Prospect Info: 2020 Leafs Board Prospect Rankings #7

[Morgs]

How old was Mikheyev when we included him last year? Was it 24 or 25? I can't remember.

24. If they're older than 24 before the season starts I don't think they can be considered "prospects" anymore.

 

[hobarth]

He's 26.

I define a prospect as someone who has never played/ had cups of coffee in the NHL, 18 to 40 years old.

How does being 26 exclude someone from being a prospect, Holl is 28 but essentially was a prospect until last year even tho he'd played 13 games before last year.

 

[Morgs]

I define a prospect as someone who has never played/ had cups of coffee in the NHL, 18 to 40 years old.

How does being 26 exclude someone from being a prospect, Holl is 28 but essentially was a prospect until last year even tho he'd played 13 games before last year.

I think it's fair to not call a guy a prospect after he's aged out of being able to qualify for the Calder Trophy.

 

[Canada4Gold]

I think it's fair to not call a guy a prospect after he's aged out of being able to qualify for the Calder Trophy.

Then why not use the same games played criteria as the Calder?

 

[Morgs]

Then why not use the same games played criteria as the Calder?

I'm fine with using it as a cut off, but I also dont really care past aging out / full-time NHLer.

 

[aingefan]

Good group of talent coming in little waves.

 

[Jeypic]

Thanks, but I don't do any actual mathematical work. I still only roundabout guess whether I think a players upside is high enough with enough likelihood that it'll outweigh the value a safer player brings. In this particular case I voted Abruzzese because I think his upside is high enough that on average he's a better player than everyone else despite the higher bust probability. But I didn't do the actual numerical calculations to figure that out so it really didn't take any longer. Figured it may give an idea of how someone might weigh upside versus floor rather than just dartboarding it.

An easy example is say Amirov versus Korshkov. Almost everyone would probably say Amirov is the better prospect. But why? Korshkov is putting up better numbers is the KHL right now and probably has a higher NHL probability because he's likely an NHL level player right now. But Amirov's sky high potential and decent chance of reaching it clearly would mean on average he's likely to be better because of the top line potential he has as top line players are worth so much more than 4th liners which might be Korshkov's most likely placement. That decision becomes rather intuitive and obvious for most and nobody would ever do a mathematical calculation for it, but intuitively that's what most people are likely thinking, on average Amirov's upside is worth more than Korshkov's floor. It just becomes a line of ok when does a players upside become small enough, and less likely enough to be worth less than Korshkov. Miettinen for example has a higher upside but would pretty clearly be a worst prospect. It's the finer guys inbetween where it becomes more debatable. Is someone like Hirvonen's upside worth more than Korshkov's floor on average? It depends on the person voting's opinion of the 2 prospects.

Another case of posters here putting WAY too much value on being close to the NHL, I mean that should play a part, but it seems that is the major contributing factor to these results. Korshkov is a decent prospect, but what is he? A 4th liner, who can maybe be a 3rd liner if things work out? What is Anderson? a likely 3rd liner who can fill in spot duty in the top 6? This is not being negative on Anderson, I actually love adding him to the pool. Players like Hirvonen, Abruzzese, Niemela are just all better prospects with more upside.

Voted Hirvonen here.

I think you're dismissing prospect floor too much. A guy like Anderson is basically a guarantee to be a NHL player in some capacity, whether it's in a top-6, 3rd line, or even 4th line role. Sure his upside may not be on the same level as a Hirvonen or Niemela at this point, but that's balanced by the fact their floors are a hell of a lot lower to the point where we dont know if they'll actually even be NHL players.

For me I tend to agree thinking Korshkov is too high here, and I'd have him behind Niemela and Hirvonen, but I also think Anderson's NCAA/AHL/NHL track record point to him being an overall better prospect than anyone left on this board (and I had Niemela in my first round).

thats why we needed guidlines because i vote the opposite way lol

I don't see too much to disagree with here, the floor is definitely something to factor in, and I'm not too opposed to people having Anderson this high as I do think he has decent upside and is likely a pretty sure bet to be a valuable 3rd liner. I just think it sucks that a player like Korshkov is basically running away with this poll right now with the players still available and I don't even dislike Korshkov, at all.

I just base it on my mental guess(read: I don't actually do this math) of who has the better average career.

For example if we put a scaleless number on their value and say 90% of the time Korshkov is worth 3 units of value, and 10% of the time he's worth nothing. On average that's 2.7 units of value.

If we say Anderson is worth 5 unit of value 50% of the time, worth 2 units of value 20% of the time, and 30% of the time he's worth nothing on average, that's 2.9 units of value.

If 10% of the time Abbruzzese is worth 20 units of value, 20% of the time he's worth 5 units of value, and the other 70% he's a bust, on average that's 3 units of value.

If Hirvonen was worth 20 units 5% of the time, worth 5 units 10% of the time, and a bust the other 85 he'd be worth 1.5 on average

So with those estimations they would rank Abbruzzese, Anderson, Korshkov, then Hirovanen. So Abbruzzese's ceiling helps make him #1 despite busting 70% of the time, while Hirovanen's ceiling isn't enough to get him ahead of the safer Anderson and Korshkov.

Nobody actually needs to do math like this to make a decision. It's just a mathematical illustration of how you might weigh upside versus floor. Is the player's upside high enough, with enough probability to hit it enough to make him worth more on average than the player who's likely got an NHL floor, but not a high upside.

Please nobody argue the percentages I chose, it was just an example. I'm not saying X player has Y% chance of busting.

Just because others are giving their two cents:

I see it as overall how you and how you believe GM's [should] value the prospect,

Nobody will value them the same because some like safe (Korshkov - low ceiling/high floor) over higher risk (Abruzzese - high ceiling/low floor), but the question becomes where/when does ceiling outweigh the floor (as everyone would prefer a 1st line player over a 3rd line one).

Just essentially you need to think about what you believe a players absolute upside is, their ability of hitting it, and what you think their floor is if they dont. It's always changing too so you can always go back on your opinion (unless your name is Button). Age is also a gigantic factor as it becomes more clear what the player will max out at/become, with guys like Hyman being the exception, not the rule.

For example, my top-11 (where my 2nd tier ends) :

1. Liljegren (21) - #2 upside, #5 Floor
2. Sandin (20) - #2 upside, #5 Floor
3. Robertson (19) - 1st line upside, 4th line floor
4. Amirov (19) - 1st line upside, 4th line floor
--
5. Abramov (19) - top-6 upside, bust floor
6. Hallander (20) - 2nd line upside, 4th line floor
7. Anderson (22) - 2nd line upside, 4th line floor
8. Niemela (18) - #4 upside, bust floor
9. Hirvonen (18) - 2nd line upside, bust floor
10. Abruzzese (21) - 2nd line upside, bust floor
11. Korshkov (24) - 3rd line upside, 13th F floor.

just look at the list of players... and vote for the one you’d bet your life savings on as turning out the best. Simple as that.

 

[MLSE]

I like Korshkov but I really like how our top 10 looks.

 

[Maplebeasts]

Korshkov or Kokkonen are fine answers here imo. Went with Kokkonen