McKeen's New Top 100, March edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rather Gingerly 1*

Guest
Ry-Dogg said:
from what i heard he recieved a mild concussion in the last 2 games of the season via scott lehman, must not have been that bad cuase he scored a goal in the first game last night... but he might have automatically been dropped down if the ratings were but up between the 2, otherwise i have no idea, i tihnk he'd be good at 6

Concussion can prove scary to scouts. Especially after Brent Lindros and Terry Ryan. Thanks for the reply
 

Alter Haudegen

Registered User
Dec 7, 2004
365
0
#66 said:
What fails to get mentioned is ice time. The talk of Frolik going to Rimouski pretty much stems from his lack of ice time. The kid is getting shafted by Kladno as much as he did at the WJC.

Plus why is he getting compared to the best euro ever? He's more of a two way player in the mold of a Havlat or Elias.

No offense but I didn't compare him with Jagr. J17ster claimed that Jagr had similar stats as Frolik at the same age and this is nonsense of course. Jagr absolutely dominated the Extraliga as an 18 years old. This is not a knock on Frolik.
 

jaydub*

Guest
I agree with the statement that Staal is only rated #2 because of his name. He is a very good prospect, top 15-20 for sure, top 10 likely. But he is not #2.
 

W Jets fan

Registered User
Jun 14, 2004
500
1
Ry-Dogg, Little did not suffer any mild concussion, just a sore neck. If it was a concussion of any sort he would not have come back so soon. :shakehead
 

J17 Vs Proclamation

Registered User
Oct 29, 2004
8,025
2
Reading.
Alter Haudegen said:
No offense but I didn't compare him with Jagr. J17ster claimed that Jagr had similar stats as Frolik at the same age and this is nonsense of course. Jagr absolutely dominated the Extraliga as an 18 years old. This is not a knock on Frolik.

Well Jagr didn't dominate in his first year, i'll admit i was wrong in my comparison though. Still, compare Frolik to a very recent Czech prospect, Olesz. Olesz had little points like Frolik, was playing on the 3rd line like Frolik and Frolik is projected to fall, just like Olesz did. Olesz did have the famouns Phanuef hit but very comparable. Olesz is now impressing alot of people in the NHL, and Frolik has very high upsides.
 

usiel

Where wolf’s ears are, wolf’s teeth are near.
Sponsor
Jul 29, 2002
14,700
3,408
Klendathu
www.myspace.com
J17ster said:
Well Jagr didn't dominate in his first year, i'll admit i was wrong in my comparison though. Still, compare Frolik to a very recent Czech prospect, Olesz. Olesz had little points like Frolik, was playing on the 3rd line like Frolik and Frolik is projected to fall, just like Olesz did. Olesz did have the famouns Phanuef hit but very comparable. Olesz is now impressing alot of people in the NHL, and Frolik has very high upsides.

After seeing the Jagr point comparison I immediately thought of Olesz during his draft year. And I have seen a few Panther's games to feel that Olesz looks pretty slick out there.
 

Chief

Registered User
Jun 19, 2003
1,897
0
NY, NY
Dr.Sens(e) said:
Well, from Young Guns list in the top 15 - which is all I'm basing it on and where people typically get excited/upset one way or another - Burki is really the only guy not a consensus top 15 guy, and he has been on the rise into the first round on every list. Really, McKeens, Redline and ISS all have essentially the same players in the top 15 as Young Guns this year.

As to singling out Red Line as the more unique ranking, Young Guns is a bit less main stream than ISS, Hockey News and McKeens, I'll grant you that. But part of it is the different approaches. Red Line is simply a ranking based on their scouts (which is why it is a little more different list) versus the others which are typically more of a consensus list, and tend to gravitate to the same type of rankings. One is an opinion, the others are more of a poll. Which is Young Guns? I'm sure I read it at some point, but can't recall.

I've read a few things from YG in the past couple of years, and always enjoyed them, so looking forward to the next piece.

I hear what you're saying and I think it's logical that you'd see more concensus amongst the top 10 lists just because the top end talents seem to be the players who have everything going for them - and by that I mean, they are having impressive performances on bigger stages, whether that's international tournaments, a top prospect game, or a high visibility league with a high level of competition (often a combination of the above). On the flipside, I have a player I particularly like who I would peg as a low Top 100 player. He plays for a lower level junior team in the US and isn't a very big kid. It's very possible that Young Guns will be the only service that has him on a Top 100 list. That's just one example of a lesser-seen player who might catch one scout's eye but not other's. And BTW, a scout of our's was there when Kevin Lowe introduced himself to this kid's dad at a recent game. If EDM drafts the kid, I'll let you know.

