Hockey's Future Top 50 Prospects Spring 2006
- Thread starter Kimi
- Start date
- Status
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,209
- 8,616
I said I understood why Oshie and Schwarz weren't in the top 50 because Crosby, Ovechkin, Phaneuf, Lundqvist, .... are certainly still on the top-50 list. My problem is that they apparently didn't even make the "just missed the cut list", and *that* I have a problem with. Oshie is one of 5 freshmen in the NCAA averaging a point a game this season; one of two in the major hockey conferences (CCHA, WCHA, Hockey East). His 16 goals is more than Phil Kessel's 14 and puts Oshie 7th in the WCHA in goals scored, and his play at the WJC's earned solid if not great reviews from a lot of people here.
Schwarz is apparently still getting hammered for his play in his *first* season in North America with a not-so-great Vancouver team in the WHL and is getting marked down some more for going back to the Czech Republic. OK, fine - I can understand that some. But Oshie not even getting mentioned is a real travesty IMO.
I'd rather have seen HF drop the players who've clearly made their mark in the NHL and earned full-time roles this season, but the people making the list held to the criteria pretty strictly. If they were going to do that, I'd much rather have seen them make a one-time top-75 or top-100 list because of the number of players who've jumped to the NHL this season.
P.S. - Jeff Tambellini absolutely should have been in the top-50. I've seen the kid play three times, he's got NHL-caliber tools and I'd take him over Brad Boyes every day of the week and never think twice.
Schwarz is apparently still getting hammered for his play in his *first* season in North America with a not-so-great Vancouver team in the WHL and is getting marked down some more for going back to the Czech Republic. OK, fine - I can understand that some. But Oshie not even getting mentioned is a real travesty IMO.
I'd rather have seen HF drop the players who've clearly made their mark in the NHL and earned full-time roles this season, but the people making the list held to the criteria pretty strictly. If they were going to do that, I'd much rather have seen them make a one-time top-75 or top-100 list because of the number of players who've jumped to the NHL this season.
P.S. - Jeff Tambellini absolutely should have been in the top-50. I've seen the kid play three times, he's got NHL-caliber tools and I'd take him over Brad Boyes every day of the week and never think twice.
Jayhawk
Registered User
Has anyone kept track of the lists through the years? I think that would be interesting. Keep an eye on prospects who turn into NHLers and those who don't. Then you could actually see if there is a class of prospect who is routinely over- or under- rated (a specific team, league, whatever). You could also get a rough idea of how good the list is as a whole. If it's not evaluated down the line is it anything more than just a list of hype?
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
Irish Blues said:
So does Boyes, and he's already doing it in the NHL.
Tell me, why single out Boyes? He certainly isn't the most conspicuous choice for forwards on that list...
4th in rookie scoring behind Ovy, Sid and Svatos, 46th in rookie ice-time.
David A. Rainer
Registered User
Hasbro said:What got the Avs off your ****list?
Because we're purposefully suppressing the fact that we are oppressing Avs prospects.
Mess
Global Moderator
David A. Rainer said:Because we're purposefully suppressing the fact that we are oppressing Avs prospects.
Can I ask how many people were involved in the list selection and order process ??
David A. Rainer
Registered User
Mess said:
7 writers on the committee from different areas of coverage, in-put provided by the entire staff of HF writers.
Mess
Global Moderator
HabOil said:
How the hell can Skille be in the top 25?--he's been a big disapointment to me as a freshman at Wisconsin--I expected and should expect way betterPPG from him if he were even a 25-50 guy..so far,he doesn't merit it..rather how about Nathan Davis a soph at Miami of Ohio and having a very good year as their 1st line centre and leading scorer?...he deserves to be ranked ahead of Skille (albeit 1 year separating their classes). Is this rating based on hf staff's view of "potential",level reached,or what a guy actually is accomplishing NOW? Obviously the whole thing is subjective--but unless you state exactly why and how you derive a ranking for each prospect
based on THE SAME CRITERIA for each --I do not know how anyone can take this ranking seriously...Obviously,some HF staffers are weighing potential (as they perceive it) higher than actual accomplishment with some prospects,while weighing accomplishment and or level reached as higher determinants of rank for some other prospects..the result is a mish-mash that really tells us not very much...
Instead --a better rating would be accomplished by separaate lists:
We are comparing "prospects" already drafted by an NHL team...
There should be 3 categories:
1.Top 25 "Prospects" who have reached the NHL level --this should be limited to those with less than 82 GP in the NHL--after that they should be "graduated" off the list...
2. Top 25 "Prospects" playing in the AHL or euro pro leagues...
3. Top 25 "Prospects" playing in Jr. or University hockey...
This should take some of the level reached weighting biases out of the ranking.
