ranked #4 by Hockeyprospect.com
Ranked #10 by ISS Hockey
Ranked #13 by Future Considerations
Ranked #9 by McKeen's Hockey
Ranked #8 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=130786#sthash.3LB46m9Y.dpuf

 

"Pavel Zacha is an offensively dynamic center with the size, speed, and skill to make a significant impact on the game. He can play physical, but is at his best when using his high-end offensive abilities, such as his shot, stickhandling, and footspeed, to generate numbers in the opposition's end of the ice. All-in-all, Zacha is a lethal weapon that can be depended upon to create, and finish, dangerous scoring chances whenever he is on the ice." (Curtis Joe, EP 2015) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=130786#sthash.3LB46m9Y.dpuf

 

So early in the season, Zacha was a universal top 5 prospect.  I think it had more to do with guys like Strome and Marner stepping up their level of play that bumped him out, as well as the fact that he cooled down.  Having said that, watching his highlights and reading his profile, everything about him reminds me of Ryan Getzlaf.  He's the combination of size and skill we all want.  He'll probably be a #1 center one day.  I would much rather draft Zacha over Crouse/Rantanen.  I have a feeling he's going to be a guy people sleep on and explode once he makes the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, Here we go...............

 

Mitch Marner

 

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=223194

 

Ranked #5 by Hockeyprospect.com
Ranked #6 by ISS Hockey
Ranked #5 by Future Considerations
Ranked #4 by McKeen's Hockey
Ranked #6 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=223194#sthash.Z6lsNjcO.dpuf

 

"A dynamic offensive forward that backchecks hard and establishes his presence through playing smart, puck-possession hockey. A very quick skater gifted with great hands and hockey sense. Battles hard in all three zones and shows a willingness to do whatever it takes to get the puck to the back of the net; an unselfish player. Embodies the definition of a dynamic number-generating machine who makes the players around him better." (Curtis Joe, EP 2014)

- See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=223194#sthash.Z6lsNjcO.dpuf

 

So, we've gone through this countless amount of times, so I'm going to spare you all my long tirade.  I'm just saying look at the player profile, the only prospects that's getting those reviews are McDavid and Eichel.  Furthermore, the profile reminds me of someone that could fit well in Peter's system.  There are even some fans out there that would want Marner over Eichel.  In my humble opinion, if this guy's there, you have to take him.  Even if you don't like smaller players, even if he turns out to be a bust, this is a prospect that only comes around once every few years.

 

***Disclaimer*** I'm basing this profile purely off of scouting reports, not my own personal philosophy of size and statistics.  I will not get into anymore debates in regards to Mitch Marner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...