Prospect Info: 2024 NHL Draft Thread

[Nubmer6]

It’s so much fun to read your prospect thoughts. I’ve missed them and thought they were done forever.

Bah... it's not a REAL STI prospect post without the word "juxtaposed" in it.

 

[TBF1972]

It’s so much fun to read your prospect thoughts. I’ve missed them and thought they were done forever.

you should be thankful the devils missed the playoffs and didn't trade away their first round pick

 

[TBF1972]

I don't follow prospects enough at the moment, all i care is draft the BPA. Drafting for need always backfires. Never know what happens to a team in 2 or 3 or 4 years when these players are ready.

and if a walstedt or askarov is available and is bpa..take the damn goalie.

you are late to the party

if you draft now a goalie he will be ready maybe in 5 seasons and that's kind of a best case scenario. if you believe in the current roster as a prime contender you go after an established nhl goalie. if you believe the roster needs some more maturity you can also go the prospect route, if a team is willing to trade one, who they invested a few years of development in.

the devils still have schmid, dawes, malek and brennan as hopefuls. the last time the devils invested a 2nd round pick or better in a goalie was 2015 with blackwood. swayman was drafted 2017

 

[My3Sons]

you should be thankful the devils missed the playoffs and didn't trade away their first round pick

I’d prefer they be in the playoffs of course but it’s good to be prepared for the draft and I’m not going to do the homework myself.

 

[Unknown Caller]

Man, its just not. It close to be offensive to use star prob on this boards because me and Steve made so much work and spent so much effort year after year into the real scouting and explanations. Evnted breaks a lot of huge info, a lot of huge details. And everything you do now is publishing freaking p/gpg comparisons on the graphs. Skills, iq, compete level, versatility of tools, team roles, leagues. Who cares, we have graphs of scoring.
Sorry, man, but Its really sad for me.

You have to be able to use both methods. Just relying on your eyes as an evaluator and thinking that there's no use for production based models and analytics in prospect evaluation is completely insane. It's the Dave Gettleman equivalent of an NHL evaluation mindset.

Any decent evaluator has to be able to use both analytical models and the standard eye test to get a full picture on a prospect, and you have to know the flaws of each method.

If that offends you because it undermines or provides a counterpoint to a couple paragraphs you wrote about your personal viewing of a prospect on the internet, then just ignore the posts.

 

[MasterofGrond]

I'm firmly in the "data models are an extremely useful part of player analysis" camp, but the operative word there is "part." Not a replacement for proper scouting and not more important than it.

But absolutely a worthwhile check on your other analysis. Damn, there's a guy, young for his league, producing like gangbusters? Might be worth further investigation. Wow, this guy has all the tools but the production just doesn't match up? Let's try and dig in and identify why the tools aren't translating.

Single best predictor for production is past production, but that can never and should never be the sum total of what you look at.

 

[forceten]

Data is a tool, like any other. As such, it should be used to validate your assessment, or give you a reason to look again. It shouldn't be the primary. That's lazy. Hockey isn't the same as measuring the performance of API calls. There's a lot that simply cannot be quantified with current technology that our eyes and brains can assess. We have more data than we ever did, but we're only inches closer to a data-first assessment capability. Remember that.

 

[Unknown Caller]

I'm firmly in the "data models are an extremely useful part of player analysis" camp, but the operative word there is "part." Not a replacement for proper scouting and not more important than it.

But absolutely a worthwhile check on your other analysis. Damn, there's a guy, young for his league, producing like gangbusters? Might be worth further investigation. Wow, this guy has all the tools but the production just doesn't match up? Let's try and dig in and identify why the tools aren't translating.

Single best predictor for production is past production, but that can never and should never be the sum total of what you look at.

Totally agree. You need to use both and understand the strengths and gaps of each.

Data is a tool, like any other. As such, it should be used to validate your assessment, or give you a reason to look again. It shouldn't be the primary. That's lazy. Hockey isn't the same as measuring the performance of API calls. There's a lot that simply cannot be quantified with current technology that our eyes and brains can assess. We have more data than we ever did, but we're only inches closer to a data-first assessment capability. Remember that.

