Prospect Info: Jets Top 25 Prospects: Final Rankings

[KingBogo]

Uh huh. Neither one is doing any of that anytime soon. Samberg was drafted 2 years ago and is still 2 or 3 years away from even showing he can reach your projection. That's a project.

Heinola is weak as a kitten and still 2 years from even thinking of crossing the pond. That's a project.

A lot of things can happen along the way over the years. Neither one is a shoe in for anything. We can only hope they both reach your projections. Just like we are still hoping for Roslovic and Niku to reach the projections on this board from 2 years ago.

We will see, but I will stand by my predictions. Samberg's gap control is already NHL ready and with his other tools he steps easily into the NHL. If he signs in March he likely steps in in place of a rental to upgrade the defense for a playoff push. Heinola will need to add strength but his vision and play making have star written all over him.

 

[Teemusalami204]

I think you will be wrong on this. He might have been in our top 4 by season's end if he was signed.

If that was the case we wouldnt have such a panic on our defense. Kinda contradictory to me

 

[TS Quint]

We will see, but I will stand by my predictions. Samberg's gap control is already NHL ready and with his other tools he steps easily into the NHL. If he signs in March he likely steps in in place of a rental to upgrade the defense for a playoff push. Heinola will need to add strength but his vision and play making have star written all over him.

I hope you are right. Just like the other 7 teams hope the same for the defensemen picked before Heinola. History's says not everyone's dreams will come true.

Defensemen take time and a lot can happen along the way but I sure hope you're right.

 

[KingBogo]

If that was the case we wouldnt have such a panic on our defense. Kinda contradictory to me

I think there are a lot of posters who are quite comfortable with the future of our defense. We will be in a bit of a stop gap this season but in a couple years it could very well be a very nice grouping.

 

[Teemusalami204]

I think there are a lot of posters who are quite comfortable with the future of our defense. We will be in a bit of a stop gap this season but in a couple years it could very well be a very nice grouping.

Maybe a poll ???? I feel differently

 

[TS Quint]

I think there are a lot of posters who are quite comfortable with the future of our defense. We will be in a bit of a stop gap this season but in a couple years it could very well be a very nice grouping.

The Red Wings and their fan base felt pretty good after the 2011 draft too.

The Jets have a small hand full of magic beans.

 

[truck]

I think you will be wrong on this. He might have been in our top 4 by season's end if he was signed.

Same might be true about Heinola or Niku. Might doesn't mean much.

 

[csk]

I think Gustaffson is already too low. I'd have him #5or6.

I have him at #3

 

[garret9]

You really think you can compare Jack Hughes and his accomplishments to Heinola? Jack Hughes who has been the best of his age group at the highest competition available. You're going to compare a project like Heinola to a NHL ready draft pick? That's what you are doing here? Jack Hughes has shown to be the best of his age group while we are hoping for Heinola who was the 8th dman and 20th player picked to be something in 3 years. You think those development paths are the similar? This is what you are saying? This is how you are going to over simplify my short post? What are you doing here?

Heinola is going back to Finland, probably for a couple years. Then the Jets will test him with the Moose to see where he is at on North American ice against other players of his level and go from there to see how much more he needs to develop before he's in the NHL.

I've had this discussion before when it comes to stat watchers of other leagues and their useless NHLe models that dont work You cant compare leagues with just stats. There are too many variables from the competition to the size of the rink to the effort level players put into having an overall game and not just trying to put up points.

Tolvanen from the Preds was a good example. Look at the goals he put up in the KHL. He came over to the AHL and he's just ok. THe KHL with the size of the rink and style of play is a different game than in North American pro. You can score using skills that just don't work over here because you just don't get the same time and space as well as the commitment to defense is less emphasized.

With a project like Heinola he's going to slowly adjust his game over years taking steps towards being on the Jets. One of those steps like Samberg will be the AHL to really see where they are at on a level playing field.

QoC is easy enough to adjust which is what NHLEs do very well. QoC is fairly small distribution within leagues and outside of leagues literally the best manner to account for is looking at success of those that do similarly well in the same league, and NHLEs do that in a linear regression format.

What they actually do poorly with:
*adjust for TOI and QoT - huge, but on average you should see higher TOI also equates to better player
*account for defensive impact - not as huge but still matters

 

[garret9]

Maybe a poll ???? I feel differently

The depth of the Jets defensive prospects has never been better. The Jets have never really had much in mid tier prospects.

What they lack is on the elite end. There is no Morrissey-Trouba. Samberg and Heninola are really good, and they COULD be just as good but they are more likely going to be short. Niku, Heinola, and Samberg are much better than any of the previous best non elites (Redmond, Postma, etc.).

This is why there can be some concerns but also being a good shot of 1-2 top4 pairing defenders with those 3.