There then should be 2 seaparate set of scores for each "prospect" counting 50% each:
--one set for what a player has accomplished so far in relation to other prospects in the same group or sub-group (ie. for Jrs. and University drafted players--use the stats or other criteria to evaluate in comparison to other players in their Jr. or University sub-groupings;same for sub-grouping AHl'ers and euro pro Prospects; or in comparison to other NHL rookies for that grouping).
---the 2nd set of evaluation marks for "potential" (admittedly this is where some greater biases can leak in)..
Otherwise--it like comparing apples and oranges given all the different levels the Prospects are at...
Mess
Global Moderator
ceber said:
Hockey’s Future Top 50 NHL Prospects
Updated August 2005
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/top50.php
Hockey’s Future Top 50 NHL Prospects
Updated November 2004
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/top50.php?d=08_2005
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,209
- 8,616
1. Boyes is 23, Tambellini is 21.reidy said:
2. Boyes finally made it to the NHL with his 3rd team and after 2 full AHL seasons. (Yes, I'm throwing out 2004-05 giving the benefit of the doubt that Boyes would have been in the NHL had there not been a lockout.) Tambellini will likely make the NHL next season after 1 AHL season.
3. Stats: Tambellini will likely put up better numbers in his 1st season in the AHL than Boyes did in his 1st season in the AHL.
4. Boyes is getting so much ice time (and thus the chance to score so many points) because ... let's face it, Boston isn't exactly overflowing with depth at forward. Los Angeles has the depth at the big club to not need Tambellini to log top-6 minutes.
5. I've seen both guys play and it's the most solid comparison I have to make.
If you want to take it personally, then take it personally. I'm just saying that Tambellini should have been in the top-50, and I'd have put him over Boyes.
For the Penguins, Crosby and Malkin are obvious choices, and it's nice to see HF do a U-turn on Whitney (being out of the top 50 to being in the top 25 in 6 months).
That said, Welch continues to be severly underrated. He's had a great NCAA career and is arguably the best defenseman in the AHL in his rookie season. He's going to be a stud for many years. If he couldn't crack the top 50, he shoud AT LEAST have been on the "missed the cut" list.
Anyway, good job guys!
That said, Welch continues to be severly underrated. He's had a great NCAA career and is arguably the best defenseman in the AHL in his rookie season. He's going to be a stud for many years. If he couldn't crack the top 50, he shoud AT LEAST have been on the "missed the cut" list.
Anyway, good job guys!
It was stated above the Boyes ice time is 46th among rookies and is fourth among points. Is 14:33 alot of ice time? That is third line minutes!Irish Blues said:
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
hawksfan50 said:
It appears you have no understanding of what constitutes a typical freshman season in the NCAA (even for a great player) or know how Mike Eaves runs the Badger program.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,209
- 8,616
Boyes' stats in 2005-06....Newfie Bruin said:
Before Thornton was traded
26 games, 5-9-14, average 11:09 of ice time (high of 15:38).
Average shifts per game: 15.92 (high of 22, low of 7; 20+ shifts 6 times)
# of games over 13 minutes: 10.
# of games over 15 minutes: 2.
After Thornton was traded
32 games, 11-19-30, average 17:18 of ice time (high of 23:11).
Average shifts per game: 22.875 (high of 33, low of 13; less than 20 shifts 5 times)
# of games under 13 minutes: 2.
# of games under 15 minutes: 6.
In the last 13 games, Boyes is 6-13-19 while averaging 19:09 of ice time, playing more than 20 minutes 5 times and less than 15 minutes just twice. He's averaging 25.69 shifts per game in this stretch.
I hardly consider the ice time he's been seeing since Thornton was dealt (and certainly the ice time he's had in the last 13 games) "third line minutes!"
P.S. - he may be 46th in ice time among rookies; he's 13th among forwards. If you throw out the guys who've played fewer than 10 games this season (a pretty solid assumption we can make for the sake of making an accurate comparison), he jumps to 39th overall and if you take his 17:18 ice time in the post-Thornton era, he'd be 5th behind Ovechkin, Crosby, Alexander Steen and Colby Armstrong (17:24 average in 24 games) among forwards.
Last edited:
He is in the NHL and is a total beast on the puck he looks like a true power forward too me, he was a late bloomer simple as that. Not enough people have seen him play this year. how many guys 6'4 240 also have a 100 mph slap shot?David A. Rainer said:
With that said I agree with him not being in the top 50 I think Smid is better than some of the guys on, and I think Ballard is better than several of the guys on.
nyranger61494
YNWA
Putting Kesler on the list of those no longer eligible is a backhanded way of saying he should have been in the top 60 last year.
This looks like a good list. However, one caution is that some players are getting NHL ice time because they play on weak teams. Others prospects, that may be equal or better, are being sent back to Junior or left in the minor leagues because they are playing for better teams.
This looks like a good list. However, one caution is that some players are getting NHL ice time because they play on weak teams. Others prospects, that may be equal or better, are being sent back to Junior or left in the minor leagues because they are playing for better teams.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,354
FLYLine27*
BUCH
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes- Updated: