Prospect Info: 2014-2015 Rangers Prospects Thread *Part III* (Player Stats in Post #1; Updated 3/22)

[SergeConstantin74]

I don't have a problem taking a chance on a CHL Euro like Nejezchleb in a later round. Teams drafting early need to consider the data.

The low numbers of quality CHL-trained Europeans in the NHL is kinda alarming when you consider only two "imports" are allowed on a CHL team.

Are they the best of the best, or are they leftovers who took a roster spot from a better kid who wanted to stay home?

My theory is that these kids are leaving home to live a more entertaining life rather than stay in Europe against tougher competition. College is too much work and you don't get paid. So the CHL is the better option for that choice.

The Euro Leagues offer better competition than the CHL.

Of course, nobody says otherwise. But not all Euro juniors have a spot in a men's league over there. CHL attracts mostly leftovers who are between junior leagues and pro leagues in Europe. The stars almost never come to CHL.

Just the fact that they take Ovechkin as an example in their study shows how it's wrong. Ovechkin was playing in a men's league way before his CHL eligibility.

 

[SergeConstantin74]

He isn't debating the results of the study, he's debating your conclusion based on those results.

The study shows that Euro players drafted out of the CHL are generally not as good as Euro players drafted out of Europe.

You think it's because Euros develop better in Europe, but there isn't enough data to prove that conclusively.

Exactly.

My point is also about the limited number of Euros playing in the CHL. When you look at it, 4 good NHLers out of 100 is a better average than 20 out of 1000.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

He isn't debating the results of the study, he's debating your conclusion based on those results.

The study shows that Euro players drafted out of the CHL are generally not as good as Euro players drafted out of Europe.

You think it's because Euros develop better in Europe, but there isn't enough data to prove that conclusively.

Its pretty simple.

Take all the CHL-trained Euros in the NHL and compare them to the Euro-trained Euros in the NHL.

86.9 percent of the players with at least one year in the CHL are non-impact, marginal or below average (graded 1, 2, or 3-.)

Thats why I said "buyer beware".

 

[SergeConstantin74]

Its pretty simple.

Take all the CHL-trained Euros in the NHL and compare them to the Euro-trained Euros in the NHL.


Thats why I said "buyer beware".

You just can't see it don't you? Math clearly isn't your thing.

Maybe with apples it will be more simple.

You've got two orchards, one with 1000 trees and the other with 100 trees. Which orchard do you think will give you more apples?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

I don't think anyone is debating the results. I think it's more about the cause of the results.

The cause really doesn't concern me. My personal opinion/theory is that the CHL import players do not join the CHL to necessarily become better hockey players. Whether its true or not doesn't matter because the raw data unanalyzed shows that its not prudent to draft a CHL import high in the 1st or 2nd round because a Euro-trained player is more likely to become a better contributor.

The data was compiled in 2006.
10 years later, has the trend been bucked?

Here's my original list:

Yakupov, Grigorenko, Faksa, Maata, Samuelson, Frk, Baertschi, Namestnokov, Rakell, Jurco, Khoklachev, Niederreiter, Burmistrov, Kulikov, Voracek, Boedker, Zagrapan, Kindl, Grabner, Valabik, Wolski, Teslyuk, Kreps, Vrana, Taticek, Klepis, Mikhnov, Krajicek, Pohanka, Klesla, Alexeev, Marcel Hossa lol, Kurka, Ustrnul, Cutta, Novak, Brendl, Mezei, Saprykin, Shvidki, Semenov, Fischer.

43 CHL Euros drafted in the 1st or 2nd round since 1998. Might be excluding a few by accident.

Out of those 43, only Boedker, Nino, Voracek, and Kulikov can be considered top-tier players and thats even pushing it because only Voracek is considered a legit 1st line player.

So again, My "buyer beware" statement has force. If people are offended that I'm indirectly criticizing the CHL, then I apologize. That wasn't my intent.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

You just can't see it don't you? Math clearly isn't your thing.

Maybe with apples it will be more simple.

You've got two orchards, one with 1000 trees and the other with 100 trees. Which orchard do you think will give you more apples?

Again, this is about quality, not quantity.

Thats why You avoid the smaller orchard, especially when the smaller orchard has a history of churning out dick apples.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Keep in mind, Im not criticizing the entire CHL. Im just pointing out the way they develop European players, or the way European players develop from them, is something that must be considered.

 

[SergeConstantin74]

Like I said, future NHL stars who play in good leagues in Europe usually don't come over. It's those who don't have spots in better leagues who end up in the CHL.

Do you know a star European NHLer who developed in European junior or tier-2 leagues at 18-19?

My opinion is that the CHL isn't the best place for the top European players but it becomes a good alternative for the others when they can't crack a top league lineup.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Like I said, future NHL stars who play in good leagues in Europe usually don't come over. It's those who don't have spots in better leagues who end up in the CHL.

Do you know a star European NHLer who developed in European junior or tier-2 leagues at 18-19?

Thats why you should avoid drafting them early, which is what I said from the get-go. It doesn't matter if they're poor quality before they get to the CHL. They're in the CHL, and that should make the buyer beware.

They aren't forced to go to the CHL. For example, Zboril and Zacha were welcomed with open arms back home if they stayed. They chose not to go, which is why Zboril was cut from the WJC team. Burmistrov could have played on any KHL team. Kulikov the same.

 

[darko]

You just can't see it don't you? Math clearly isn't your thing.

Maybe with apples it will be more simple.

You've got two orchards, one with 1000 trees and the other with 100 trees. Which orchard do you think will give you more apples?

1000 one. Obviously.

 

[SergeConstantin74]

Thats why you should avoid drafting them early, which is what I said from the get-go. It doesn't matter if they're poor quality before they get to the CHL. They're in the CHL, and that should make the buyer beware.