Here's something else you might find interesting. Last year one NHL GM told me that they fully expected to have different rankings than other teams but he also told me that if they had too many players from their list who went undrafted that it would raise questions about the job his scouts were doing. So it looks like NHL teams like to be different - just not "too" different.

As for our rankings, they are a poll of our primary scouts with number values placed on votes from 1 - 15. Although different scouts speak to each other and meet up with each other throughout the year, we only all get together once a year when we have our organizational meeting to put together our Top 100.
 

Debrincat93

Registered User
Dec 4, 2002
22,669
468
Michigan
Nhl.com
i got a question, i hope i dont get bashed for this, but if toews kinda like this years chipchura, i mean in terms of style and what they are like or am i completely off? i havent seen toews play so i wouldnt know
 

Chief

Registered User
Jun 19, 2003
1,897
0
NY, NY
zetterberg40 said:
i got a question, i hope i dont get bashed for this, but if toews kinda like this years chipchura, i mean in terms of style and what they are like or am i completely off? i havent seen toews play so i wouldnt know

Not really a good comparison. Chipchura's more of a heart and soul type player. There's a lot of sandpaper in his game. Toews is a much more skilled, all around player. Toews has often left me feeling like he's lacked some fire in the belly, which is something I'd never say about Chipchura.
 

The Mailman*

Guest
kidhander said:
Where is vasyunov???

a) hes russian
b) he's not been playing that well. he isnt even the best russian available. popov and anisimov are two who are better.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
zetterberg40 said:
i got a question, i hope i dont get bashed for this, but if toews kinda like this years chipchura, i mean in terms of style and what they are like or am i completely off? i havent seen toews play so i wouldnt know


Toews is much more talented.
 

speeds

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
6,823
0
St.Albert
Visit site
there is some outstanding posts in this thread, thanks steblick, west, chief, Dr.Sens(e), blackshad, timlap, and Big Daddy, I do enjoy talking about this kind of stuff.

I've been wondering how it seems that over the past few years I can make a better list than teams can. Personally, I think it speaks to a systemic flaw in the scouting system - overvaluing the opinion of scouts who see a limited sample of games.

When you see a player only a few times (say, between 5 and 10) in his draft year how can you possibly expect to have a great read on him? Perhaps team A sees player X (on average) on better days than team B sees him, thus player X is higher on team A's ranking than on team B's? Maybe that is mainly what accounts for much of the variation among scouting rankings, and scouting staffs? In creating my list I don't have to worry about the bias of "saw a player on good days", that should average out among all the sources (to some extent).I guess this isn't really my theory, since it appears as well in "Moneyball" in some way as it releates to baseball.


To go further, I don't need to draft better than average for this way of scouting to make sense; by drafting at average I save the money spent on amateur scouting that can now either be spent on current player salaries or kept as profit.

we talked about this on the Oilers board in this thread, might be interesting to those interested in this:

http://www4.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=154424



Of course, it's impossible to know how my list actually compares with the list of any team, since the list of a team isn't available. This leaves the problem of sample size; I can't know my list is better simply by looking at who I would have picked vs. who EDM (my team) picked, for at least 2 reasons.

(1) When I pick someone different from who EDM actually picked it would have changed the entire direction of the draft in an unknowable way without the lists of all 30 teams

(2) sample size. To illustrate...

team X's top 10 list, they pick 4th overall

BUST
BUST
BUST
HOME RUN
BUST
BUST
BUST
BUST
BUST
BUST

team Y's top 10, they pick 5th

HOME RUN
HOME RUN
HOME RUN
HOME RUN
BUST
HOME RUN
HOME RUN
HOME RUN
HOME RUN
HOME RUN

Team X picks a great player, team Y picks a dog, but without having their lists we can't see that team Y is CLEARLY the superior scouting team.

Interesting stuff, all of this. Well, to me anyways :).
 

Hiishawk

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,225
2
Out there somewhere
Visit site
speeds said:
When you see a player only a few times (say, between 5 and 10) in his draft year how can you possibly expect to have a great read on him? Perhaps team A sees player X (on average) on better days than team B sees him, thus player X is higher on team A's ranking than on team B's? Maybe that is mainly what accounts for much of the variation among scouting rankings, and scouting staffs? In creating my list I don't have to worry about the bias of "saw a player on good days", that should average out among all the sources (to some extent).

