C Michael McLeod - Mississauga Steelheads, OHL (2016, 12th, NJD)

[Mathletic]

Where did I say that?

what's the point of your post then? The issue I raise is not so much that McLeod is scoring against weaker teams. It's not he's not scoring a whole lot against good teams.

 

[Blender]

what's the point of your post then? The issue I raise is not so much that McLeod is scoring against weaker teams. It's not he's not scoring a whole lot against good teams.

For one, a 4 game sample size (that wings5 is using, who I responded to) is a joke.

Secondly, to make the point that just because a player has hugely inflated stats against weaker teams that doesn't make them a bad player. Crosby scored 1.97 points/game against those few bottom half teams and 1.00 points/game against the top 10. It's a meaningless comparison unless you can provide large sample sizes for many players showing that there is a correlation between who players score against and development (or even quality of player).

 

[Mathletic]

For one, a 4 game sample size (that wings5 is using, who I responded to) is a joke.

Secondly, to make the point that just because a player has hugely inflated stats against weaker teams that doesn't make them a bad player. Crosby scored 1.97 points/game against those few bottom half teams and 1.00 points/game against the top 10. It's a meaningless comparison unless you can provide large sample sizes for many players showing that there is a correlation between who players score against and development (or even quality of player).

ok? I guess you're ignoring my other post 13 points in 21 games vs. 38 in 22.

No it's not meaningless. Mississauga would do better with more production from their leader in those games.

 

[Blender]

ok? I guess you're ignoring my other post 13 points in 21 games vs. 38 in 22.

No it's not meaningless. Mississauga would do better with more production from their leader in those games.

Yes they would. Prove that this means anything for his development though, since you posted those stats to support wing5's argument that this means he won't be able to score in the NHL.

 

[Mathletic]

Yes they would. Prove that this means anything for his development though, since you posted those stats to support wing5's argument that this means he won't be able to score in the NHL.

I never said he wouldn't score in the NHL for that reason. But that should raise some concerns IMO. Maybe it's nothing but it's worth a look into IMO.

 

[93LEAFS]

I'm not sold on McLeod, but you can't do much with a small sample size, especially when you don't have a baseline to compare it against involving comparable players. He's done fine against London and SSM, while struggling vs Erie and Oshawa.

 

[Blender]

I never said he wouldn't score in the NHL for that reason. But that should raise some concerns IMO. Maybe it's nothing but it's worth a look into IMO.

Wings5 said it was a "big red flag to his offensive potential", Cheddabombs responded to him, you responded to Cheddabombs with those stats without making any other argument. Until it's proven that it means anything by using large sample sizes from many different players in junior and comparing that to their NHL production, it is a baseless claim with no evidence to support. If you didn't intend to support that argument, you should have posted another one with your stats.

 

[GTA]

Wings5 said it was a "big red flag to his offensive potential", Cheddabombs responded to him, you responded to Cheddabombs with those stats without making any other argument. Until it's proven that it means anything by using large sample sizes from many different players in junior and comparing that to their NHL production, it is a baseless claim with no evidence to support. If you didn't intend to support that argument, you should have posted another one with your stats.

Really seems like you are just giving him the benefit of the doubt in every single argument because he is your teams prospect. In my viewings of him, he is just not very good offensively. I'd say his most likely role will be an average non-impact bottom 6 player

 

[Blender]

Really seems like you are just giving him the benefit of the doubt in every single argument because he is your teams prospect. In my viewings of him, he is just not very good offensively. I'd say his most likely role will be an average non-impact bottom 6 player

No, not really. He's doing fine offensively this season overall, and has been excellent since getting back from the WJC. Do I expect him to ever be a #1 center? Nope, but a quality second line center isn't an unrealistic ceiling for him.

Nothing at all wrong with his offensive stats this year overall, but the claim was made that because his point totals aren't good enough against "top teams" that this means he won't be successful at the next level. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and until proof is provided it's a baseless, meaningless claim. All that has been done is to cherry pick that stat and base a conclusion off of it without providing any supporting statistics that show that there is a correlation between performance against top teams and NHL success.

