~Grandpabuzz 2013 NHL Draft 7 Round Ranking and Rating~

Grandpabuzz

Registered User
Oct 13, 2003
910
0
Dallas, Texas
Well folks, it's that time again. Last year I took an initiative to craft a 'mock draft' based on only data analysis. I spent the past year trying to improve the algorithm and have managed to improve the system for more (hopefully) accurate results. For a deeper description of my method you can see my previous mock draft

Here

And you can also find a more detailed explanation of my entire rating system

Here

I hope to have an updated rating system ready to go before the season starts. However, below I list the same players I rated last year to let the reader see any variance.


Player | 2013 Rating | 2012 Rating | Career Rating
Sidney Crosby:| 81 | 80 | 77
Bobby Ryan:| 56| 69 | 66
Teemu Selanne:| 56 | 60 | 62
Niklas Hagman:| NA | 51 |58
Andrew Cogliano:| 62 | 52 | 55
||
Lubomir Visnovsky:| 67 | 65 | 63
Toni Lydman:| 59 | 50 | 60
Cam Fowler:| 56 | 55 | 56
||
Jonas Hiller:| 67 | 53 |61
Dan Ellis:| 56| 58 |55

As you can see there was some volatility with some players (Ryan / Hiller) a lot can be explained through the shorten season and less data to use.

As a guiding point a score of 62 or above is first line/pair talent, 58-62 is second line/pair talent, 54-58 is third line/pair talent, and below are fringe/fourth line players.

Notable Players who did not have enough supporting data to be rated and are not on this list:

Sven Ziegler, Ryan Fitzgerald, Daniel LaFontaine, Brian Pinho, Nicolas Beaudin, Brett Boehm, Zach Glienke, Aidan Muir, Zachary Sanford, Miles Wood, Matthias Asperup, Erik Gollenbeck, Alex Coulombe, Connor Light, Brett Pesce, Quin Pompi, Alec Rauhauser
Paul Stoykewych


Pick | Player | Position | Rating
1 | Nathan MacKinnon | F | 65
2 | Jonathan Drouin | F | 63
3 | Taylor Cammarata | F | 62
4 | Hunter Shinkaruk | F | 62
5 | Sean Monahan | F | 62
6 | Nicolas Petan | F | 61
7 | Ryan Pulock | D | 60
8 | Seth Jones | D | 60
9 | Anthony Mantha | F | 60
10 | Aleksander Barkov | F | 60
11 | Shea Theodore | D | 60
12 | Artturi Lehkonen | F | 60
13 | Oliver Bjorkstrand | F | 59
14 | Elias Lindholm | F | 59
15 | Ian McCoshen | D | 59
16 | Lucas Wallmark | F | 59
17 | Frederik Gauthier | F | 59
18 | Brendan Harms | F | 58
19 | Eric Roy | D | 58
20 | Anthony Duclair | F | 58
21 | Tristan Jarry | G | 58
22 | Peter Quenneville | F | 58
23 | Adam Erne | F | 58
24 | Carl Dahlstrom | D | 58
25 | Kerby Rychel | F | 58
26 | Jake Patterson | G | 57
27 | Jacob Sweeney | D | 57
28 | Will Butcher | D | 57
29 | Connor Rankin | F | 57
30 | Morgan Klimchuk | F | 57

| Round 2 | |
31 | Jimmy Lodge | F | 57
32 | Jake Guentzel | F | 57
33 | Amil Krupic | D | 57
34 | Joshua Morrissey | D | 57
35 | Justin Kloos | F | 57
36 | Zachary Fucale | G | 57
37 | Peter Cehlarik | F | 57
38 | Ruzal Galeyev | D | 57
39 | Etienne Marcoux | G | 57
40 | Pavel Buchnevich | F | 57
41 | Stanislav Zinchenko | D | 57
42 | Madison Bowey | D | 57
43 | Nick Sorensen | F | 57
44 | Max Domi | F | 57
45 | Denis Alexandrov | D | 57
46 | Keaton Thompson | D | 57
47 | JT Compher | F | 57
48 | Juuso Ikonen | F | 57
49 | Chris Bigras | D | 57
50 | Gustav Possler | F | 57
51 | Nikita Tryamkin | D | 57
52 | Tomas Dvorak | D | 57
53 | Robert Hagg | D | 57
54 | Alex Kile | F | 57
55 | Luke Johnson | F | 56
56 | Jordan Subban | D | 56
57 | Rasmus Ristolainen | D | 56
58 | Michael Downing | D | 56
59 | Nikita Zadorov | D | 56
60 | Alexandr Barabanov | F | 56

