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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
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.

Looking at usage in the context of point production seems rational, doesn't it? Models of player efficiency tend to use it when available.

An issue for the simple models is their statistical precision, and I don't recall seeing any measures of precision (e.g. confidence intervals included), so when an NHL probability of 22% is given, we don't know how precise that is based on the data. Simple models are fine, but that doesn't mean that logical extensions shouldn't be considered (such as looking at EV production).

What I find curious about Stanley is how his productivity seems to be downplayed in comparison to other prospects. For example, his NHLE in d+1 is very similar to Johansen and Green and better than Cholowski, and they get more opportunities and points on the PP. Somehow he's seen as terrible, despite putting up some decent numbers, especially when you consider that he gets almost all his points at even-strength. Surprisingly, many critiques of him tend to focus on other considerations.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
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.

So because Button says he's that good, that means he's that good? Man I got some guys to show you that Button was 100% wrong about.
 

ps241

The Ballad of Ville Bobby
Sponsor
Mar 10, 2010
34,818
30,934
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.

Literally nothing will surprise me in the first round of this draft.

Our board here seems to be sliding into a viewpoint that the top 4 D men in this draft are Liljegren (he seems like the surest bet), Heiskanen, Makar, and Valimaki.......I could easily see a Foote being picked before 3 of those kids because he was a top 10 prospect up until Christmas on a lot of lists and still probably is top 10 on some NHL teams boards. He is also really solid and for all we know he may be the best in this class one day.

The reason I am not stressing out about our sliding draft choice is threefold. First off I like but don't love the spread between pick 3 and 15 in 2017. For me this season has the biggest second tier I have seen since 2011 or 2014. Secondly dropping to the 10-12 range greatly increases the odds that the BPA for us is a D man (IMO). Now this is a terrible reason since BPA should be positionally blind but I can't help that I would like a D man. Thirdly I would not be shocked at all when TNSE step up to the podium they have at least one of the top 3-5 on their list available. Case in point in 2012 there was a leak (I think it was Chipman in a interview at the free press cafe) that TNSE had Trouba ranked at 2 or 3 on their board. So an example of that this season might be Cody Glass dropping to 12 (I doubt it) and TNSE having him ranked 3 or 4. Although this same reason exists every year I believe it is much stronger this year. The great thing about individual boards is dropping to pick 12 doesn't mean you don't get a top 5 on your board especially on a whacked year like this.

Would 9 have been better.....yes.....would it have been allot better.....I don't think so this season.
 
Last edited:

Brandonite

Registered User
Oct 10, 2016
10
1
I see Clague play a lot and I think he is being overrated. He is a turnover machine and plays very soft. His game needs to significantly evolve if he is going to be an NHL regular, or anything other than a PP specialist.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
So because Button says he's that good, that means he's that good? Man I got some guys to show you that Button was 100% wrong about.

Of course, it wouldn't be very persuasive if it was just a single scout or analyst, but you ignore the fact that a separate panel of NHL scouts (polled by THN) also continue to rank Stanley as the 8th best D from the 2016 draft after the d+1 season.

It's part of a wider issue that has bubbled to the surface in that some have decided that Stanley is a terrible prospect because Chevy and Zinger and Hillier just selected him based on size, and nothing will sway their perspective. If anyone ever mentions any quantitative or qualitative assessments that might cast Stanley in a slightly more positive light, they are dismissed out of hand because it is counter to the favoured narrative. When scouts or posters here (see above) make comparative observations (vs. other D prospects), they are dismissed out of hand because they are based on some subjective "eye test", but we seem happy to accept the views of other unnamed "observers" who question Stanley's skill based on their own "eye test". Similarly, quantitative metrics that seem fairly standard for assessing a player's contribution (like NHLE, EV point production or shot volume) that now make Stanley look not so bad compared to other d+1 defensive prospects, some seem skeptical of their validity. In some respects, this is a classic case of "confirmation bias".

I've been on record with disliking the pick intensely, and questioning the Jets' drafting strategy on the basis of the pick. However, I think it's reasonable to not just hate the pick and trash the prospect and actually be open to what other scouts, personal viewings and the stats are indicating in a balanced fashion. It's fine to have the perspective that EV points/game or all-situation NHLE or shot volume are not useful metrics to assess production. But they shouldn't be selectively downplayed in the case of Stanley because he's already been condemned as a worthless draft selection and confirms that Chevy, Zinger and Hillier are incompetent.
 

ps241

The Ballad of Ville Bobby
Sponsor
Mar 10, 2010
34,818
30,934
Of course, it wouldn't be very persuasive if it was just a single scout or analyst, but you ignore the fact that a separate panel of NHL scouts (polled by THN) also continue to rank Stanley as the 8th best D from the 2016 draft after the d+1 season.

