Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 5.29.18)

[Phoicon]

And thats wrong. Unless a kid exceeds all expectations, an 8OA is not a first line player.

Over the last 20 years, since 1998, not one 8OA scored over 140 goals in his career and Only 4 scored over 70 career goals. Only 2 played 600+ career games: Taylor Pyatt and Setoguchi, neither particularly special.

Every time a kid is drafted at 8OA, there's massive hype. Half a dozen years later we hear, "scouting sucked then, but now, now just look at what amazing prospects went at 8OA."

This draft is a bit different in that regard. For example, Kupari and Kotkaniemi have both star potential and are normally ranked around 12-15.

The game is also changing. Prospects work harder and get better advice how to eliminate their weaknesses leading many players to reach their ceilings than would even 5 years ago. Insane talent is a must have but in itself means less and less. Willingness to work more and more.

Going back a few years, I don´t think there ever has been massive hype regarding a player drafted at 8OA. Care to give examples who got hyped? I also don´t think people are fixated on the number 8. People will look back at any range of the draft, later rounds as well as the first one, where they saw an exceptional player taken and say something emotional, aspiring to replicate the odd success rather than truly expecting.

Point being, people talk about this in an emotional tone. So dissecting what we say analytically feels awkward, a bit out of place and not insightful.

 

[nyr2k2]

""

That's gold, Jerry. Gold!

 

[YoSoyLalo]

""

 

[Tawnos]

This board needs to do a better job with words chosen.

Potential, projection and expectation are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.

There are lots of guys with the potential to be 1st liners in this draft. There are somewhat fewer who project to be 1st liners. And there are only two who, on draft day, I expect will be first liners.

Put another way in the context of this draft. Kaut has the potential to be a first liner. Kotkaniemi projects as a first liner. I expect Svechnikov to be a first liner.

 

[Phoicon]

This board needs to do a better job with the words they use.

Potential, projection and expectation are not the same thing.

There are lots of guys with the potential to be 1st liners in this draft. There are somewhat fewer who project to be 1st liners. And there are only two who, on draft day, I expect will be first liners.

How can someone be a first-line on the draft day? What does that mean?

 

[Tawnos]

How can someone be a first-line on the draft day? What does that mean?

Nothing because it isn’t what I said.

 

[Beacon]

Beacon, I'm not going to lie. At this point, I'm just flat out confused by what your point actually is.

You just said 8 OA is not a first line player because no one at that position has scored more than 140 goals.

Are you making the argument that the particular slot hasn't produced a first line player, or that no one drafted 8th overall should be projected as a first line player?

I feel like something is getting lost in translation here and I'm struggling to understand what.

I don't care about a particular slot. Draftees around it (6-10) do about the same. I already posted those slot results before a few times.

My point is that there aren't a dozen first liners in any draft. There are 1-2 guys who can reasonably be projected as first liners. A few late picks will become surprises: Lundqvist, Savard, Messier. But after the first couple of picks, it's basically a crapshoot to get a star.

At 6-10 range, you can reliably get an average NHLer: a middle 6 forward or a mid-pair D. A minority of 6-10 draftees will bust outright, an even smaller minority will become stars, but the reasonable projection there is an average NHLer. If you get a quality second liner, you did well. As I said, if you look at hockeydb only 4 players drafted at #8 over the last 20 years scored more than 70 career goals, none over 140. Only 2 had a 600+ game career.

The difference between a #8 pick and a #28 pick is that #8 (or #6-10) can reasonably be relied upon to be an NHLer whereas most #28 picks are minor league busts.

This is not some big secret knowledge I discovered that nobody can confirm. Go look at hockeydb draftees by position. The idea that a 6-10 pick can be projected as a first liner is a wishful thinking fantasy by folks who refuse to look at basic research.

The belief that at #8 the Rangers will have a choice of multiple first line Fs and first pair D's is based on nothing. Just fans saying stuff. For that to happen, this draft would need to be the best draft ever by a long like. Go look up past drafts.

 

[Beacon]

If the team could actually draft properly, then they could pick a star at 8th. I mean Middlestadt was picked 8th and looks very good. Nylander in 2014. Werenski in 2015. Ristolainen in 2013.

