Prospect Info: NHL 2017 Entry Draft: Year of the Homegrown Talent

[ps241]

Apologies for going ot but:


Samuel Girard, Kyle Clague, Frederic Allard, Sean Day, and Luke Green all were "better" prospects and have continued to trend up. If there was one to pick it was Girard. The annoying part is all could have been had with our initial first, or even our second.

Cholowski, hajek, neimelenain, and dineenall had better odds of success, taken within the first three rounds, but have not improved significantly.

Interestingly all the dmen after Stanley (while technically including Stanley) taken in the first round were pretty poor value picks. The best dmen drafted outside of chychrun we're late second rounders and third rounders.

I don't think the jets were wrong in thinking they couldn't get a good dman at their spot (without reaching) but they couldn't get a good one where they moved up to either.

If you flipped look green and Logan stanleys pick locations the value actually much more inline. Green = borderline first round value pick. Stanley = third round value pick.

Should also mention are probabilities run higher then the better "non-public" methodologies due to our sample size being restricted to previously drafted players.

I would have been dissapointed with Stanley in the second round and probably just ok with him in the 3rd round. To each there own and like Joe said he is ours now so I am pulling for him.

 

[kxx]

Samuel Girard, Kyle Clague, Frederic Allard, Sean Day, and Luke Green all were "better" prospects and have continued to trend up. If there was one to pick it was Girard. The annoying part is all could have been had with our initial first, or even our second.

Cholowski, hajek, neimelenain, and dineenall had better odds of success, taken within the first three rounds, but have not improved significantly.

Interestingly all the dmen after Stanley (while technically including Stanley) taken in the first round were pretty poor value picks. The best dmen drafted outside of chychrun we're late second rounders and third rounders.

I don't think the jets were wrong in thinking they couldn't get a good dman at their spot (without reaching) but they couldn't get a good one where they moved up to either.

If you flipped look green and Logan stanleys pick locations the value actually much more inline. Green = borderline first round value pick. Stanley = third round value pick.

Should also mention are probabilities run higher then the better "non-public" methodologies due to our sample size being restricted to previously drafted players.

Bold is especially good point. It seemed like they almost... forgot the more higher ranked defencemen (at least guys I saw ranked in top-20) were taken (thinking Bean, MacAvoy, Chychrun, Fabbro who were taken at 13, 14, 16 and 17). I think the fact that after Chowlowski at 20 the next defence taken was Johansen at 28 shows that there was a perceived tier drop after this level maybe.

 

[garret9]

Doesn't Stanley have a 5% chance or something though?

PCS is just below 10 and Projection Proj is under 20 for draft year.

I don't know about the latter but the former saw no improvement for Stanley.

Now that's without qualitative inputs.

 

[garret9]

Fixed it for you........you know they're gonna troll canucks army

Yes pleas.

 

[garret9]

Panel of NHL scouts rank him below Stanley after d+1 season, for what it's worth.

Is that the THN survey? They also ranked Stanley closer to what I had pre draft than where Jets got him (using value not position, since value and position isn't linear) and it was one of the largest drops.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Yes pleas.

I think Canucks win the lottery and take Patrick

 

[Whileee]

Is that the THN survey? They also ranked Stanley closer to what I had pre draft than where Jets got him (using value not position, since value and position isn't linear) and it was one of the largest drops.

Yes, the THN survey.

They had Stanley at #19 pre-draft, I believe. He dropped to #30 in the "re-draft", which is substantial but not precipitous. The only D that overtook him in the "re-draft" survey was Cholowski.

 

[Grind]

PCS is just below 10 and Projection Proj is under 20 for draft year.

I don't know about the latter but the former saw no improvement for Stanley.

Now that's without qualitative inputs.

I believe he may have improved slightly but is still not good.

 

[MardyBum]

Apologies for going ot but:


Samuel Girard, Kyle Clague, Frederic Allard, Sean Day, and Luke Green all were "better" prospects and have continued to trend up. If there was one to pick it was Girard. The annoying part is all could have been had with our initial first, or even our second.

Cholowski, hajek, neimelenain, and dineenall had better odds of success, taken within the first three rounds, but have not improved significantly.

Interestingly all the dmen after Stanley (while technically including Stanley) taken in the first round were pretty poor value picks. The best dmen drafted outside of chychrun we're late second rounders and third rounders.

I don't think the jets were wrong in thinking they couldn't get a good dman at their spot (without reaching) but they couldn't get a good one where they moved up to either.

If you flipped look green and Logan stanleys pick locations the value actually much more inline. Green = borderline first round value pick. Stanley = third round value pick.