It's part of a wider issue that has bubbled to the surface in that some have decided that Stanley is a terrible prospect because Chevy and Zinger and Hillier just selected him based on size, and nothing will sway their perspective. If anyone ever mentions any quantitative or qualitative assessments that might cast Stanley in a slightly more positive light, they are dismissed out of hand because it is counter to the favoured narrative. When scouts or posters here (see above) make comparative observations (vs. other D prospects), they are dismissed out of hand because they are based on some subjective "eye test", but we seem happy to accept the views of other unnamed "observers" who question Stanley's skill based on their own "eye test". Similarly, quantitative metrics that seem fairly standard for assessing a player's contribution (like NHLE, EV point production or shot volume) that now make Stanley look not so bad compared to other d+1 defensive prospects, some seem skeptical of their validity. In some respects, this is a classic case of "confirmation bias".

I've been on record with disliking the pick intensely, and questioning the Jets' drafting strategy on the basis of the pick. However, I think it's reasonable to not just hate the pick and trash the prospect and actually be open to what other scouts, personal viewings and the stats are indicating in a balanced fashion. It's fine to have the perspective that EV points/game or all-situation NHLE or shot volume are not useful metrics to assess production. But they shouldn't be selectively downplayed in the case of Stanley because he's already been condemned as a worthless draft selection and confirms that Chevy, Zinger and Hillier are incompetent.

I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. I remain hopeful but not optimistic. I am glad he was showing signs of progress in his D +1 season and it sucks he got injured because that doesn't help. He is our prospect so in a perfect scenario one day I will say "man did I get that wrong on draft day".
 

Davedrivesbus

Winnipeg Jets
Dec 24, 2013
71
0
Winnipeg
I took in a lot of last years summer camp. Stanley looked like our best D prospect, better than Poolman and Nogier. i wonder why the hype for Poolman (4 years older) and hate for Stanley.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. I remain hopeful but not optimistic. I am glad he was showing signs of progress in his D +1 season and it sucks he got injured because that doesn't help. He is our prospect so in a perfect scenario one day I will say "man did I get that wrong on draft day".

Yeah, I guess being a pessimist has its advantages. Your fears are either confirmed or you are pleasantly surprised. :laugh:
 

JetsUK

Registered User
Oct 1, 2015
6,723
14,075
I took in a lot of last years summer camp. Stanley looked like our best D prospect, better than Poolman and Nogier. i wonder why the hype for Poolman (4 years older) and hate for Stanley.

I agree. I also saw quite a bit of him there and thought he looked good. Raw, sometimes betrayed by his body, but smart and mobile. Didn't and don't love the pick but by no means do I view it as catastrophic, given what was left on the board.
 

Bob E

Registered User
Aug 20, 2011
8,046
2,350
Winnerpeg
Given what was still available at the time, I'm not against the Stanley pick. He'll be a high performing bottom pairing dman, imo. Now is that what you want at pick #18? No. You want better. A higher ceiling. But I do see him playing 250+ NHL games. That in itself is a draft success, imo.

Moving picks to get him can be questioned, but grabbing him is ok in my books.
 

ps241

The Ballad of Ville Bobby
Sponsor
Mar 10, 2010
34,818
30,934
Yeah, I guess being a pessimist has its advantages. Your fears are either confirmed or you are pleasantly surprised. :laugh:

100%


I am not a fan of pessimism but when it comes to prospects I am just calibrating a bit because I was guilty of the opposite for too long but a quick trip to the main board proves I am not alone. :laugh:
 

lanky

Feeling Spicy
Jun 23, 2007
9,024
6,275
Winnipeg
I haven't seen much of Valimaki so my opinion shouldn't count for much, but I think his skating isn't good enough for a top 20 pick.
 

Aavco Cup

"I can make you cry in this room"
Sep 5, 2013
37,630
10,440
I took in a lot of last years summer camp. Stanley looked like our best D prospect, better than Poolman and Nogier. i wonder why the hype for Poolman (4 years older) and hate for Stanley.