Recent picks always look amazing until they are 22ish. I remember Pens fans a couple years ago they wouldn't trade Pouliot for McD. Hell, in 1998 on AOL Prospects forum, I argued that I wouldn't trade Malhotra for 28 year old Amonte who was scoring nearly ppg in the NHL.

 

[Beacon]

I dont really get your "relied on" comment.

It means that if Taylor Pyatt is an above average #8 draftee, you can't argue that a kid you get is projected to be Messier or even Stepan.

A miracle can happen and you can get Lundqvist in the 7th round, but it's a miracle, not a reasonable projection.

 

[egelband]

Id love an alert system that will send me a mail when this thread gets off of one guy’s semantics back on the rails.

 

[Edge]

This board needs to do a better job with words chosen.

Potential, projection and expectation are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.

There are lots of guys with the potential to be 1st liners in this draft. There are somewhat fewer who project to be 1st liners. And there are only two who, on draft day, I expect will be first liners.

Put another way in the context of this draft. Kaut has the potential to be a first liner. Kotkaniemi projects as a first liner. I expect Svechnikov to be a first liner.

I agree.

Admittedly, I can’t say I’ve seen the word “expect” or “relied” used before this conversation.

I’ve seen “project” a lot, but usually in baseball where it’s based off results while climbing the minor league ranks.

With regards to hockey, I’d say potential, ceiling and floor tend to be the words of choice.

But I’m not really sure what the debate is in this thread. I don’t think anyone expects 20 first line players to come from a draft, but I think most people think there are more than a few guys with that kind of potential in a given draft — with varying odds. But I don’t know if most people on here have ever said they were “relying” on that potential.

 

[Joey Bones]

Also keeping in mind that the majority of our fans won't know a thing about who we pick. HF is not representative of Rangers fans as a whole, that's for sure. They'll form their opinion of the pick on whatever garbage Pierre or Mac or whoever is on the broadcast feeds them immediately after the name is announced. Not to go down this road again but I truly believe 90% of the people that dislike the Andersson pick wouldn't feel that way had they not heard the lazy, wrong comparisons with Fast.

And that's not even bad, considering how well Fast played this year and last.

 

[Joey Bones]

These are all kids that haven't played in the NHL yet, so no one come draft day should be a sure thing. With that said, there are projections based off of in-game analysis by scouts for draft classes. Based off of those analytics, should become a player's potential in the NHL.

Argument done. Let's get back to the actual NYR prospects, please....

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It means that if Taylor Pyatt is an above average #8 draftee, you can't argue that a kid you get is projected to be Messier or even Stepan.

A miracle can happen and you can get Lundqvist in the 7th round, but it's a miracle, not a reasonable projection.

You're too obsessed with averages. Honestly, you keep repeating the same mantra. Because the average is XYZ, doesn't automatically mean that applies to this draft or this pick. A player can drop, a draft can be deeper than usual and so on. We shouldn't lose track of averages but that also doesn't mean that you ignore one particular player's characteristics. Otherwise we should just fire the scouts since we'll get Taylor Pyatt most likely at 8. Honestly, your posts read like someone trying hard to sound smart and be a contrarian.

 

[Mac n Gs]

You're too obsessed with averages. Honestly, you keep repeating the same mantra. Because the average is XYZ, doesn't automatically mean that applies to this draft or this pick. A player can drop, a draft can be deeper than usual and so on. We shouldn't lose track of averages but that also doesn't mean that you ignore one particular player's characteristics. Otherwise we should just fire the scouts since we'll get Taylor Pyatt most likely at 8. Honestly, your posts read like someone trying hard to sound smart and be a contrarian.

Forget it, he’s rolling

By a quick glance, there’s also like 5 first rounders from each of the 15&16 drafts that are first liners already, but narratives.

Has anyone heard any updates on Hajek recently? Is he healthy yet?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Forget it, he’s rolling

It blows my mind why someone will go into a thread about prospects where people have been watching and talking about prospects for months and just derail it and tell everyone how f*** your months of conversation, I'm smarter than all of you, I can look at production of players of previous years and therefore I'm smarter than everyone. Everyone knows that there will be busts and disappointments, but we're working off the information we have today. You're not some genius that has some sort of knowledge that no one else has. If anything you're treating the draft as a roll of the dice with defined probabilities, instead of a much more complicated series of events that has a ton of variables. This is obviously about Beacon, not you.

