Prospect Info: 2020 NHL Draft Thread: Part III - June 26th Lottery Confirmed by League

[Marky9er]

Guess we lock in Edmonton 2020 4th round pick and it won't be 2021 3rd. (He's not playing.)

 

[MBH]

I will be up front in saying that you cannot scout through a stat sheet, or by looking at two profiles side by side (measurements and athleticism).

But the end of the video was not at all kind to Jamie Drysdale. He was put in a body bag.

Sanderson is kind of the profile of a prototypical defenseman of the NHL, but it’s also very easy to look and see all the top flight defensemen who buck the trend when it comes to that prototype. The mobility is there, the size is there, the fundamentals are there, the basic instincts are there. What it comes down to is trying to assess if he has a more dynamic range to his offensive game that would allow him to excel quarterbacking an NHL powerplay.

Is he more McDonagh, or is he more Vlasic?

I believe he's going to be much better than either of those guys.
I think he just turned 18 like this week.

Same kind of defensive game as those guys - but a major 5 on 5 ice tilter. I suspect he'll be a possession monster because he breaks up so many transitions and is so good at turning defense into offense and then gaining the line with possession.

Not sure if he'll ever be a true #1 PP guy (though I wouldn't bet against it). But we've got Hronek to handle the first unit.

 

[Jon Cusack]

Anyone work out how low Edmonton’s second round pick could be with the new rules?

 

[The Real Pastafarian]

But the end of the video was not at all kind to Jamie Drysdale. He was put in a body bag.

I didn't see a body bag, just some dude with glasses saying Sanderson was so much better than Drysdale in obscure statistics, some of which I'm pretty sure this dude with glasses made up, and talking so fast that there wasn't really time to figure out what those stats were.

And then he added the caveats of:

Drysdale played more 5v5, Sanderson more powerplay time, for the games used to compile the stats;

And Drysdale plays in a tougher league.

Maybe next dude-with-glasses will determine that apples are tastier than oranges based on his own proprietary NLsI (normalized lip-smacking index). I'll wait with bated breath.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I didn't see a body bag, just some dude with glasses saying Sanderson was so much better than Drysdale in obscure statistics, some of which I'm pretty sure this dude with glasses made up, and talking so fast that there wasn't really time to figure out what those stats were.

And then he added the caveats of:

Drysdale played more 5v5, Sanderson more powerplay time, for the games used to compile the stats;

And Drysdale plays in a tougher league.

Maybe next dude-with-glasses will determine that apples are tastier than oranges based on his own proprietary NLsI (normalized lip-smacking index). I'll wait with bated breath.

I don’t always find his conclusions to make a ton of sense, but just because you don’t understand advanced metrics doesn’t mean they aren’t real. But I understand that using big words and numbers can be scary for some people.

 

[Frk It]

I believe he's going to be much better than either of those guys.
I think he just turned 18 like this week.

Same kind of defensive game as those guys - but a major 5 on 5 ice tilter. I suspect he'll be a possession monster because he breaks up so many transitions and is so good at turning defense into offense and then gaining the line with possession.

Not sure if he'll ever be a true #1 PP guy (though I wouldn't bet against it). But we've got Hronek to handle the first unit.

Do you have any idea how good of a hockey player a prime Vlasic and McDonagh were?

This gushing over Sanderson is out of hand, dude. And yeah, we are talking about a 17 year old... exactly. So maybe hedge your bet a little, instead of constantly making these grandiose claims.

 

[The Real Pastafarian]

I don’t always find his conclusions to make a ton of sense, but just because you don’t understand advanced metrics doesn’t mean they aren’t real. But I understand that using big words and numbers can be scary for some people.

Meee-ow.

 

[Dotter]

Wow, if Wings take a Dman in this draft, it will be....

Seider
Drysdale/Sanderson
[2021 Draft Pick] Owen Power (6'5" 210 ibs 17 year old stud)

Then add in:
Hronek
Lindstrom
McIsaac
Tuomisto
Gustav Berglund
Cholowski
Johansson
Kotkansalo

Then look at our forward group. Lol.

I feel like selecting a dman in this draft is a mistake since it has a deep elite class of forwards. 2021 has a deep class of defenseman.

 

[The Real Pastafarian]

I feel like selecting a dman in this draft is a mistake.

I think our lack of talent gives us the luxury of drafting the best available player regardless of position.

And if we end up with too many high-end fast right-handed two-way defenseman prospects, trade one -- it's only the most valuable type of prospect there is. Trade one for a proven center, or a prospect plus a first-rounder. Build that talent puddle into a pool. Our only concern is whether we have enough roster spots for them, to showcase them and develop them.

 

[Frk It]

I don’t always find his conclusions to make a ton of sense,

but just because you don’t understand advanced metrics doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

A little conflicting here... no?

 

[MBH]

Do you have any idea how good of a hockey player a prime Vlasic and McDonagh were?