Should also mention are probabilities run higher then the better "non-public" methodologies due to our sample size being restricted to previously drafted players.

Any thoughts on the dmen in this years draft?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I also hated the pick at the time, but probably more because of what it said about the Jets' drafting, which had been pretty spot on in the 1st rounds previously.

Since the pick, my opinion of Stanley has improved somewhat based on a few viewings and his improvement in shot volume and production (with almost no PP time).

In a recent poll of NHL scouts, he was rated at #30 from last year's draft. Considering he missed half a season with injury, that's not such a bit drop. Interestingly, that panel of scouts still ranks him ahead of Clague, Johansen, Hajek, etc. The only D that was selected after him that they rank ahead of him is Cholowski at #26.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/how-would-the-2016-nhl-draft-unfold-if-we-did-it-again-today

This doesn't necessarily mean that's where Stanley should be ranked, but it's a reasonable indication of his relative value to NHL teams.

There are some strange things in that survey. Stanley is certainly more reasonable at 30 than at 18 but some people are still being impressed by size. No way he should still be ahead of Clague. Hajek moved up a bit - after what was probably a disappointing season to TB. He should have fallen. Still belongs behind Stanley though.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

not defending Stanley at all here but wonder if any of the defenders that would have been available at 22 and 36 (we can use some hindsight and assume Jets would have picked the 'best' of those) have turned out clearly better than Stanley?

It may be too early to be reaffirmed in our disappointment lol. Am rooting for him but the injury really throws a wrench in staying positive.

I wanted Johansson and Clague, in that order. Johansson has disappointed so far so lets say he is a bust (just for discussion, not really). Clague has performed well and has risen in the ratings. So lets say he turns out to be a hit. 50% success would be a win over a 20% chance.

Generally speaking I would rather have 1 really good player instead of 2 average ones. In this case though we are talking odds of getting a winning ticket. I'll take the 2:1 odds. I don't think there was a good argument to be made at the time that Stanley gave better odds of being a winner than either of my 2. In fact I think it is generous to him to call them equal but, again for discussion lets call them 3 equal shots. As it turns out so far it looks like the last shot taken now has the best chance of hitting the target.

But it is early yet. At least Stanley was improving. Not all of them have so far. He is still ours and I am still pulling for him. Horrible decision to take him though.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

My Best guess at a mock if all standings stay the same.

Avs: Patrick
Yotes: Hischier
Knights: Vilardi
Nucks: Pettersson
Devils: Mittelstadt
Wings: Liljegren
Stars: Heskeinen
Cats: Tippet
Sabres: Valimaki

Not exactly sure how this will go but the pick I'm not sure about is the Sabres. They may go for whomever is left of Heskeinen or Valimaki or may opt for something else. This gives us the perfect shot at Glass though as I feel like he won't go ahead of Vilardi/Pettersson/Mittlestadt. Panthers may opt for him but they already have a pretty solid C core.

Apparently it was Detroit who wanted Stanley. Him + our 1st to move up and take Liljegren? Or Heiskanen, Valimaki. Would that be ironic?

 

[Joe Hallenback]

If the Knights have the 3rd pick it wouldn't shock me to see them take either Mittelstadt or Rasmussen or Glass

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Apologies for going ot but:


Samuel Girard, Kyle Clague, Frederic Allard, Sean Day, and Luke Green all were "better" prospects and have continued to trend up. If there was one to pick it was Girard. The annoying part is all could have been had with our initial first, or even our second.

Cholowski, hajek, neimelenain, and dineenall had better odds of success, taken within the first three rounds, but have not improved significantly.

Interestingly all the dmen after Stanley (while technically including Stanley) taken in the first round were pretty poor value picks. The best dmen drafted outside of chychrun we're late second rounders and third rounders.

I don't think the jets were wrong in thinking they couldn't get a good dman at their spot (without reaching) but they couldn't get a good one where they moved up to either.

If you flipped look green and Logan stanleys pick locations the value actually much more inline. Green = borderline first round value pick. Stanley = third round value pick.

Should also mention are probabilities run higher then the better "non-public" methodologies due to our sample size being restricted to previously drafted players.

I didn't like Stanley, not because he was too big but because he was drafted because he was big. OTOH though I was scared off of Girard because he was too small. I'm not immune to size bias.

 

[Rheged]

Any thoughts on the dmen in this years draft?

It's hard to say for the European prospects but in NA Timmins, Valimaki, and Makar really standout for elite scoring and Hague, and Foote stand out for being really big and also being quite good at scoring.