Ignoring data and analytics is lazy and self-serving as well.

 

[Guadana]

You have to be able to use both methods. Just relying on your eyes as an evaluator and thinking that there's no use for production based models and analytics in prospect evaluation is completely insane. It's the Dave Gettleman equivalent of an NHL evaluation mindset.

Any decent evaluator has to be able to use both analytical models and the standard eye test to get a full picture on a prospect, and you have to know the flaws of each method.

If that offends you because it undermines or provides a counterpoint to a couple paragraphs you wrote about your personal viewing of a prospect on the internet, then just ignore the posts.

No.
Its because you are saying that we should rank people by production.

And I'm , Steve,, evnted and many other people saying that you need to breakdown players by the combo of their iq, compete level, skating, physical tools, skills, two way game, positional game, and production.

Production is not analytics. Its arithmetic for kinder garden. Ok, for the first three years of school. Reason why it is so attractive. Because its simple.

 

[Unknown Caller]

No.
Its because you are saying that we should rank people by production.

And I'm , Steve,, evnted and many other people saying that you need to breakdown players by the combo of their iq, compete level, skating, physical tools, skills, two way game, positional game, and production.

Production is not analytics. Its arithmetic for kinder garden. Ok, for the first three years of school. Reason why it is so attractive. Because its simple.

I never said players should be ranked purely by production. I said that for prospects that largely rely on goal scoring and offensive production to provide value, production based analytical models are highly predictive.

They've also back-tested models over more than a decade sample size to show that drafting based on production based models results in better draft classes than your standard NHL scouting staff.

But we're just going to talk ourselves in circles here since you're implying I'm saying things I'm not. You have to use both standard player evaluation and production based analysis for a full picture of a player. It's that simple.

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

Apologies if you've mentioned him before on the thread, @Guadana, but what are your thoughts on Nygaard? Feels like he'd be the compliment we're looking for next to Bratt/Jack but I could be wrong lol

 

[forceten]

Ignoring data and analytics is lazy and self-serving as well.

Which is essentially what I said.

 

[Guadana]

I never said players should be ranked purely by production. I said that for prospects that largely rely on goal scoring and offensive production to provide value, production based analytical models are highly predictive.

They've also back-tested models over more than a decade sample size to show that drafting based on production based models results in better draft classes than your standard NHL scouting staff.

But we're just going to talk ourselves in circles here since you're implying I'm saying things I'm not. You have to use both standard player evaluation and production based analysis for a full picture of a player. It's that simple.

They are not.

Listen.
And please do it with some effort. Its okay to not understand something.

1 First of all. Pure scoring in vacuum tell you nothing. Absolutely nothing.

2. Players are playing in different leagues on the different level. Some are playing against kids, other are playing against men. Its a different world for kids.

Because
Some players mature earlier some player mature later. If ONE SPECIFIC player matured earlier and playing better on the junior level and other SPECIFIC player matured later but playing on higher level - one player or another player will not be successful or not because of their good or bad result.

3. Players playing in different teams with different partners on different roles. Slafkovsky played bottom line defensive role. He is not outlier and he is not non outlier. Because there are no outlying at all. He couldn't produce on a good pace in this role.

4. In different leagues on different levels there is different level of defensive game, of physical pressures different level of expectations. And for player to productive in NCAA he needs much more skills and tools for it. Of course if he play in specific role for that. Because if coaches bottomed him to help him develop some parts of his game, he will never produce enough from the start. Player from SHL or KHL are facing much more pressure and much higher expectations, they needs a lot to have in their game to be ready for the role where they can produce. ON THE OTHER HAND players from worser teams have much more ice time and trust to making mistakes. Reason why some players on the good teams are playing minor roles and develop their game.

5. Because their target often is not about produce more. They are nor even trying to do. Their target could be development of their weak sides.