| Round 3 | |
61 | Jason Dickinson | F | 56
62 | Vinni Lettieri | F | 56
63 | Dean Kukan | D | 56
64 | Rinat Valiev | D | 56
65 | Ryan Kujawinski | F | 56
66 | Mattias Norstebo | D | 56
67 | Myles Bell | F | 56
68 | Matthew Murphy | D | 56
69 | Saku Maenalanen | F | 56
70 | Valentin Zykov | F | 56
71 | Rushan Rafikov | D | 56
72 | Marcus Hogberg | G | 56
73 | Linus Arnesson | D | 56
74 | Roni Viirlas | D | 56
75 | Samuel Morin | D | 56
76 | Mitchell Wheaton | D | 55
77 | Curtis Lazar | F | 55
78 | Miles Liberati | D | 55
79 | Mirco Mueller | D | 55
80 | Viktor Baldayev | D | 55
81 | Nolan De Jong | D | 55
82 | Nicholas Baptiste | F | 55
83 | Hudson Fasching | F | 55
84 | Sergei Tolchinsky | F | 55
85 | Andre Burakowsky | F | 55
86 | Ty Stanton | D | 55
87 | Aleksi Makela | D | 55
88 | Teemu Kivihalme | D | 55
89 | Santeri Saari | D | 55
90 | Valeri Nichushkin | F | 55

| Round 4 | |
91 | Ben Harpur | D | 55
92 | Mackenzie Weegar | D | 55
93 | Gustav Olofsson | D | 55
94 | Maxime Gravel | D | 55
95 | Stephen Harper | F | 55
96 | Trevor Moore | F | 55
97 | Dane Birks | D | 55
98 | Darnell Nurse | D | 55
99 | Bo Horvat | F | 55
100 | Eric Comrie | G | 55
101 | Bogdan Yakimov | F | 55
102 | Tim McGauley | F | 55
103 | Gabe Guertler | F | 55
104 | Nikolai Glukhov | D | 55
105 | William Carrier | F | 55
106 | Grigori Vaschenko | D | 55
107 | John Stevens | F | 54
108 | Niklas Hansson | D | 54
109 | Atte Makinen | D | 54
110 | Anton Slepyshev | F | 54
111 | Philippe Desrosiers | G | 54
112 | Spenser Jensen | D | 54
113 | Frank Dichiara | F | 54
114 | Juuse Saros | G | 54
115 | Adam Tambellini | F | 54
116 | Jackson Houck | F | 54
117 | Austin Adam | D | 54
118 | Matias Pulli | D | 54
119 | Marc McNulty | D | 54
120 | David Pope | F | 54

| Round 5 | |
121 | Cole Ully | F | 54
122 | Jerret Smith | D | 54
123 | Roberts Lipsbergs | F | 54
124 | Patrik Bartosak | G | 54
125 | Charlie Graham | G | 54
126 | Viktor Rydberg | F | 54
127 | Jan Kostalek | D | 54
128 | Oskari Siiki | F | 54
129 | Evan Allen | F | 54
130 | Dillon Heatherington | D | 54
131 | Tyler Motte | F | 54
132 | Zachary Leslie | D | 54
133 | Chad Katunar | G | 54
134 | Andreas Johnson | F | 54
135 | Nikolas Brouillard | D | 54
136 | Nick Moutrey | F | 54
137 | Andrew Copp | F | 54
138 | Vincent Dunn | F | 54
139 | Anthony Louis | F | 54
140 | Raphael LaFontaine | F | 54
141 | Henri Ikonen | F | 54
142 | Jonathan Diaby | D | 54
143 | Jacob Rose | F | 54
144 | Marc-Olivier Roy | F | 54
145 | Robin Norell | D | 54
146 | Juuso Vainio | D | 54
147 | Jimi Kuronen | D | 54
148 | Ville Husso | G | 54
149 | Kyle Burroughs | D | 54
150 | Alex Iafallo | F | 54