Whike Stanley looked OK there especially in the final 4 on 4 scrimmage he did not rise above the rest. Niku and Green impressed me more and Poolman did what Poolman does.

 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
I didn't like the pick because the metrics going into the draft were uninspiring, and trading up seemed a bad idea considering who they traded up for.

Still, I think it's highly unlikely that the Jets (and likely the Red Wings) had Stanley ranked highly solely based on his size. Clearly, that played a part and was likely over-weighted by the Jets, but his d+1 season and other viewings have suggested to me that he has some skills that indicate that he might be better than his draft year numbers. This is not surprising since many scouts noted that he had improved substantially in the year leading up to the draft.

The issue about size isn't so much that it doesn't matter, but how much it is weighted. I can understand NHL scouts and managers thinking that a small D has to be more outstanding in other areas to rate highly, so a smaller D that doesn't have top-end skating or work ethic of defensive awareness is going to fall more in the draft than a larger D. You can see that a bigger D with very good skating but poor offensive numbers (like Nogier or Manson) can manage at the NHL level if he learns how to move the puck intelligently, react quickly, and play with tight gaps without losing good defensive position.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
Whike Stanley looked OK there especially in the final 4 on 4 scrimmage he did not rise above the rest. Niku and Green impressed me more and Poolman did what Poolman does.



I liked Niku the most when I saw him. Poolman also looked polished, but that's to be expected due to his age. Green was pretty up and down for me, with very good skating but some real struggles defensively in his own zone. Stanley was a pleasant surprise, mostly with respect to his decisions with the puck. His mobility has a ways to go, but if he can pivot better and get quicker feet, his skating won't hold him back that much.

Kostalek was the biggest disappointment this last summer.
 

puck stoppa

Registered User
Jul 5, 2011
12,905
6,440
Winnipeg
I liked Niku the most when I saw him. Poolman also looked polished, but that's to be expected due to his age. Green was pretty up and down for me, with very good skating but some real struggles defensively in his own zone. Stanley was a pleasant surprise, mostly with respect to his decisions with the puck. His mobility has a ways to go, but if he can pivot better and get quicker feet, his skating won't hold him back that much.

Kostalek was the biggest disappointment this last summer.

I still like Stanley, thought he was progressing nicely this year. I still think he pans out, it's just trading that other first rounder is what leaves bitter taste in people's mouths.
 

Joe Hallenback

Moderator
Mar 4, 2005
15,357
21,337
I though Poolman looked the most ready at the camp. Niku was a big surprise for me, I think the Jets have something there. Liked Stanley thought he was good for his first camp
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043


I still like Stanley, thought he was progressing nicely this year. I still think he pans out, it's just trading that other first rounder is what leaves bitter taste in people's mouths.


Didn't agree with the trade, but I'm still perplexed by how often it's inaccurately documented here. It's down at Lawless level.

Just to remind everyone...

We didn't trade "the other first rounder".

We didn't trade two picks for one.

We traded #22 and #36 for #18 and #79. Not considering the actual players picked, a popular draft pick value chart suggests that the Jets lost only about 1% of their draft pick value (541 vs. 535) in the trade.
 

Jetsetter

Registered User
Mar 2, 2015
1,211
753
Winnerpeg
I took in a lot of last years summer camp. Stanley looked like our best D prospect, better than Poolman and Nogier. i wonder why the hype for Poolman (4 years older) and hate for Stanley.

I had the same opinion having been to the summer camp as well. I don't know why Stanley is so disliked before he's had his chance to develop. Even if he continued to advance as a very defensive minded defenceman.

I'm very optimistic that Stanley will be an NHL defenceman for us. No difference than I was a huge supporter of Armia before he really showed his stuff the last two years. Give Stanley a chance and he'll be one of those holding the cup high in the air some day in the next 5 years.
 

puck stoppa

Registered User
Jul 5, 2011
12,905
6,440
Winnipeg
Didn't agree with the trade, but I'm still perplexed by how often it's inaccurately documented here. It's down at Lawless level.

Just to remind everyone...

We didn't trade "the other first rounder".

We didn't trade two picks for one.

We traded #22 and #36 for #18 and #79. Not considering the actual players picked, a popular draft pick value chart suggests that the Jets lost only about 1% of their draft pick value (541 vs. 535) in the trade.

I hear you, but without that there would be less anger imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->