This gushing over Sanderson is out of hand, dude. And yeah, we are talking about a 17 year old... exactly. So maybe hedge your bet a little, instead of constantly making these grandiose claims.

Yes.
I also know that when people talk about Vlasic and McDonagh as comparables, they're doing so as an argument against drafting Sanderson.
If I thought Sanderson's upside was either of those to, I wouldn't advocate for him a 3 or 4.
I'd be more likely to draft him at 8 - 12.

 

[Hen Kolland]

A little conflicting here... no?

Not necessarily referring to the conclusions he arrives to based on his data. There are instances where his sniff test doesn’t line up. Like when it comes to his tracking, I trust the data. It’s more so the seeming inability to remove the data from the discussion at certain points in times.

I think comparing a Tim Stutzle to a Alexander Holtz to a Marco Rossi prohibits a lot of data driven assessments because of different styles of play. You need to be able to take a step back and say okay, the data isn’t going to be comparable here at all. And that’s true when the players are closer in style, but two players who I view to be likely two way defensemen who make their impact in transition offense and defense more so than in any other fashion, I think the stats are worth looking at briefly.

 

[Frk It]

Yes.
I also know that when people talk about Vlasic and McDonagh as comparables, they're doing so as an argument against drafting Sanderson.
If I thought Sanderson's upside was either of those to, I wouldn't advocate for him a 3 or 4.
I'd be more likely to draft him at 8 - 12.

Do you not have at least some concern that the last 3 months of the season that catapulted him up draft lists is sustainable long-term?

Or, let me ask you this. What makes Sanderson a better prospect than Cam Fowler was when he was drafted? What could make Sanderson turn into the better pro? Because those two are very comparable for me, and I have a hard time seeing what Sanderson really does better.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Guess we lock in Edmonton 2020 4th round pick and it won't be 2021 3rd. (He's not playing.)

Yup Greener is sitting this one out.

 

[Dotter]

I think our lack of talent gives us the luxury of drafting the best available player regardless of position.

And if we end up with too many high-end fast right-handed two-way defenseman prospects, trade one -- it's only the most valuable type of prospect there is. Trade one for a proven center, or a prospect plus a first-rounder. Build that talent puddle into a pool. Our only concern is whether we have enough roster spots for them, to showcase them and develop them.

I would argue Seth Jones > Ryan Johansen. CBJ won that trade. But I do get what you're saying.

I think Perfetti +/- Drysdale/Sanderson. I admit I'm high on Pefetti (and bias). I trust Yzerman regardless who he picks. Even if it is Askarov.

 

[PullHard]

Do you have any idea how good of a hockey player a prime Vlasic and McDonagh were?

This gushing over Sanderson is out of hand, dude. And yeah, we are talking about a 17 year old... exactly. So maybe hedge your bet a little, instead of constantly making these grandiose claims.

To be "much better" than Vlasic or McDonagh we are talking about a guy who is likely considered to be a top 5 Dman in the league throughout his prime, like from ages ~23-33 he is consistently producing and shutting down opponents. I'm picturing a guy in the mold of a Suter but maybe a touch more offensive production.

To put that label on a 17 year old Sanderson after ~6-8 weeks of good hockey from January til March of this year is.... something.

 

[MBH]

Do you not have at least some concern that the last 3 months of the season that catapulted him up draft lists is sustainable long-term?

Or, let me ask you this. What makes Sanderson a better prospect than Cam Fowler was when he was drafted? What could make Sanderson turn into the better pro? Because those two are very comparable for me, and I have a hard time seeing what Sanderson really does better.

I think Sanderson is better defensively and has potential to have more offense.
But Fowler isn't a bad comparison.
A few years ago, Fowler was ranked the 6th best defenseman in the game. Definitive ranking of NHL’s top 20 defencemen over three seasons - Sportsnet.ca

What makes me think he's better than Fowler? I didn't study Fowler very much. He wasn't someone we were ever going to draft. So there was no need for me to watch him closely.

Sanderson is going to be superior defensively, IMO. I'm fairly confident in that. For one, he's more physical. He's not a hitter, really, but he initiates contact and takes guys out of the play.

His puck rushing is close to elite. And given the improvement he's shown over not only the last 12 months, but the last six months, I think he's just scratching the surface.

Nobody ever knows for sure about a prospect, but in gaging likelihoods, I think Fowler is about my lowest expectation.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

I don’t always find his conclusions to make a ton of sense, but just because you don’t understand advanced metrics doesn’t mean they aren’t real. But I understand that using big words and numbers can be scary for some people.

As someone who does not follow the analytics movement as close as I probably should, I would probably be more interested in his work if I knew the significance of what he is trying to measure. I understand for the most part what he is trying to measure and track but I still do not know how it relates to future NHL play and how predictive it is of future NHL success. Hell, I don't even know the statistical significance of the gap between Sanderson and Drysdale in those metrics.