| Round 6 | |
151 | Carter Verhaeghe | F | 54
152 | Michael Webster | D | 54
153 | Wilhelm Westlund | D | 54
154 | Felix Westermarck | F | 54
155 | Mark Raycroft | D | 54
156 | Joose Antonen | F | 54
157 | Filip Sandberg | F | 54
158 | Saku Salminen | F | 54
159 | Parker Reno | D | 53
160 | Gabryel Paquin-Boudreau | F | 53
161 | Miro Aaltonen | F | 53
162 | Louis-Philip Guindon | G | 53
163 | Jean-Sebastien Dea | F | 53
164 | Clint Lewis | D | 53
165 | Kayle Doetzel | D | 53
166 | Jesper Pettersson | D | 53
167 | Gregory Chase | F | 53
168 | Josh Healey | D | 53
169 | Calvin Petersen | G | 53
170 | Ryan Graves | D | 53
171 | Adam Henry | D | 53
172 | Sean Romeo | G | 53
173 | Justin Bailey | F | 53
174 | Martin Reway | F | 53
175 | Dakota Mermis | D | 53
176 | Tyler Ganly | D | 53
177 | Vyacheslav Osnovin | F | 53
178 | Nick Betz | F | 53
179 | Andrei Mironov | D | 53
180 | Peter Trainor | F | 53

| Round 7 | |
181 | Emile Poirier | F | 53
182 | Steven Santini | D | 53
183 | Otto Rauhala | F | 53
184 | Taylor Green | D | 53
185 | Jared Hauf | D | 53
186 | Wil Tomchuk | D | 53
187 | Dominik Kubalik | F | 53
188 | Cooper Rush | D | 53
189 | Jonny Brodzinski | F | 53
190 | Jeff Corbett | D | 53
191 | Gage Ausmus | D | 53
192 | Quentin Shore | F | 53
193 | Dylan Labbe | D | 53
194 | Jayden Hart | F | 53
195 | Frank Palazzese | G | 53
196 | Anton Cederholm | D | 53
197 | Tyler Lewington | D | 53
198 | Eetu Laurikainen | G | 53
199 | Ryan Lomberg | F | 53
200 | Ayrton Nikkel | D | 53
201 | Spencer Martin | G | 53
202 | Eetu Koivistoinen | F | 53
203 | Brendan Burke | G | 53
204 | Keegan Kanzig | D | 53
205 | Dmitri Yudin | D | 53
206 | Mika Ilvonen | D | 52
207 | Hunter Garlent | F | 52
208 | Santeri Vuoti | F | 52
209 | Daniel Nikandrov | F | 52
210 | Niko Ojamaki | F | 52



Again, please note that the ratings you see for the prospects is the POTENTIAL that they can become. I'm not saying that Drouin or Domi will come into the league and start producing better than current NHL players, but the rating indicates that these players have the potential to do so. The ratings you see for Crosby, Ryan, etc are their actual ratings - what they've accomplished in the NHL so far. Once you get past the first round, the picks are really up in the air - what you'd expect from a typical draft. Some of the interesting placements are Nichushkin, Lazar, Zykov and Nurse - well below most mock draft expectations.

For your reference, I went ahead and 're-did' the 2012 draft based on my new methodology and compared how the players would have ranked compared to last year. Please note that I've added a lot more variables and different algorithms compared to what I did last year, so the comparison may not be straight apples to apples. Also, you may notice that the ratings for almost all players have fallen compared to last year. That is the result of both the new formula's I've used and the age factor (as you grow a year older, the potential is less).