Basically, if you see one player more than 5 times it means that you aren't seeing another player enough. There are just too many leagues and players.

But, more importantly, if you see a player too much you can actually LOSE objectivity about that player. It's like rating your long-itme girlfriend's looks- as you see her everyday it actually gets hard to compare her to other women as she's almost too familiar to you. She- and you- are too close to the action to be totally objective (in a comparative sense vis-a-vis other women) anymore. This analogy may not be perfect but I hope you get the idea.

Actually, in many cases, two or three games have been enough for me to get a satisfactory read on a guy. Remember, scouts are looking for general potential, not individual game highs and lows for teaching and diagnosis purposes like a coach would (*note to some of the ratings agencies on this point). Size doesn't change. Skating can take less than a game to guage in most cases. Physicality and willingness to battle rarely takes more than a game or two to note. Even puck skills and hockey sense can be assessed relatively quickly. Sure, sometimes a slick, skilled player will have a day where the puck is rolling off his stick and an opponent is hounding him all night and his passes are behind teammates and he doesn't see the ice well that day. And, vice-versa, some plumbers have nights where everything they touch turns to gold. But any scout worth his salt will see hints that the slick player is having a bad night- hints that he really has some skills. The plumber having a good night will also surely have some telltale signs planting doubts in the scouts' mind.

Such players you will want to see more than others precisely because you're less sure that you've seen the "real" player X. However, if they keep up this style for 3-4 games, then you have a trend and you can make a reliable scouting report. And once you've made a satisfactory report other scouts will almost certainly follow it up for 2nd and 3rd opinions. And, of course, it's best to vary these viewings over the course of the season as healing injuries, current linemates, opponent level etc. could factor in to a players' peformance negatively or positively.
 
Last edited:

timlap

Registered User
Jun 19, 2002
9,218
41
I read a book about goaltending co-written by a scout/GM (can't remember who, unfortunately). He claimed that one period (in some cases a shift ot two) was enough time to get a pretty good read on a prospect. The exception he said (and the reason for making the point in that context) was goaltenders. Any comment on that steblick? Do you find goalies require more viewings?

But I think you have an interesting point, speeds. If each scout specialises in certain geograophical areas then it must be a challenge to collate all that information. Fans otoh, if they read all the scouting services and check all the websites for statistical/tournament information can have an overall perspective, although they will inherit the biases of the scouting services. But since they have mutliple sources, the biases may balance each other out. It's an interesting theory, but highly speculative.

The theory does acoount for thousands of fans surfing the net on draft day and saying "Why don't you take PAtrick O'Sullivan you ******* *******. **** **** ****." (And so on). :) Of course, if O'Sullivan doesn't look good a few years later we will tend to forget that we thought teams were crazy for passing on him. Thus, the fans, with no written records and no accountability, will collectively tend to remember that they were right about O'Sulllivan and every other guy who fell farther than he should have.

There is the possibility (more remote, I think) that fans are less infected by traditional hockey biases, against small players for instance. But that's hard to prove conclusively.

I would still take a scout's opinion more seriously than that of any fan. Although scouts can guess wrong too, obviously.
 

Hiishawk

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,225
2
Out there somewhere
Visit site
Timlap and Speeds-
Yes, collating is the hardest part. So, instead of just a ranking, teams will generally try to give a numerical value (a degree of interest mark based on potential) to a player. This though can still be difficult as league levels vary considerably but scouts still take all that into mind. Senior scouts of GMs or Director of Player Personnel will be the master collators and will travel out of area to try and get that overall read.

Yes, goalies are the hardest read and may take longer to evaluate accurately. You're bang on with that one.

Some scouts will sometimes listen to outsiders' opinions, sources that experience tells them is reliable. It may not be a determining factor in the scout's evaluation but it could make some difference. Other team's scouts are not considered good sources (misinformation) and ranking services are worth a read but it is always kept in mind that they are not building a team or a program and therefore have a different rating criteria than any given NHL team.
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
Just noticed how the Shattuck St Mary program has seen some serious talent...keeping in mind Crosby went there. Here's a look at the roster from last year:

Jonathan Toews...typically higher than the #5 pick here
Kyle Okposo...#7 pick in McKeens
Angelo Esposito...top 5? next year
Taylor Chorney...2nd round last year
Michael Gergen...2nd round last year
Tyler Ruegsegger...usa team u17, u18
Tony Mosey...USNDPT
Tysen Dowzak...CHL, draft pick?
Kevin Deeth...along with Okposo and Gagner, ushl all rookie forward
 