 

[Hen Kolland]

As someone who does not follow the analytics movement as close as I probably should, I would probably be more interested in his work if I knew the significance of what he is trying to measure. I understand for the most part what he is trying to measure and track but I still do not know how it relates to future NHL play and how predictive it is of future NHL success. Hell, I don't even know the statistical significance of the gap between Sanderson and Drysdale in those metrics.

That's the question, isn't it?

Offensive controlled zone transitions: 74.7% vs 63.2%
Defensive controlled zone transitions: 34.4% vs 44.6%

These are kind of the ones I wonder about most. Sanderson controls the puck through zone transitions 10% more often, while stopping the opponents controlled transitions 10% more. What does this yield at the end of the day? How much more likely is a team to score on a controlled transition? That's the missing piece.

On surface, it seems like a good thing. Maintaining possession of the puck, and not allowing the opponent to maintain possession. Logic checks out. But to what extent should it be valued?

 

[Marky9er]

That's the question, isn't it?

Offensive controlled zone transitions: 74.7% vs 63.2%
Defensive controlled zone transitions: 34.4% vs 44.6%

These are kind of the ones I wonder about most. Sanderson controls the puck through zone transitions 10% more often, while stopping the opponents controlled transitions 10% more. What does this yield at the end of the day? How much more likely is a team to score on a controlled transition? That's the missing piece.

On surface, it seems like a good thing. Maintaining possession of the puck, and not allowing the opponent to maintain possession. Logic checks out. But to what extent should it be valued?

Where did you find those numbers and how does O'Rourke measure up? I think we're taking a forward at 4, so.

 

[Tatar Shots]

That's the question, isn't it?

Offensive controlled zone transitions: 74.7% vs 63.2%
Defensive controlled zone transitions: 34.4% vs 44.6%

These are kind of the ones I wonder about most. Sanderson controls the puck through zone transitions 10% more often, while stopping the opponents controlled transitions 10% more. What does this yield at the end of the day? How much more likely is a team to score on a controlled transition? That's the missing piece.

On surface, it seems like a good thing. Maintaining possession of the puck, and not allowing the opponent to maintain possession. Logic checks out. But to what extent should it be valued?

I’d be more interested in how they stack up to their individual leagues and then comparing them afterwards.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

That's the question, isn't it?

Offensive controlled zone transitions: 74.7% vs 63.2%
Defensive controlled zone transitions: 34.4% vs 44.6%

These are kind of the ones I wonder about most. Sanderson controls the puck through zone transitions 10% more often, while stopping the opponents controlled transitions 10% more. What does this yield at the end of the day? How much more likely is a team to score on a controlled transition? That's the missing piece.

On surface, it seems like a good thing. Maintaining possession of the puck, and not allowing the opponent to maintain possession. Logic checks out. But to what extent should it be valued?

Or to what extent is it primarily attributable to one person's play? Furthermore, how do you adjust for the difference in league? Hockey is a very complex game and no one plays it in a vacuum. Everyone is a product to some degree of what is going on around them.

 

[Hen Kolland]

I’d be more interested in how they stack up to their individual leagues and then comparing them afterwards.

I don't know how you quantify it at that level. Sanderson played NCAA talent, and USHL talent. There's some variability there. I would bite on an argument on offensive transitions because I know Drysdale skates the puck exceptionally well.

Where did you find those numbers and how does O'Rourke measure up? I think we're taking a forward at 4, so.

The numbers came straight out of Scouching's video on Sanderson.



I don't believe he has done one for O'Rourke, but I know the numbers are coming from him tracking a sample size of a number of games per player.

 

[ArmChairGM89]

As someone who does not follow the analytics movement as close as I probably should, I would probably be more interested in his work if I knew the significance of what he is trying to measure. I understand for the most part what he is trying to measure and track but I still do not know how it relates to future NHL play and how predictive it is of future NHL success. Hell, I don't even know the statistical significance of the gap between Sanderson and Drysdale in those metrics.

He also only takes 8 game sample sizes for his metrics. Which amounts to a whole turd burger.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

As someone who does not follow the analytics movement as close as I probably should, I would probably be more interested in his work if I knew the significance of what he is trying to measure. I understand for the most part what he is trying to measure and track but I still do not know how it relates to future NHL play and how predictive it is of future NHL success. Hell, I don't even know the statistical significance of the gap between Sanderson and Drysdale in those metrics.

It's sort of the naive theory of hockey analytics. You assume measurements are significant, precise, noteable, and relevant, and that collection is faithful and stable. Once you fix those things, only then can you evaluate the players with whatever metric you've thought up--provided it works as intended. Obviously, that's a very high bar, and few can meet it.

That said, I don't think his stuff is useless. He seems to make a good faith effort to keep the analytics entry-level. It's ES this or that, or zone entries, etc. He doesn't get into the weeds nearly as much as some other evaluators do. If you view his use of stats as ways of illustrating magnitude of effects rather than evidence of those effects, I think the whole thing is a bit more digestible.