Pick | Player | Position | Current Rating | Last Yr Rating | Difference in Rank
1 | Nail Yakupov | F | 63 |66| +2
2 | Alex Galchenyuk | F | 63 |66|+2
3 | Mikhail Grigorenko | F | 62 |69|-1
4 | Kevin Roy | F | 62 | 63 | +2
5 | Esa Lindell | D | 61 | 66 | -3
6 | Shayne Gostisbehere | D | 59 | 62 | +9
7 | Daniel O'Regan | F | 59 |NA | NA
8 | Jordan Schmaltz | D | 59 | 63| +1
9 | Zemgus Girgensons | F | 59 | 60 | +12
10 | Tim Bozon | F | 59 | 63| -3
11 | Cody Ceci | D | 59 |62 | +1
12 | Olli Maatta | D | 58 |62 | -2
13 | Ahti Oksanen | D | 58 |54 | +108
14 | Peter Quenneville | F | 58 | 55 | +80
15 | Malcolm Subban | G | 58 | 56 | +54
16 | Teuvo Teravainen | F | 58 | 59 | +7
17 | Mathew Dumba | D | 58 | 58 | +13
18 | Filip Forsberg | F | 58 | 57 | +36
19 | Jacob Trouba | D | 58 | 54| +101
20 | Damir Galin | D | 58 |NA|NA
21 | Morgan Rielly | D | 58 |60 |-1
22 | Zakhar Arzamastsev | D | 57 | 57 | +36
23 | Justin Kloos | F | 57 | 56 | +36
24 | Griffin Reinhart | D | 57 | 57 | +31
25 | Etienne Marcoux | G | 57 | 58 | +9
26 | Derrick Pouliot | D | 57 | 53 | +140
27 | Ryan Murray | D | 57 | 63 | -19
28 | Matthew Finn | D | 57| 56 | +54
29 | Nikita Gusev | F | 57 | 56 | +46
30 | Ryan Culkin | D | 57 | 62 | -17
 

Vankiller Whale

Fire Benning
May 12, 2012
28,802
16
Toronto
I have to say, I'm not a big fan of this ranking. Have you tried applying your algorithm to previous draft years and seen if it projected those draftees careers accurately?

Not to mention it's a lot harder to predict the defensive play of players that project to be shut down defenders or centres based solely on numbers.

Also, the one that stands out the most to me is Nichushkin at the end of round 3. How is he that low in terms of potential?
 

Madic

Registered User
May 21, 2008
2,651
63
Good stuff. Always dig seeing the number crunchers fool around with the draft.
 

Grandpabuzz

Registered User
Oct 13, 2003
910
0
Dallas, Texas
I have to say, I'm not a big fan of this ranking. Have you tried applying your algorithm to previous draft years and seen if it projected those draftees careers accurately?

Not to mention it's a lot harder to predict the defensive play of players that project to be shut down defenders or centres based solely on numbers.

Also, the one that stands out the most to me is Nichushkin at the end of round 3. How is he that low in terms of potential?

I did the first round of the 2012 draft at the end of my post.

Nichuskin is that low because of how he compares to other players his age in the leagues he played in and the amount of data that can support that. He hasn't played a ton of games either.
 

Hagged

Registered User
Jul 6, 2009
3,375
215
Props for the immense work you have obviously put in this. But first thing to ask would be about the "career rating" of players in the OP especially of Teemu Selanne. How did your model come to a conclusion that Teemu Selanne is the lowest example of 1st line talent (As Selanne's career rating is 62 and from 62 upwards is the 1st line talent). And how exactly is Bobby Ryan's career better than Teemu Selanne's (by that model). How was Andrew Cogliano's 2013 season an average Selanne's season? Again comparing defensemen and forwards is hard, but Visnovsky having a better career than Selanne is again quite hard to imagine.