Those are pretty much the standout's by what I've looked at to this point, guys like Liljegren and Heiskanen probably belong in the same sort of group but NHLE isn't good at catching those ones.

 

[Whileee]

Honestly not much in my books. Have they watched either of them play this year? I honestly wonder.

You think that a panel of NHL scouts haven't watched CHL prospects, but maybe HF Jets posters have?

I was one of the first out of the blocks criticizing the Stanley pick during last year's draft, but I think that many here have lost some objectivity about him. NHL scouts and folks like Button really have no reason to over-rate Stanley, and to say that they don't actually watch him and other CHL players play is ludicrous.

 

[veganhunter]

You think that a panel of NHL scouts haven't watched CHL prospects, but maybe HF Jets posters have?

I was one of the first out of the blocks criticizing the Stanley pick during last year's draft, but I think that many here have lost some objectivity about him. NHL scouts and folks like Button really have no reason to over-rate Stanley, and to say that they don't actually watch him and other CHL players play is ludicrous.

When simply drafting the next highest scorer from the CHL will net you more NHL talent than half the teams in the NHL draft, it makes me wonder if we should be taking a majority of these opinions with a pretty big grain of salt.

 

[Whileee]

I believe he may have improved slightly but is still not good.

I agree not "good", but 2.7 SOG per game with hardly any PP time is actually not "bad".

Do your scoring-based models adjust for PP time or points?

Fun fact:

EV points / game:

Juolevi 0.39
Stanley 0.34
Vande Sompel 0.39
Moverare 0.32
Dineen 0.31
Zboril 0.34
Lauzon 0.38
Green 0.30
Clague 0.42
Johansen 0.34
Hajek 0.31

 

[Whileee]

When simply drafting the next highest scorer from the CHL will net you more NHL talent than half the teams in the NHL draft, it makes me wonder if we should be taking a majority of these opinions with a pretty big grain of salt.

See above. Stanley isn't very far out of the mix in EV pts/game compared to CHL defensemen that many here seem to like. His shots/game exceed many of those, despite very little PP time.

 

[garret9]

I agree not "good", but 2.7 SOG per game with hardly any PP time is actually not "bad".

Do your scoring-based models adjust for PP time or points?

Fun fact:

EV points / game:

Juolevi 0.39
Stanley 0.34
Vande Sompel 0.39
Moverare 0.32
Dineen 0.31
Zboril 0.34
Lauzon 0.38
Green 0.30
Clague 0.42
Johansen 0.34
Hajek 0.31

Stanely's SOG/GP improved by a smaller percentage from D to D+1 than his P/GP, so my guess is high shots on net are in part just the way Stanley is. Doesn't necessitate good.

 

[Whileee]

Stanely's SOG/GP improved by a smaller percentage from D to D+1 than his P/GP, so my guess is high shots on net are in part just the way Stanley is. Doesn't necessitate good.

Ummm.... so shots are a positive metric for some players but not for others? Maybe he was more "unlucky" in the draft year and his expected points were higher than realized.

Do you think EV point production is a meaningful metric?

 

[garret9]

Ummm.... so shots are a positive metric for some players but not for others? Maybe he was more "unlucky" in the draft year and his expected points were higher than realized.

Do you think EV point production is a meaningful metric?

I don't see where I said that?

I merely pointed out he seems consistently a low scoring, high SOG defender...

 

[Whileee]

I don't see where I said that?

I merely pointed out he seems consistently a low scoring, high SOG defender...

He scores about as much at EV as many of the D above. Would probably produce more if on the PP with that shot volume.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

I think Foote goes in the top 10. I think his last name helps. I think there will be a good lhd available when the Jets pick. Someone will fall.

 

[Grind]

I agree not "good", but 2.7 SOG per game with hardly any PP time is actually not "bad".

Do your scoring-based models adjust for PP time or points?

Fun fact:

EV points / game:

Juolevi 0.39
Stanley 0.34
Vande Sompel 0.39
Moverare 0.32
Dineen 0.31
Zboril 0.34
Lauzon 0.38
Green 0.30
Clague 0.42
Johansen 0.34
Hajek 0.31

Do the leg work and prove those things correlate to future success and we'll adjust our model to account for them. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

No doubt those are likely a positive, but how much of a positive is just as unknown as how much gritulence and interviews/60 correlate to success.

No one says any system is perfect. But ignoring the stats (ones that are less predictive then what we use) due to ",context" or "better eye data" and chasing the outliers is precisely the reason simple, EXTREMELY simple models like ours can best teams.