People don't get to come into threads, toss out a conclusion, and only use a single stat with no supporting documentation. That's not how this works in the real world.

 

[Agent Zub]

No, not really. He's doing fine offensively this season overall, and has been excellent since getting back from the WJC. Do I expect him to ever be a #1 center? Nope, but a quality second line center isn't an unrealistic ceiling for him.

Nothing at all wrong with his offensive stats this year overall, but the claim was made that because his point totals aren't good enough against "top teams" that this means he won't be successful at the next level. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and until proof is provided it's a baseless, meaningless claim. All that has been done is to cherry pick that stat and base a conclusion off of it without providing any supporting statistics that show that there is a correlation between performance against top teams and NHL success.

People don't get to come into threads, toss out a conclusion, and only use a single stat with no supporting documentation. That's not how this works in the real world.

Do you not think his lack of production against the good teams in OHL is concerning?

 

[Blender]

Do you not think his lack of production against the good teams in OHL is concerning?

Yes, I would obviously prefer to see him scoring more against top teams. Is that a meaningful stat for projecting development in any way though? Not that anyone was shown.

 

[GTA]

No, not really. He's doing fine offensively this season overall, and has been excellent since getting back from the WJC. Do I expect him to ever be a #1 center? Nope, but a quality second line center isn't an unrealistic ceiling for him.

Nothing at all wrong with his offensive stats this year overall, but the claim was made that because his point totals aren't good enough against "top teams" that this means he won't be successful at the next level. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and until proof is provided it's a baseless, meaningless claim. All that has been done is to cherry pick that stat and base a conclusion off of it without providing any supporting statistics that show that there is a correlation between performance against top teams and NHL success.

People don't get to come into threads, toss out a conclusion, and only use a single stat with no supporting documentation. That's not how this works in the real world.

So where are your supporting statistics that he has upside as a second line centre? Id like a detailed statstical breakdown, much like you are demanding of other people.

I'll wait.

 

[Blender]

So where are your supporting statistics that he has upside as a second line centre? Id like a detailed statstical breakdown, much like you are demanding of other people.

I'll wait.

Draft position and scouting opinions from professionals. A counter argument to this professional opinion was being made using a single statistic without providing supporting documentation. You guys made a claim, haven't backed it up, and now you keep trying to shift the burden of proof onto others.

Michael McLeod is a highly skilled power center that relies on nobody but himself to get the job done. His size and skating make him difficult to contain, and his competitiveness gives him an edge against other teams' best. His deft puckhandling skills and control over his speed are the defining aspects of his offensive abilities. All-in-all, a top talent that is both dynamic and hard to play against.

With his hockey sense and gritty game, McLeod evokes a player along the lines of Ryan O'Reilly, albeit with more dynamic skating at the same age. Said one scout: "You have to like McLeod's drive and skating. He gives you the same effort every time."

McLeod was the Steelheads go to player in all situations this year. Was assistant captain of the young team and showed excellent understanding of the game. As the year progressed it became clear that McLeod had more to offer than his steady two-way play improving his shot, hands and vision offensively. Rarely makes mistakes in his game but works his tail off to make up for the rare bad decision he has. Proved to be one of the best players gaining the blue line with the puck and can beat teams off the rush with his speed on the cycle with his size and vision. Matched up against top players on other teams routinely and able to contribute while shutting them down. A player to watch if he can put it all together and add some bulk.

“He had one overtime game where he won more face-offs than the entire Barrie team combined. The intangibles he brings in addition to his terrific speed make him a can’t miss prospect. He is going to be a top two center with size, speed, grit, faceoff prowess, penalty killing abilities ..what is there not to like? He may never lead the league in scoring..but neither will Jonathan Toews. This kid is a winner.”

“Speed is the name of his game, and it is the name of the game in the NHL today. The Pittsburgh Penguins are winning the Stanley Cup by virtue of their speed and McLeod will play that game to a tee. The only question is if he has the offensive skills to be an elite scorer? At 6-2 he can be a first line center, or can be a very effective second or third. He is already efficient at face-offs, and plays well in all three zones. No question he will be a NHL player, but how high is his ceiling?”