Now on to prospects. Let's take Barkov and Lehkonen. What parameters are there to give Lehkonen the upper hand in potential. They are rated the same (second line potential). Yet both are of the same age (Barkov a couple months younger), Barkov is a point per game player and Lehkonen a .6PPG-.7PPG player in FEL at this point. Lehkonen doesn't have edge in size (Barkov is four to five inches and 40lbs bigger), Lehkonen doesn't have edge in defensive game (Barkov is considered the best two-way center in FEL, and I know that your model can't take those considerations into consideration but it shows in the +/- stats as well). What parameter is there that gives Lehkonen his huge boost in the rating compared to Barkov, you might even wan't to tone that down since it seems so obvious flaw?

I'd love to see what your model says about the potential of FEL players like Teemu Selanne or Saku and Mikko Koivu when you put their draft year stats in as Selanne/M. Koivu couldn't crack their FEL teams then. Would their ratings be lower or even higher than Lehkonen/Barkov with higher stats in inferior leagues.
 

Grandpabuzz

Registered User
Oct 13, 2003
910
0
Dallas, Texas
For the comment about Marcoux, I'm getting the player list from the 'official' source on NHL.com

Props for the immense work you have obviously put in this. But first thing to ask would be about the "career rating" of players in the OP especially of Teemu Selanne. How did your model come to a conclusion that Teemu Selanne is the lowest example of 1st line talent (As Selanne's career rating is 62 and from 62 upwards is the 1st line talent). And how exactly is Bobby Ryan's career better than Teemu Selanne's (by that model). How was Andrew Cogliano's 2013 season an average Selanne's season? Again comparing defensemen and forwards is hard, but Visnovsky having a better career than Selanne is again quite hard to imagine.

Now on to prospects. Let's take Barkov and Lehkonen. What parameters are there to give Lehkonen the upper hand in potential. They are rated the same (second line potential). Yet both are of the same age (Barkov a couple months younger), Barkov is a point per game player and Lehkonen a .6PPG-.7PPG player in FEL at this point. Lehkonen doesn't have edge in size (Barkov is four to five inches and 40lbs bigger), Lehkonen doesn't have edge in defensive game (Barkov is considered the best two-way center in FEL, and I know that your model can't take those considerations into consideration but it shows in the +/- stats as well). What parameter is there that gives Lehkonen his huge boost in the rating compared to Barkov, you might even wan't to tone that down since it seems so obvious flaw?

I'd love to see what your model says about the potential of FEL players like Teemu Selanne or Saku and Mikko Koivu when you put their draft year stats in as Selanne/M. Koivu couldn't crack their FEL teams then. Would their ratings be lower or even higher than Lehkonen/Barkov with higher stats in inferior leagues.


Thanks for the feedback. When I said 'career' rating, I should have been more clear and said the past seven years. I could only get certain data from the 2006 season on, so that's when the 'career' of every player begins. It's entirely possible that Selanne's real career rating is much higher. Cogliano had a great 'year' with his score, as previously he had been in the 51-55 range. A lot of it was a result of his defensive performance and goal performance compared to other years.

Visnovsky is modeled as top 20 in terms of current defensemen. For your reference my top 5 defense is McDonagh, Mitchell, Garrison, Chara and Keith.

As far as your comparison of Lehkonen / Barkov, there are a couple of other variables that your missing such as team performance and league productivity relative to the NHL. However, the biggest reason Lehkonen's rating is close to Barkov is due to his performance in the junior Finnish league compared not only to Barkov but to other players in that league as well. I understand the rebuttal that the FEL is a 'real' league compared to the Fin Jr, but because Lehkonen's performance was so much better than other players who have played in the league, his rating gets boosted up. I also understand that Barkov went into the FEL at an earlier age (which is taken into account with the formula) and is what makes him an top prospect, but because Lehkonen exceeded the standard deviation of performance in the Fin Jr league and has sufficient games played to corroborate that, there is some merit for him having a rating like that.

Don't have enough data for Saku or Selanne, but as for other current players, here's what their rating would be when drafted from the Finnish leagues based on the model

Player / Draft Rating / Current Rating

M. Koivu: 58 | 56
V. Filppula: 58 | 58
T. Ruutu: 60 | 56
J. Jokinen: 58 | 55

All current ratings are lower than the 'draft potential' rating which is to be expected, but are generally within range. I know your next question will be about Koivu's rating, but he's been very consistent over the past few years in the 54-59 range: 54/56/55/56/57/56/59.
 