 

[Beacon]

I’ve seen “project” a lot, but usually in baseball where it’s based off results while climbing the minor league ranks.

Except they do not "project" to be first liners. That is ludicrous. People make statements based on nothing.

You know who played the most games of all #7OA since 1996? Our own Manny Malhotra. That's right, a 4th liner everyone views as a bust or borderline bust given his draft position. He's also top-5 among 7OA in goals and 6th in points.

Among 6OA, Scott Hartnell played the most games, had the most goals and second-most assists going back to 1995. He was a nice player. Was he a star? Not even close, and hes the best player drafted at 6OA since 1995.

At 9OA, the best player since 1989 is Phaneuf. No forward cracked 200 goals since Rod Brind'amour was drafted in 1988. And scoring 200 goals is not some great accomplishment, yet nobody drafted 9OA got there. Mike Rupp and Nick Boynton are regarded as busts, yet they had some of the best careers of those taken at 9OA.

At 10OA, only 3 players played 400+ career games (which qualifies for an NHL pension) since Dvorak was drafted in 1995: Antropov, Frolik, Eric Nystrom. Since Bobby Holik was drafted in the 1980s, the only 10OA to crack 200 goals is Dvorak at 227. Only 3 other 10OA since 1992 scored at least 100 career goals, a pretty pathetic total that almost none of the 10AO could reach.

And at #8, Taylor Pyatt played the most games, had the most goals and second-most assists over the last 20 years. In 1997, Samsonov was drafted and had a good career, but he was a boom/bust, high-risk midget. He's the only 10OA draftee to crack 200 goals since Roenick was drafted in 1988.

So yes, you can stumble upon a Jeremy Roenick type at 8OA for the first time in 30 years, but far more likely is a bust. Since Roenick was drafted, 8 guys taken at 8OA had a single-digit number of NHL goals (0-9).

But yeah, this draft there are a dozen guys with Roenick-like potential, I'm just saying crazy things.

 

[Edge]

Except they do not "project" to be first liners. That is ludicrous. People make statements based on nothing.

You know who played the most games of all #7OA since 1996? Our own Manny Malhotra. That's right, a 4th liner everyone views as a bust or borderline bust given his draft position. He's also top-5 among 7OA in goals and 6th in points.

Among 6OA, Scott Hartnell played the most games, had the most goals and second-most assists going back to 1995. He was a nice player. Was he a star? Not even close, and hes the best player drafted at 6OA since 1995.

At 9OA, the best player since 1989 is Phaneuf. No forward cracked 200 goals since Rod Brind'amour was drafted in 1988. And scoring 200 goals is not some great accomplishment, yet nobody drafted 9OA got there. Mike Rupp and Nick Boynton are regarded as busts, yet they had some of the best careers of those taken at 9OA.

At 10OA, only 3 players played 400+ career games (which qualifies for an NHL pension) since Dvorak was drafted in 1995: Antropov, Frolik, Eric Nystrom. Since Bobby Holik was drafted in the 1980s, the only 10OA to crack 200 goals is Dvorak at 227. Only 3 other 10OA since 1992 scored at least 100 career goals, a pretty pathetic total that almost none of the 10AO could reach.

And at #8, Taylor Pyatt played the most games, had the most goals and second-most assists over the last 20 years. In 1997, Samsonov was drafted and had a good career, but he was a boom/bust, high-risk midget. He's the only 10OA draftee to crack 200 goals since Roenick was drafted in 1988.

So yes, you can stumble upon a Jeremy Roenick type at 8OA for the first time in 30 years, but far more likely is a bust. Since Roenick was drafted, 8 guys taken at 8OA had a single-digit number of NHL goals (0-9).

But yeah, this draft there are a dozen guys with Roenick-like potential, I'm just saying crazy things.

Actually, I think most of us have no idea what you’re getting so bent out of shape about, because you’re essentially arguing with yourself.