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Draft position and scouting opinions from professionals. A counter argument to this professional opinion was being made using a single statistic without providing supporting documentation. You guys made a claim, haven't backed it up, and now you keep trying to shift the burden of proof onto others.

Appeal to authority never makes sense to me when dealing with hockey prospects. Haven't scouts missed enough to make skepticism a very reasonable approach. Remember all the hype Crouse was getting? I repeatedly said how overrated he was but posters kept up the appeal to authority thing. Hasn't worked out so far . .

 

[93LEAFS]

Appeal to authority never makes sense to me when dealing with hockey prospects. Haven't scouts missed enough to make skepticism a very reasonable approach. Remember all the hype Crouse was getting? I repeatedly said how overrated he was but posters kept up the appeal to authority thing. Hasn't worked out so far . .

I do think it is fair to sometimes appeal to authority of people you trust when it comes to prospect. The issue with a lot of the quotes pulled sometimes though is that they are pulled from some very questionable sources with very questionable level of expertise. I mean, you can find some pretty ridiculous stuff to say what you want said if you look hard enough for quotes. I wouldn't be surprised if multiple of those quotes are from McKeen's. The other issue is people don't use the same people consistently, they go to whoever says what they want to hear.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I do think it is fair to sometimes appeal to authority of people you trust when it comes to prospect. The issue with a lot of the quotes pulled sometimes though is that they are pulled from some very questionable sources with very questionable level of expertise. I mean, you can find some pretty ridiculous stuff to say what you want said if you look hard enough for quotes. I wouldn't be surprised if multiple of those quotes are from McKeen's. The other issue is people don't use the same people consistently, they go to whoever says what they want to hear.

Yea good point - but even then some of the best, most reliable scouts can miss pretty badly on prospects. I dunno, maybe I just don't get the idea of discussing/debating prospects on a hockey message board if you aren't going to use your own opinions.

 

[93LEAFS]

Yea good point - but even then some of the best, most reliable scouts can miss pretty badly on prospects. I dunno, maybe I just don't get the idea of discussing/debating prospects on a hockey message board if you aren't going to use your own opinions.

Yeah, no one is going to bat 1000, but also a bunch of people are here to learn about their team's prospects and how they are doing from more regular CHL (or whatever leagues) watchers. So, they generally like that type of info.

I know where I stand on McLeod, and the people I generally trust seem to be in a similar boat (don't see a 1st liner, more likely a 3rd line guy). I generally try to give those things some weight, because I can't watch every game and maybe I caught a bad one. I just wish people were better with the sources they chose to trust. There are certain publications that say very complimentary about players I like but I just can't trust the sources overall analysis.

 

[Blender]

Scouts aren't perfect but at the end of the day they are paid to evaluate talent for hockey teams, and most people on this forum are not. They spend a lot of time watching and evaluating players because that's their profession. Using expert opinion is by very definition not appeal to authority, appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the experts are commenting outside their area of expertise, not an actual expert, or not basing their opinion on a depth of knowledge or evidence. Expert opinion can't just be dismissed because you disagree with it anymore than it can be blindly followed.

If someone crafts a reasonable, well thought out argument with supporting evidence most people on the forums are going to take them seriously. Cherry picking single stats and jumping to a conclusion is not a valid argument, which is how this entire discussion started.

 

[Passchendaele]

McLeod will most likely make a living in the NHL.. not on the first two lines though.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Yeah, no one is going to bat 1000, but also a bunch of people are here to learn about their team's prospects and how they are doing from more regular CHL (or whatever leagues) watchers. So, they generally like that type of info.

I know where I stand on McLeod, and the people I generally trust seem to be in a similar boat (don't see a 1st liner, more likely a 3rd line guy). I generally try to give those things some weight, because I can't watch every game and maybe I caught a bad one. I just wish people were better with the sources they chose to trust. There are certain publications that say very complimentary about players I like but I just can't trust the sources overall analysis.