Hagged

Registered User
Jul 6, 2009
3,375
215
Thanks for the feedback. When I said 'career' rating, I should have been more clear and said the past seven years.

Thank you for a rapid and thorough answer. The past seven years makes things more clear obviously since Selanne has been more of a PP specialist. I have a bit more to say so I'll slice your post to a couple of smaller quotes.

Cogliano had a great 'year' with his score, as previously he had been in the 51-55 range. A lot of it was a result of his defensive performance and goal performance compared to other years.

So I guess that the whole Cogliano-Koivu-Winnik line has gotten a great rating for this year. And much of it is well earned as they did most of it with third line minutes and I take it your model somehow counts for TOI also. But now I understand your model a bit better so the reasons behind year by year fluctuation is more clear to me.

As far as your comparison of Lehkonen / Barkov, there are a couple of other variables that your missing such as team performance and league productivity relative to the NHL.

I have troubles understanding this comment. Barkov and Lehkonen played in the same league on same tier teams (It was only because of Barkov's rise to occasion from the third line role that gave Tappara the center depth to become a contender). But let's say you mean the season before (the season when Lehkonen played U20 with 1.35PPG pace and Barkov played in FEL 3rd line with 0.5PPG pace with best +/- on the team). So the difference would come from that season as the next quote of your post leads to understand.

However, the biggest reason Lehkonen's rating is close to Barkov is due to his performance in the junior Finnish league compared not only to Barkov but to other players in that league as well. I understand the rebuttal that the FEL is a 'real' league compared to the Fin Jr, but because Lehkonen's performance was so much better than other players who have played in the league, his rating gets boosted up. I also understand that Barkov went into the FEL at an earlier age (which is taken into account with the formula) and is what makes him an top prospect, but because Lehkonen exceeded the standard deviation of performance in the Fin Jr league and has sufficient games played to corroborate that, there is some merit for him having a rating like that.

So now Lehkonen's performance was so much better than other players who have played in U20 with 1.35PPG, yet one year younger Barkov played in U20 with 0.7PPG and Lehkonen couldn't crack the U20 team (unless you can call 2 games played with one lucky assist and a -4 cracking the team) so he played U18 league with 1.2PPG. Barkov played five games that season in U18 with 1.8PPG so he got a spot in U20 and never looked back.

So now I have to argue again that your parameters considering the variable, the league productivity relative to NHL between Finnish junior U20 and FEL must be somewhat off in your model since Barkov has outplayed Lehkonen in all stages they have been at the same time. Barkov just has taken the steps towards pro hockey on average one season younger than Lehkonen. I have hard time understanding how Barkov could be penalized for not playing in U20 and playing third line duties in FEL instead as Barkov has shown he is ready to take the next step Lehkonen couldn't have been able to take.

The other thing might be that your model emphisizes too much the seasons before the last season for the prospects. As looking at this year when Lehkonen and Barkov are easy to compare as they both are playing in the same league in similar tier teams Barkov comes ahead. Miles ahead of Lehkonen. Or it might be that these two are just outliers in otherwise great model. Or it might be that Lehkonen is a greater prospect than I give him credit for :laugh:.

Anyways thanks for a great read these always makes you think what is it we look in prospects that we see. And somekind of models like these we have in our heads when we compare two prospects from different leagues or NA vs European prospects. And it's obviously better to put those thoughts to paper than just trust our intuition/instincts to come up with who of the prospects is better than the others.


EDIT: One question. Do you have possibility of calculating on your model what kind of rise in production would have to have been seen from Barkov this year in FEL for him to be at 65 rating if all other inputs than the offensive stats would have looked the same. The hypothetical #1 overall prospect from FEL.