It was fun for a while, but now it’s starting to come off as a little guano loco.

 

[Beacon]

Everyone knows that there will be busts and disappointments, but we're working off the information we have today.

It is not some busts. It is how 80% of these draftees line up. The guys viewed as busts like Rupp, Nystrom, Malhotra were actually successful picks - just with unreasonable expectations.

The idea here is that a top 10 pick will likely be a great player, but a few will bust. The reality is that there will be 80% guys who are a dime a dozen at 6-10 range and a few surprises.

The only "exceptions" to this are always recent draftees because if they have 1 good season, they are projected to be bigger and better. Then most collapse, but by then fans moved on to the next few draftees who will no doubt be stars.

It's not just that some bust, it's that 80% in this range do not become stars or even above average. How can Malhotra be viewed as a bust if he had a better career than most drafted at his position? Only because the expectation is that anyone who isn't at least a second liner is a bust.

 

[eco's bones]

I don't care about a particular slot. Draftees around it (6-10) do about the same. I already posted those slot results before a few times.

My point is that there aren't a dozen first liners in any draft. There are 1-2 guys who can reasonably be projected as first liners. A few late picks will become surprises: Lundqvist, Savard, Messier. But after the first couple of picks, it's basically a crapshoot to get a star.

At 6-10 range, you can reliably get an average NHLer: a middle 6 forward or a mid-pair D. A minority of 6-10 draftees will bust outright, an even smaller minority will become stars, but the reasonable projection there is an average NHLer. If you get a quality second liner, you did well. As I said, if you look at hockeydb only 4 players drafted at #8 over the last 20 years scored more than 70 career goals, none over 140. Only 2 had a 600+ game career.

The difference between a #8 pick and a #28 pick is that #8 (or #6-10) can reasonably be relied upon to be an NHLer whereas most #28 picks are minor league busts.

This is not some big secret knowledge I discovered that nobody can confirm. Go look at hockeydb draftees by position. The idea that a 6-10 pick can be projected as a first liner is a wishful thinking fantasy by folks who refuse to look at basic research.

The belief that at #8 the Rangers will have a choice of multiple first line Fs and first pair D's is based on nothing. Just fans saying stuff. For that to happen, this draft would need to be the best draft ever by a long like. Go look up past drafts.

If you want to do a 20 year sample on players taken at #8 though--using 600 games as a criteria you should go back at least 8 years as the last 8 players taken would not have a chance to reach that mark simply because they wouldn't have had the opportunity to play that many NHL games--they'd be too young--but just so everyone knows what exact players you're talking about--the #8 picks are as follows:

2017--Casey Mittelstadt--
2016--Alexander Nylander
2015--Zach Werenski--off to a really good start on an NHL career--whether or not he scores 140 goals in his career from a defense position-- barring career ending injury I think he'll probably make 600 games given time.
2014--William Nylander--I suspect he'll surpass 140 goals and 600 NHL games barring a career ending injury anyway.
2013--Rasmus Ristolainen--doubt he'll get to 140 NHL goals as a defenseman but pretty sure he'll go past 600 NHL games barring career ending injury.
2012--Derrick Pouliot
2011--Sean Couturier--closing in on 500 NHL games already and I'd expect he'll score a lot more than 140 NHL goals.
2010--Alexander Burmistrov

Now we can use a 20 year sample of players who've had a chance to play 600 NHL games but we would have to go all the way back to the 1990 draft and it would look like this and you're right there's a lot of shit here but some of these years were really shitty draft years and teams draft a lot differently now than they did back in the early 90's:

2009--Scott Glennie--huge bust.
2008--Mikael Boedker 618gp--109g-179a-288pts-110pm
2007--Zach Hamill--another big bust.
2006--Peter Mueller--297gp-63g-97a-160pts-98pm
2005--Devin Setoguchi--516gp-131g-130a-261pts-177pm
2004--Alexandre Picard--bust.
2003--Braydon Coburn--850gp-44g-161a-205pts-656pm
2002--Pierre-Marc Bouchard 593gp-110g-246a-356pts-190pm
2001--Pascal Leclaire--173 games---he was a goalie so no goals.
2000--Nikita Alexeev--159gp-20g-17a-37pts-28pm or pretty much a bust.
1999--Taylor Pyatt--859gp-140g-140a-280pts-430pm
1998--Mark Bell--450gp-87g-95a-182pts-602pm
1997--Sergei Samsonov--888gp-235g-336a-571pts-602pm
1996--Jonathan Aitken--a bust.
1995--Terry Ryan--and another bust.
1994--Jason Wiemer--726gp-90g-112a-202pts-1420pm
1993--Niklas Sundstrom--750gp-117g-232a-349pts-256pm
1992--Brandon Convery--a bust
1991--Richard Matvichuk--796gp-39g-139a-178pts-624pm
1990--Derian Hatcher--1045gp-80g-251a-331pts-1581pm

All in all it's a pretty mixed bag when you're picking 8. Of recent years though--I'd bet that all of Mittelstadt, Werenski, William Nylander, Ristolainen and Couturier will have very good careers and possibly even Alex Nylander. That's 5/6 of the last 8 taken at No. 8 so that number has trended much better recently. The 20 year sample of players who could have reached 600 games yields at least one really excellent player Hatcher and one very good one--Samsonov and a few pretty good--Boedker, Coburn, Matvichuk and whatever anyone's particular feelings are on the likes of Bouchard, Pyatt, Setoguchi and Sundstrom. I would note that teams often in this time frame were looking for big and nasty and not always all that focused on overall hockey talent. Samsonov's 235 becomes the new goals scored threshold keeping in mind some years stay at home defensemen were picked at that spot and once a goalie.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Fantastic post @eco's bones. The fact that prospect development is so different now with advances in nutrition, coaching, and inter-connectivity among people can’t be overlooked. Scouting has improved too.

Comparing these eras was always silly to me.

 

[Edge]

I feel like this thread is venturing into Hockey Nihilism at this point.

 

[eco's bones]

Fantastic post @eco's bones. The fact that prospect development is so different now with advances in nutrition, coaching, and inter-connectivity among people can’t be overlooked. Scouting has improved too.

Comparing these eras was always silly to me.

I think most teams are a lot more focused on talent now than in some years past. I also think if there was a year for the Rangers to play like shit and kind of fall apart and get an early draft pick this was a very good one to do it in--even if it was painful to go through. This draft appears deeper than most anyway--and I'm kind of feeling good about that.

 

[Beacon]

Fantastic post @eco's bones. The fact that prospect development is so different now with advances in nutrition, coaching, and inter-connectivity among people can’t be overlooked. Scouting has improved too.

Comparing these eras was always silly to me.

Every year this is what we hear. Old picks, different era, nobody knew anything, but now suddenly all the new draftees are great.

Ehhh, maybe I'm in the wrong here. This is a forum for fun, not to be accurate. It's more fun to fanticize whether we draft a star C or a star D or a star RW than to be told we're probably getting a middling player like Sundstrom, give or take a little. (The reason I got first interested in prospects is that the MSG once ran a segment called "the kids are alright", hyping the Ferraro twins, Sorochan, Joby Messier and most of all our shiny new toy Sundstrom.) Being told our prospects are Sundstrom and a few Joby Messiers isn't fun and it's not like we are hockey pros trying to determine things that matter.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Every year this is what we hear. Old picks, different era, nobody knew anything, but now suddenly all the new draftees are great.

Ehhh, maybe I'm in the wrong here. This is a forum for fun, not to be accurate. It's more fun to fanticize whether we draft a star C or a star D or a star RW than to be told we're probably getting a middling player like Sundstrom, give or take a little. (The reason I got first interested in prospects is that the MSG once ran a segment called "the kids are alright", hyping the Ferraro twins, Sorochan, Joby Messier and most of all our shiny new toy Sundstrom.) Being told our prospects are Sundstrom and a few Joby Messiers isn't fun and it's not like we are hockey pros trying to determine things that matter.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, man. If you can’t realize that hockey has changed drastically in these past few years and that the talent gap between players has gotten narrower, that’s on you. If you want to be willfully ignorant about improvements in training and coaching too, be my guest.