For sure they can be great resources for informational purposes, but I don't like using them as evidence in a debate.

Saying "here's what the scouts think" is fine. Saying "You are wrong because the scouts say otherwise" is what I disagree with. I feel like if you are going to debate someone's opinion you should do so with your own logic/evidence/opinion, not someone elses.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Scouts aren't perfect but at the end of the day they are paid to evaluate talent for hockey teams, and most people on this forum are not. They spend a lot of time watching and evaluating players because that's their profession. Using expert opinion is by very definition not appeal to authority, appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the experts are commenting outside their area of expertise, not an actual expert, or not basing their opinion on a depth of knowledge or evidence. Expert opinion can't just be dismissed because you disagree with it anymore than it can be blindly followed.

If someone crafts a reasonable, well thought out argument with supporting evidence most people on the forums are going to take them seriously. Cherry picking single stats and jumping to a conclusion is not a valid argument, which is how this entire discussion started.

If you at least try to be an independent thinker, you should make your judgements based your own evaluations. It's not "dismissing" expert opinion, it's just forming your own and then having some conviction around your beliefs. I don't use "expert" opinion to support my claims about a player, so when you say I'm "dismissing" their opinion just because I disagree it's completely misleading. I don't rely on other people to tell me what to think about a player, one way or the other. I can see that's a rare trait around here.

 

[Blender]

If you at least try to be an independent thinker, you should make your judgements based your own evaluations. It's not "dismissing" expert opinion, it's just forming your own and then having some conviction around your beliefs. I don't use "expert" opinion to support my claims about a player, so when you say I'm "dismissing" their opinion just because I disagree it's completely misleading. I don't rely on other people to tell me what to think about a player, one way or the other. I can see that's a rare trait around here.

Why should anyone trust your (or anyone other persons) opinion over professionals though if you don't provide rationale or evidence to support your opinion?

I base my opinion of players on my own thoughts as well, but I still take expert opinion seriously as they are professionals that watch these players far more than I do and evaluate players for a living. They aren't perfect, but people also seem to struggle with the difference between a projection and a sure thing around here. What I don't take seriously is people posting cherry picked stats on a message board and jumping to a conclusion based on that stat alone, then when they are challenged on it provide no supporting evidence or rationale on why that is a valid conclusion to make.

For sure they can be great resources for informational purposes, but I don't like using them as evidence in a debate.

Saying "here's what the scouts think" is fine. Saying "You are wrong because the scouts say otherwise" is what I disagree with. I feel like if you are going to debate someone's opinion you should do so with your own logic/evidence/opinion, not someone elses.

There was absolutely no logic or evidence posted to support the initial opinion to begin with. The argument was wrong because it's not been proven in any way whatsoever. When challenged on the lack of evidence, they attempted to shift the burden of proof to the assertion as to why McLeod is considered a solid prospect.

 

[firstemperor]

I know where I stand on McLeod, and the people I generally trust seem to be in a similar boat (don't see a 1st liner, more likely a 3rd line guy).

I haven't seen much difference in his game this year than last and I was already on the boat that he shouldn't have sniffed the top 10 last year. His ceiling is definitely a ROR type but I will say, it's very rare to find a player like ROR, let alone project a prospect who has the type of motor/tenacity to play his 200-foot game.

He doesn't really have anything in, nor has he ever shown to me, he has anything particular in his game that screams high-mid first round talent to me. The most redeemable quality he has, I would say, is his top end speed at his size.

At the NHL level, he lacks the high end skill to be a top 6 player. I think he can be a solid 3rd line center that wins faceoffs but his productivity, even at the OHL level, has been very underwhelming. That doesn't scream top 6 to me. I do have high expectations for prospects that I see intermittently but I am on record as being very underwhelmed by Mcleod.

 

[Field of Dreams]

Mississauga guy here... Love this pick for NJ, think he'll be a solid player.

 

[VoidCreature]

Mississauga guy here... Love this pick for NJ, think he'll be a solid player.

Thank you for your perspective! This thread can get very dreary.