I hope you are right. Just like the other 7 teams hope the same for the defensemen picked before Heinola. History's says not everyone's dreams will come true.

Defensemen take time and a lot can happen along the way but I sure hope you're right.

Defensemen take no longer than forwards to reach their prime. They also age at the same rate, and the few that do make it prior to peak develop at the same pace.

They enter the league later but that’s likely due to the misconception that defenders take longer to develop and there being fewer spots available.

 

[TS Quint]

QoC is easy enough to adjust which is what NHLEs do very well. QoC is fairly small distribution within leagues and outside of leagues literally the best manner to account for is looking at success of those that do similarly well in the same league, and NHLEs do that in a linear regression format.

What they actually do poorly with:
*adjust for TOI and QoT - huge, but on average you should see higher TOI also equates to better player
*account for defensive impact - not as huge but still matters

Can you show me the model or examples?

From my experience these types of models generally work....generally. I know some will say I’m talking about a small sample size of the times I’ve seen these models not work but that’s what we are dealing with, a small sample size of a small sample size. There is still that element of using spread sheet that still needs to be interpreted on the ice. It’s not just the player is the player because of the stats. You have to also run it backwards and understand why the stats are the stats because of the player and how he arrives at the stats. There is still a large difference in how you play the game on the international ice. You still need to look at how a young physically developed player is attaining his stats in leagues with younger physically less developed players.

 

[Conflicted Habs fan]

Jets Top 25 Prospects - 2019

1. Kristian Vesalainen - 45.4%
2. Dylan Samberg - 43.8%
3. Ville Heinola - 50%
4. Sami Niku - 90.8%
5. Mason Appleton - 71.7%%
6. Logan Stanley - 37.1%
7. Mikhail Berdin - 47.3%
8. David Gustafsson - 69.4%
9. Jonathan Kovacevic - 59.8%
10. Henri Nikkanen - 30.2%
11. Declan Chisholm - 36.7%
12. Luke Green - 37.8%
13. Giovanni Vallati - 27.0%
14. Leon Gawanke - 48.1%
15. Michael Spacek - 36.1%
16. Simon Lundmark - 49.1%
17. Jansen Harkins - 26.7%
18. Skyler McKenzie 36.4%
19. Nathan Smith 27.5%
20. Harrison Blaisdell - 26.2%
21. Santeri Virtanen - 83.3%
22. Joona Luoto - 75.9%
23. Nelson Nogier - 72.2%
24. Austin Wong - 70.4%
25. Jared Moe - 37%

Honorable mention - Logan Neaton, Croix Evingson, Arvid Holm

Top 25 complete. Thanks to all for participating in the polls.

Excellent resource for easy summary. Chisholm on defence looks good. His increasing strength seems to be with passing. With all the high scoring potential with our forwards a good passer from defense will be needed. I'm thinking Housley in the Selanne years

 

[garret9]

Can you show me the model or examples?

From my experience these types of models generally work....generally. I know some will say I’m talking about a small sample size of the times I’ve seen these models not work but that’s what we are dealing with, a small sample size of a small sample size. There is still that element of using spread sheet that still needs to be interpreted on the ice. It’s not just the player is the player because of the stats. You have to also run it backwards and understand why the stats are the stats because of the player and how he arrives at the stats. There is still a large difference in how you play the game on the international ice. You still need to look at how a young physically developed player is attaining his stats in leagues with younger physically less developed players.

One model example of how they work is Sham Sharron. Sham Sharron used no adjustments of any kind, looked only at CHL while ignoring all other leagues, and didn't account for scoring differences between a forward vs a defender, and ignored all other information... but still did comparable to NHL teams. It's not a *good* model, as it was supposed to be bad.

Now, obviously you do better than Sham Sharron by adding context, both statistical (league adjustments (ie: NHLE), age, usage, etc.) and non-statistical (scouting information, which one improved version did have). But, that says something about the power of scoring rates... especially when you take into account that there is bias in the measure of success, since any bias teams have with amateur scouting and ranking the players will bias them when they decide which players make it to the NHL.

 

[TS Quint]

The depth of the Jets defensive prospects has never been better. The Jets have never really had much in mid tier prospects.

What they lack is on the elite end. There is no Morrissey-Trouba. Samberg and Heninola are really good, and they COULD be just as good but they are more likely going to be short. Niku, Heinola, and Samberg are much better than any of the previous best non elites (Redmond, Postma, etc.).

This is why there can be some concerns but also being a good shot of 1-2 top4 pairing defenders with those 3.



Defensemen take no longer than forwards to reach their prime. They also age at the same rate, and the few that do make it prior to peak develop at the same pace.

They enter the league later but that’s likely due to the misconception that defenders take longer to develop and there being fewer spots available.

Prime isn’t the question. Does that also account for being serviceable player?