Etc

Again. Priduction in specific leagues is asking different thing to make it happen. AND NHL TOO. Player could be productive in some league because he has good shot like Eiserman in USHL or because of high iq like Gusev in KHL. But Gusev can't be good and competent NHLer because of his skating and speed. Even with his great hands. Kakko can't be productive NHL because of his decision making against faster competition but he is okay in defensive role. Etc.

There are tonns of details.

Now listen carefully. Please.
If player X scored 50 goals in Y league it doesn't mean he will be or wil be not NHL because of 12 players out of league Y were nhlers(from 13 players who scored 50 goals from league Y). IT DOES MEAN that 12 players from league Y had good shoot to score 50 goals, good positioning, were good eniugh skaters to play in nhl, and have some other combo of skills to help them to score 50 goals in league Y and after help them to be NHLers. If thus player X has good enough shot - it can help him to score in league Y. But he can or can not have good enough skills iq skating etc to be NHL.

Production in any league is not the reason why players are good. It is consequence. Do not confuse cause and effect. Production is an effect of how good specific players skills are for being productive in specific league. And for his role.

In case of Eiserman there is a huge issue with his decision making, effort and some of his skills. If he wants to be NHLer he should develop a lot of his parts of the game. Other productive USHL players were better in this aspects, reason why they are productive in nhl. Cause and effect.

 

[Cheddabombs]

Apologies if you've mentioned him before on the thread, @Guadana, but what are your thoughts on Nygaard? Feels like he'd be the compliment we're looking for next to Bratt/Jack but I could be wrong lol

He's the one prospect I watched a video on so far and I was sold. He's my guy

 

[AfroThunder396]

I'm hoping we draft a RD so that we can trade Nemec for Jakub Markstrom.

 

[My3Sons]

Which is essentially what I said.

I ignore data all the time and I am not lazy.

 

[Devils731]

I ignore data all the time and I am not lazy.

Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to ignore data and ensure my preferred answer stays viable.

 

[Guttersniped]

you are late to the party

if you draft now a goalie he will be ready maybe in 5 seasons and that's kind of a best case scenario. if you believe in the current roster as a prime contender you go after an established nhl goalie. if you believe the roster needs some more maturity you can also go the prospect route, if a team is willing to trade one, who they invested a few years of development in.

the devils still have schmid, dawes, malek and brennan as hopefuls. the last time the devils invested a 2nd round pick or better in a goalie was 2015 with blackwood. swayman was drafted 2017

“the last time the devils invested a 2nd round pick or better in a goalie was 2015 with blackwood”

We’ve drafted in 2nd Rd the 5 times since 2016.

That’s 8 drafts and we used our own 2nd in 3 of them: 2016 (#41), 2017 (#36) and 2023 (#58). (Don’t talk to me about the 2nd round *sob*)

Five goalies were taken in the 1st Rd between 2016-2023:



Here’s all the goalies who played in at least 30 games last year:

The 2nd and 3rd rounds are big for goalies.

I disagree that we can’t think about the future, short-sighted thinking has hampered Edmonton for a decade, but there isn’t a potential 1st round goalie this year to debate.

 

[bossram]

As scoring prospects, Holtz never had the elite production to match his reputation and Eiserman does. It's really that simple.

Production isn't everything for certain players, but for pure goal scorers like Holtz and Eiserman it's highly predictive of NHL success. Eiserman is on a different level as a prospect than Holtz ever was.

View attachment 854513

I'm probably much more sympathetic to the Byron Bader charts than most here, and think there is definitely good information in them, but we know there are tons of flaws. Most people will just jump on you and say the charts are BS if they disagree.

His model will always favour 1-way players that focus on production at the expense of everything else. We're also seeing more players with crooked scoring numbers coming from the NTDP in recent years, so I'm not sure basing success probabilities on historical (lower-scoring) comparables is completely right, I think there is an environmental effect going on with the NTDP.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Bah... it's not a REAL STI prospect post without the word "juxtaposed" in it.

Does it count if I get you to use the word in your post?

 

[StevenToddIves]

You have to be able to use both methods. Just relying on your eyes as an evaluator and thinking that there's no use for production based models and analytics in prospect evaluation is completely insane. It's the Dave Gettleman equivalent of an NHL evaluation mindset.

Any decent evaluator has to be able to use both analytical models and the standard eye test to get a full picture on a prospect, and you have to know the flaws of each method.

If that offends you because it undermines or provides a counterpoint to a couple paragraphs you wrote about your personal viewing of a prospect on the internet, then just ignore the posts.

I mean, we all evaluate prospects using statistics. If I'm scouting a Windsor vs. Hamilton game, and each team has three draft-eligibles in their bottom 6 with 20-30 points in 60 games, I'm not really taking them seriously as NHL possibles.

Conversely, if I have problems with a first-liner in the same game, but he has 95 points in 60 games, I'm going to be watching him closely.

But this is probably about 1%-5% of prospect evaluation, used by all in the scouting community -- Cam Robinson cites the stats, Steve Kournianos cites the stats, Bob McKenzie cites the stats, Corey Pronman cites the stats.

But once we do that, we know the other 95% is actually watching the players... a lot.

So, while if you further your study of the prospects by studying, say, Pronman and Kournianos? You're getting an analysis which includes statistical evaluation.

But if you further your study of the prospects by studying, say, Bader and JFresh? Well, you're getting a tiny piece of the puzzle sold to you (usually for money) as the entire puzzle, and chances are the guy you're reading and rehashing never even saw a single game of the prospect they are dissecting.

This is why people like @Guadana and myself -- and many others in the community -- have traditionally shown disdain for people who base their prospect analyses on statistical models.

But ultimately -- they just don't work. If you go back and compare my prospect record with any of the stat-model guys.... well, it's really not close. Even the "weaker" draft prognosticators like Scott Wheeler and Craig Button routinely blow away a charlatan like Byron Bader.

But this isn't about putting down Bader, it's about squelching the argument that an astute guy like @Guadana can be refuted in debate by simply re-printing a chart. Because he can't. The only way you can argue a guy as sharp and well-researched as @Guadana is by actually watching the prospect enough yourself to understand what he is saying, and then finding something you disagree with in what he says.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Apologies if you've mentioned him before on the thread, @Guadana, but what are your thoughts on Nygaard? Feels like he'd be the compliment we're looking for next to Bratt/Jack but I could be wrong lol

There are several posts earlier in this thread where @Guadana (and me, as well) laud the attributes of Brantsegg-Nygard. I think it's safe to say we both love the guy. The question is if he will be the best player for the Devils at #10, and of course that depends on who is available.

As for Brantsegg-Nygard, the short version is he is a big and extremely smart power forward who skates very well, not just for his size -- he's a terrific skater. He is maybe the best two-way winger in the draft, and the combination of that fact and his high IQ leads @Guadana to believe he might have an NHL future at center, as well as the wing.

His offensive upside is also quite high. While he is not exactly a puck magician or elite passer, he is exceptional at using his big frame to protect the puck in tight areas and he is very smart in all his puck decisions. Moreover, Brantsegg-Nygard features a tremendous shot and willingness to bring the puck to the net which suggests he might have 40-goal upside at his ultimate ceiling.

Just an outstanding prospect, and there's no reason not to love the kid.

I ignore data all the time and I am not lazy.

I'm ignoring this post by @My3Sons because I'm lazy.

 

[Rebel Devil]

Are we locked in at that 10 spot?

 

[JimEIV]

I wish all evaluators would list their number of viewings ... regardless of how they actually evaluate, I think it would be nice to know how many times a prospect was viewed, when and if live or not.

 

[Brodeur]

Are we locked in at that 10 spot?

Going into the lottery we're slotted 10th. Assuming Tankathon did its math correctly:

1st overall: 3.5%
2nd overall: 3.7%
3rd overall: 0.1%
10th overall: 73.3%
11th overall: 18.4%
12th overall: 0.9%