EDIT2: There is something badly off in Tuomo Ruutu's draft rating relative to Barkov's. Less than .5PPG in FEL in draft year with not much of two-way game. Less than PPG in U20 league the year before. Almost a year older than Barkov when drafted. And he has the same rating. I guess somewhere there is your knot that has to be opened. While Ruutu had potential which he never reached, he is two tiers below Barkov even as a prospect (and maybe I'll up Lehkonen to a tier above Ruutu as his stats are impressive, but I consider him more or less of the same value as Ruutu at his draft year at least they are closer to each other than to Barkov).
 
Last edited:

Grandpabuzz

Registered User
Oct 13, 2003
910
0
Dallas, Texas
Thanks Henkine. Yes, the ratings for current players have TOI as a pretty big variable.

A couple things for the Barkov / Lehkonen argument. First off, each season is treated the same in terms of final ratings weighting. So even if a player played much better in 2013 versus 2012, his performance in 2012 (assuming the same number of games) will be equally weighted with 2013 (age adjusted however).

Second, the first line / third line argument is too much a variable to use. Players change lines on a game-by-game basis and I don't think I would be able to find that data anyway (not sure how many Massachusetts high school hockey publications are out there!). TOI would be ideal, but pretty much no junior hockey database shows that stat (If I'm mistaken, please tell me). As a result I have to use GP as a proxy.

As a rebuttal, I will say that both players got the opportunity to 'prove' themselves, despite different leagues. The way my model works is that it gives extra 'points' to younger players who play in leagues with higher ages. I have the average age in the Fin U20 of about 18, while the FEL average age is ~20. As a result, Barkov was receiving extra 'points' for being in the FEL at such a young age, and Lehkonen was getting less 'points' for playing the FIN U20 compared to Barkov. So this helps fix your issue with the third/first line question. I probably should have mentioned that earlier.

So it might actually be that Lehkonen is better than you think. Truthfully, Barkov is ranked maybe 5 spots lower than most mock drafts out there, while Lehkonen is 5 spots higher than most mock drafts.


EDIT: Forgot your question on Barkov. He would have to score about 45 goals and 45 assists (ONLY THIS YEAR - Last year remains stagnant) in the FEL to be rated 65 overall. Big dreaming I know!
 

Hagged

Registered User
Jul 6, 2009
3,375
215
As a rebuttal, I will say that both players got the opportunity to 'prove' themselves, despite different leagues. The way my model works is that it gives extra 'points' to younger players who play in leagues with higher ages. I have the average age in the Fin U20 of about 18, while the FEL average age is ~20. As a result, Barkov was receiving extra 'points' for being in the FEL at such a young age, and Lehkonen was getting less 'points' for playing the FIN U20 compared to Barkov. So this helps fix your issue with the third/first line question. I probably should have mentioned that earlier.


FIN U20 the average age is propably close to 19 as some overagers are allowed to my knowledge and even if there wouldn't be any overagers most of the 17 year olds play in U18 league wich has a average age close to 17 as there is also the U16 league. But obviously the OHL is a better junior league than Finnish U20 so you might have had to use it as an adjustment parameter.

But FEL average age is 25 (at the moment about 24.5 but I believe 25 can be used as the average over time). FEL is the best pro league the country has to offer. For finnish junior's it means adjustment from junior's to pro's exactly like there is a transition from OHL to AHL/NHL. 0.5PPG in FEL is much better and much more rare for a 16 year old than over PPG in U20.

EDIT: so a 90 point season from Barkov would have put him to a level of McKinnon. Even a 21 year old Selanne couldn't have pulled it off (but he would have become close with his PPG, if he could have handled 60 games without losing pace) and we know how he faired the next season in the NHL :naughty:. Maybe a bit of tweaks to put the European/NA equivalencies right on but otherwise thanks for giving something to think about. Lehkonen should be able to become an NHL player if he reaches his potential and avoids the fate of some other small european offensive players.
 

dwanmaster*

Guest
Seth Jones at #8 and tied with Pulock and Theodore = hahahahhahahaahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha WTF ARE YOU ON
 

Hagged

Registered User
Jul 6, 2009
3,375
215
Seth Jones at #8 and tied with Pulock and Theodore = hahahahhahahaahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha WTF ARE YOU ON

As I have already got some answers from the original poster I might be able to help with this.