There is more to learn being a defenseman than a winger because of the added responsibilities and impact of a mistake can make when you are playing the position closest to your own goal.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Wake me up When either starts playing pro in North America.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Most intriguing to me... Chisholm.

 

[garret9]

Prime isn’t the question. Does that also account for being serviceable player?

There is more to learn being a defenseman than a winger because of the added responsibilities and impact of a mistake can make when you are playing the position closest to your own goal.

I didn't just say prime. Prime is the same. The tail off after prime is the same. The pre-prime ramping up is the same. ALL evidence points out to them being the same.

There is no evidence that they are not.

Now, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... BUT there is evidence for one, and not for the other.

Also, no. There's not more. It's just mistakes end up being more high leverage so it registers more in the mind, thus causing you to be more conservative with taking chances on players. The impact of a mistake makes coaches and GMs overly cautious to a fault and trust the devil they know, which causes a later entry into NHL on average, but the actual developmental curve in performance is equatable.

Part of the issue is that the market is just worse at evaluating defense (the impact not the position) than offense. This makes sense. The eye test relies on events and actions to evaluate ability. Defense is primarily the absence of events, something the eye test is weaker at. Defenders (position) tend to have a higher percentage of their value driven via defensive impact than forwards. This is why we see stats like GAR/60 correlate higher to TOI/GP for forwards than defenders.

!!! In fact !!! I'd argue that the fact that there is a lot more poor evaluation in defenders, until the market adjusts, it's actually earlier for defenders to be "good enough" to get in on average than forwards... once the market adjusts though you'd likely get similar entry.

 

[TS Quint]

I didn't just say prime. Prime is the same. The tail off after prime is the same. The pre-prime ramping up is the same. ALL evidence points out to them being the same.

There is no evidence that they are not.

Now, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... BUT there is evidence for one, and not for the other.

Also, no. There's not more. It's just mistakes end up being more high leverage so it registers more in the mind, thus causing you to be more conservative with taking chances on players.

You might need to give the spread sheets a break if you don’t think there is more to playing defense than wing.

And what you call absence of evidence you also call bias in your previous post. And then you go into there being only 2 defense spots vs 3 forward spots as a reason for defense entering the NHL later. There are also less defensemen to choose from.

 

[garret9]

You might need to give the spread sheets a break if you don’t think there is more to playing defense than wing.

And what you call absence of evidence you also call bias in your previous post.

Showed me; spreadsheets! I don't rely just on spreadsheets, and everyone here knows that. I watch the game. I work with those that are experts in watching the game. I have taken active roles in hockey management from developmental/amateur to pro level.

Except that I'm not relying on absence of evidence. I'm relying more on the avalanche of evidence stating otherwise. So no... not really. The results we see are different than the results we'd expect to see if your hypothesis was correct. The results are what we'd expect to see if the my hypothesis were correct. Maybe we'll learn more in the future that will turn the world upside down... but until then...

If you want to say that I have a science based bias... sure then and proud of it.

 

[surixon]

You might need to give the spread sheets a break if you don’t think there is more to playing defense than wing.

And what you call absence of evidence you also call bias in your previous post. And then you go into there being only 2 defense spots vs 3 forward spots as a reason for defense entering the NHL later. There are also less defensemen to choose from.

While there might be more to learn, the defenseman has been immersed in learning all of that for all the years they have been a dmen. That training didn't start at the pro level.

Just like a forward all they are adapting to is a higher level of competetion. It's not like they are being asked to reinvent the wheel as a pro. They are playing their game at a higher level, no different then a winger. So to me it makes perfect sense that the development and prime arcs are the same.

There are also less defensive slots available then forward slots which is another reason you may not see dmen promoted as quickly as forwards.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think there are a lot of posters who are quite comfortable with the future of our defense. We will be in a bit of a stop gap this season but in a couple years it could very well be a very nice grouping.

Yes - but, there will still be agaping hole at 1RD even if the other 5 spots are good. A hole on the first pair is a lot different than a hole on the 3rd pair. And we don't have any likely fix at this point.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Same might be true about Heinola or Niku. Might doesn't mean much.

In Samberg's case, it doesn't mean a thing because he didn't sign.

 

[KingBogo]

Yes - but, there will still be agaping hole at 1RD even if the other 5 spots are good. A hole on the first pair is a lot different than a hole on the 3rd pair. And we don't have any likely fix at this point.

And maybe Niku becomes that player given his preference for the right side and our depth down the left.

 

[truck]

Yes - but, there will still be agaping hole at 1RD even if the other 5 spots are good. A hole on the first pair is a lot different than a hole on the 3rd pair. And we don't have any likely fix at this point.

Buff is still the Jets #1D man.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

And maybe Niku becomes that player given his preference for the right side and our depth down the left.

Do you honestly think that is likely?