Last edited:

Kick Save

Registered User
Apr 23, 2003
1,161
0
Visit site
RangerBoy said:
#31.Wouldn't mind if the Rangers scooped up Foligno with their late first round pick.I'm sure the Rangers have seen him play many times considering he plays with Marc Staal in Sudbury and the Rangers are keeping close tabs on Staal

Do you really think he'll still be "on the board" when the Rangers pick? With the recently-improved play of the Ducks, their pick keeps getting progressively worse. I was thinking that Foligno might not be a bad pick for them in the 16th-to-20th pick range.
 

hawksfan50

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
13,984
1,965
Alter Haudegen said:
Except of course that Thornton had 122 points (41 goals and 81 assists) in 59 games in his draft year and Jordan Staal has exactly a point per game with 68 points (28 goals and 40 assists) in 68 games. ;)

Yes both played as 17 year olds in their draft year--HOWEVER,Jordan has more points than ERIC did as a 17 year old (Eric Staal played his draft year as an 18 year old for most of it)--based on that (Eric had 98 points for the Petes in his draft year),we should see Jordan Staal put up over 100 points a game next season --then when you combine the fact that he already is bigger and stronger than both Eric and Joe were at his age,some scouts are willing to project that he'll be a monster to handle when he gets to the NHL...

Right now he is still quite "raw" offensively --he passes well,comes out of battles with the puck,owns the corners and all the "power" moves...HOWEVER--he has not yet ''figured out" all the nuances creative play-making in the offensive zone
---once he does that--look out! His faceoffs though just STINK!..he 'llneed to improve on that or he may have to shift to wing as a pro...

I don't think he'll ever be as good with the stick as Thornton--nor do I think he is as good on the release with the wrister as brother Eric was and is...but if he improves the figuring out of the game in the offensive zone part,he will put up more points as he becomes more creative with maturity...

So--his "upside" justifies some scouts putting him as high as #2--but there is also a risk that if he doesn't improve the consistency and creativity,then all he'll be is a good 2nd line centre,in which case you should not rank himas high as #2...

It is all a matter of projection and how certain scouts see him progressing next year and beyond...

Right now,Kessel,Toews and Backstrom are all more advanced as players..By the end of next season he may have caught up and from there the sky may be the limit..

In my own mind it is hard to rank these top 4 forwards--but I suspect Kessel drops to 4th choice among forwards despite his talent --too many issues with him I would try to avoid...Toews given his tremendous improvement in the 2nd half and especially as the games became more important in North Dakota's march to the Frozen Four I now think is the top forward...The tough decision is whether to place Staal ahead or behind Backstrom in my own mind...Backstrom looks safer because he's more developed already--but it is hard to refrain from thinking how good Staal will become as he matures...I wonder if the Ottawa 67's can win 2/3 in the remainder of the series with the Petes? That result would not necessarily hurt Staal
because then he'd play for Canada at the U-18's--HOWEVER if he played poorly in the U-18's that could knock him down a few notches...on the other hand if the Petes advance in the OHL playoffs scouts will get a longer look at Staal over here..if he dominates in the rest of their playoffs that could raise him a few notches...
 

John Agar

The 4th Hanson Bro'
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
24,849
40,778
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Toew's player comparisons...

Chief said:
Not really a good comparison. Chipchura's more of a heart and soul type player. There's a lot of sandpaper in his game. Toews is a much more skilled, all around player. Toews has often left me feeling like he's lacked some fire in the belly, which is something I'd never say about Chipchura.

Two players I would compare Toews to in potential...

Low end....Thomas Steen

Upper end...Bryan Trottier

I like this kids balanced play, unselfishness & drive. This kid off the ice is focused and mature...driven on and off the ice.

Heady words, but I will stick with them. :)
 

KeepitinPitt

Registered User
Mar 31, 2004
1,094
36
Gibsonia, PA
Just curious, what is the general opinion on Joey Ryan? I just read an article and he sounds like an interesting prospect. I read he was rated 31 one the list. Will he be gone in the first or is there a chance he'll be there when the Penguins pick in the second? Seems as though his offensive game isn't the greatest but he sounds like a heavy hitter and fairly responsible in his own end. This is all from what I've read however so I can't judge. If anyone can add their thoughts and opinions I'd appreciate it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->