They aren't forced to go to the CHL. For example, Zboril and Zacha were welcomed with open arms back home if they stayed. They chose not to go, which is why Zboril was cut from the WJC team. Burmistrov could have played on any KHL team. Kulikov the same.

Kulikov was mostly unknown before the CHL and playing in tier-3 in Russia. What's your point about him?

So you're saying Fiala was a better pick than Ehlers because he's playing in Europe rather than in the CHL?

And you're also saying Zboril and Zacha already are busts?

NHL teams already prefer drafting from NA leagues.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

1000 one. Obviously.

But what if the orchard with the 1000 trees consists entirely of pine trees?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Kulikov was mostly unknown before the CHL and playing in tier-3 in Russia. What's your point about him?

So you're saying Fiala was a better pick than Ehlers because he's playing in Europe rather than in the CHL?

And you're also saying Zboril and Zacha already are busts?

NHL teams already prefer drafting from NA leagues.

No. If Kulikov stayed in Russia rather than go to the CHL, he could have developed into a better player than he is right now. That's what the IIHF study tries to say.

I'm done talking about this because it's hijacked the thread.

Dont draft CHL imports. My stance in a nutshell.

 

[nyr2k2]

Dont draft CHL imports. My stance in a nutshell.

Every player should be evaluated individually. If your scouting department truly believes the guy can play, it shouldn't matter that he's part of a group that's largely unsuccessful.

 

[eco's bones]

The CHL can help a European player who wants to play in North America. The smaller rinks, getting the player acclimated to a North American lifestyle, the language whether English or even French, the more North-South physical kind of play. A European who plays in the CHL gets a lot of this legwork done before he starts playing pro here.

It's like a kid going off to college--somewhere he/she doesn't know. Some of them are going to be just fine--some are going to be homesick. Getting this acclimation over with as early as possible is a + IMO.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Every player should be evaluated individually. If your scouting department truly believes the guy can play, it shouldn't matter that he's part of a group that's largely unsuccessful.

I generally agree, but scouting departments are rarely unanimous. Every scout is assigned a circuit and lobbies for his guys he personally scouted. Its up to the GM and scouting director to decide the rankings.
The WHL scout wants all his WHL kids selected, etc.

The question is a matter of post-draft development. In terms of NHL contributions, Are CHL imports better off in the CHL for two years post draft than staying the Europe? I dont think they are.

If there is a rare occurrence where an entire staff is unanimous in picking a CHL import like a Landeskog, then sure.

Nejezchleb is a swing for the fences pick. He does nothing but score. I don't mind it because he was a high import pick but got hurt and was bypassed in two drafts. He's also in the WHL which is no pushover league.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

The CHL can help a European player who wants to play in North America. The smaller rinks, getting the player acclimated to a North American lifestyle, the language whether English or even French, the more North-South physical kind of play. A European who plays in the CHL gets a lot of this legwork done before he starts playing pro here.

It's like a kid going off to college--somewhere he/she doesn't know. Some of them are going to be just fine--some are going to be homesick. Getting this acclimation over with as early as possible is a + IMO.

I used to think that but the names and subsequent NHL production rarely match the draft hype. The IIHF study was trying to keep kids in Europe a little longer, and go to the NHL as mature players used to adult competition in the Euro leagues.

I understand their point.

A CHL import gets drafted and plays two years in the CHL before they're allowed in the AHL, which could mean 2-3 more years of development.

The IIHF is saying the 3-4 years of post-draft development should be in the mature Euro leagues before heading across the pond.

Whatever I guess. We'll see how Zacha turns out.

 

[Joey Bones]

I like apples

 

[EpicDing]

Skapski getting called up for back up duty tonight, pretty cool.

 

[Bluenote13]

Skapski getting called up for back up duty tonight, pretty cool.

20 yrs old on the NYR bench, good for him, been a great pick so far.

Is he the youngest guy to either play or backup since Blackburn?

 

[Beacon]

20 yrs old on the NYR bench, good for him, been a great pick so far.

Is he the youngest guy to either play or backup since Blackburn?

OT: BB was very talented, made the Rangers at 18. They rushed him, but still, it's one thing to do well in the juniors at 18, it's another to play in the NHL. He was a starter for a while too, when Richter went down. Then a freak injury in the gym that nobody even paid attention to at first ended his career. He was DTD and all of a sudden, they announce his retirement. What a waste.

 

[E-Train]

20 yrs old on the NYR bench, good for him, been a great pick so far.

Is he the youngest guy to either play or backup since Blackburn?

No, Fort Holt played 10 minutes in 2005 as a 20 year old.

 

[ecemleafs]

No, Fort Holt played 10 minutes in 2005 as a 20 year old.

who?

 

[GAGLine]

who?

Chris Holt. Drafted by the Rangers in 2003, 6th round.

 

[Khelvan]

Its pretty simple.

Take all the CHL-trained Euros in the NHL and compare them to the Euro-trained Euros in the NHL.

This is a very clear example of why correlation does not equal causation. What you are quoting is a study that shows that those players who went the CHL route have had shorter, less productive careers.

This is NOT the same as stating that the players have shorter, less productive careers BECAUSE they went the CHL route.

There are a number of different factors that could have led to this situation. It could be because of the development style in Europe. Or, it could be because of the temperament of players who would rather play in North America. Perhaps the majority of players who went the CHL route did so because they didn't have the same chances in their home countries. Or maybe the water in Europe make player big, strong. :-P

The bottom line is that the study you're quoting is correlating a factor (NHL success) with the league(s) those players spend their developmental years in. There is no indication of causation (or the WHY). So we cannot draw the conclusion that it is somehow BETTER to develop in Europe. That study does not imply this in any way.