Seth Jones tied with Pulock ratings wise is mostly due to season 11-12. It might be that USHL/USDP vs WHL equivalency parameters are off that Pulocks 11-12 season (with .85PPG +33 in WHL) is considered as a better season than Seth Jones' (.6PPG +5) season in USHL/USDP. And since 11-12 and 12-13 seasons are only adjusted by age they weigh as much when calculating the rating.

I have no doubt that this model gives Seth Jones a better rating for this season than Pulock in WHL.

This is kind of the same thing as Barkov/Lehkonen situation we are talking in details in some posts above.

EDIT: As for Theodore the thing is mostly about his age. One year can be huge in this age and mostly it is (Pulock is somewhat of an outlier himself). Theodore is a full year younger and if you think about it Theodore has improved his offensive output by fourty percent in one year. One year from now he will be of the same age as Jones and Pulock and if he improves his offensive output as much as he did from last season to this season. He will be a PPG D in WHL. But thanks for the feedback on behalf of Grandpabuzz, it's good to keep the conversation on as we all make these same models in our head about league equivalencies/stats/intangibles. So are you sure the model in your head is better than that of Grandpabuzz's on his drawing board.
 
Last edited:

Tigers

Registered User
Jan 14, 2013
36
0
Hamilton
Surely you don't expect
a) the draft to unfold this way or
b) this to be a more or less accurate depiction of future potential
so, why bother? Seriously. Surely you would expect MacKinnon's potential upside to be more 5% above Cammarata? If not, I'm sure you could get a great line from a bookie on that.

Also, why design a predictor that crams the top 200 prospects into a 10 point band. At least leave a decimal or something (since ultimately that floating digit represents 10% of the players "potential" given the limitations of the ranking).
 

Grandpabuzz

Registered User
Oct 13, 2003
910
0
Dallas, Texas
Surely you don't expect
a) the draft to unfold this way or
b) this to be a more or less accurate depiction of future potential
so, why bother? Seriously. Surely you would expect MacKinnon's potential upside to be more 5% above Cammarata? If not, I'm sure you could get a great line from a bookie on that.

Also, why design a predictor that crams the top 200 prospects into a 10 point band. At least leave a decimal or something (since ultimately that floating digit represents 10% of the players "potential" given the limitations of the ranking).

It's not supposed to be A, but it is supposed to be B. From the data we have so far, this is how the player will potentially end up. Cammarata did so much better than all of his peers, including players that previously played in the USHL and are currently regulars in the NHL. Why can't his potential be that high?

I could have added the decimals, as you are right about the score band. I kept it short because the rating system I have for current players is usually between 65-45 with a few outliers above/below that range.
 

Hagged

Registered User
Jul 6, 2009
3,375
215
Also, why design a predictor that crams the top 200 prospects into a 10 point band. At least leave a decimal or something (since ultimately that floating digit represents 10% of the players "potential" given the limitations of the ranking).

Why to say "prospect x has y line potential". That crams the top 200 prospects into a 4point band.

You can argue that the 2011-12 season has less value than the 12-13. But I didn't come up with good reasons to it. You can argue that the league where Cammarata plays in is more inferior to CHL than the model expects. I don't know have the data to back that claim.

But to interpret that the three rating points that is between McKinnon and Cammarata is 5% in potential is something I wouldn't do.

As in the OP there is the guidelines what these ratings mean. So those 3points in ratings is something that differentiates a lower echelon first line player from a lower echelon 2nd line player. So looking at 2011-12 season that would mean the difference between a 60 point player and a 40 point player. Now, Cammarata has a rating of 62 which basically says he has first line potential but just barely so his potential is around that 60 point mark (of course this is not only about offensive ability but just to make an example I use offensive player as an example). So now looking at McKinnons rating of 65 what does that mean. Difference between a barely first line player and one line above a first line player. Well, if we use that offensive player example that might mean that McKinnon would have that 50% more points than that "barely first line player" So he would have 90 point potential. But this is just me guessing how the model works.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->