Prospect Info: 2018-2019 Prospect Stats, Reports and Discussion - The Memorial Cup (Samorukov and Safin)

[Tobias Kahun]

Yes, you are "serious", and I am not. Jesus man, listen to yourself. You might be right about Bear, but proclaiming yourself to be "serious", whilst people who dare disagree with you are not, well.... I'll let others pass judgement on that attitude.

I could be wrong about Bear, but I don't see anything that says he'll be more than a PP-specialist in the NHL. Yes, he scores points, and has a very good shot. But he was an absolute train-wreck defensively in the NHL last year. "Struggling" might have been a little harsh, but he certainly hasn't stepped up like everybody was hoping this year, and Jones has passed him on the depth chart for sure.

And everyone here expected Jones to pass him.

Jones game translates alot better to the pro game.

But pro scout Jaded couldn't see that.

 

[BleedingOil]

I had


I had him as our Brian Rafalski from the Devils in their cup days. Both are around the same size and could be great options on the pp. When he was up on the Oilers, I had hope

Rafalski would be his ceiling just remember Rafalski wasn't an NHLer until his mid 20s. He developed in the NCAA and overseas. Should be some serious competition among our defenceman next year

 

[Senor Catface]

Yes, you are "serious", and I am not. Jesus man, listen to yourself. You might be right about Bear, but proclaiming yourself to be "serious", whilst people who dare disagree with you are not, well.... I'll let others pass judgement on that attitude.

First, I don't value my posts higher than others. I just feel there's clearly some opinions that we all value less than the norm.

I said there was serious conversations about prospects in here between everyone else. There's lot of disagreements. It's not about dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions shouldn't be called out. Uninformed opinions should always be called out. Serious discussion isn't about agreeing. It's about bringing points and structure to opinions and posts.

Saying a goalie is too small at 6'2 isn't serious.

Saying a guy who has been called one of the best defensemen in the OHL in the second half is having an "ok season" isn't serious.

Saying a guy who is having a good 2nd pro season is "struggling mightily" isn't serious.

Until there's some backing behind these kind of statements, you might want to skip the "people who disagree" angle. Clearly not what myself and others in this topic are complaining about.

 

[RegDunlop]

Hmmm

Not to get involved .....
but what the hell!

My two cents is I'd thonk I'd consider the opinion of someone who has actually seen the discussed player play.
Just me though.

I actually came here to inquire on the latest info on Mr. Peerson.
Can anyone lead me to how to find out about his play lately?
Thanks

 

[McJadeddog]

And everyone here expected Jones to pass him.

Jones game translates alot better to the pro game.

But pro scout Jaded couldn't see that.

What makes you think I didn't have Jones ahead of Bear?

 

[McJadeddog]

First, I don't value my posts higher than others. I just feel there's clearly some opinions that we all value less than the norm.

I said there was serious conversations about prospects in here between everyone else. There's lot of disagreements. It's not about dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions shouldn't be called out. Uninformed opinions should always be called out. Serious discussion isn't about agreeing. It's about bringing points and structure to opinions and posts.

Saying a goalie is too small at 6'2 isn't serious.

Saying a guy who has been called one of the best defensemen in the OHL in the second half is having an "ok season" isn't serious.

Saying a guy who is having a good 2nd pro season is "struggling mightily" isn't serious.

Until there's some backing behind these kind of statements, you might want to skip the "people who disagree" angle. Clearly not what myself and others in this topic are complaining about.

There is plenty behind them, you just don't want to hear the rational. Edit: I had written something rude, but instead, I'll take the higher ground. If you don't want to hear my opinion, there is an ignore button, I suggest you use it.

 

[Digger12]

Another 3 assists for Samorukov tonight, he's on a ridiculous hot streak these past couple weeks.

7-3-11-14, and a staggering +19 in that span.

 

[Senor Catface]

There is plenty behind them, you just don't want to hear the rational. Edit: I had written something rude, but instead, I'll take the higher ground. If you don't want to hear my opinion, there is an ignore button, I suggest you use it.

Nope. Won’t ignore. I’ll call your bullshit everytime. Enjoy the “high” road.

 

[North]

There is plenty behind them, you just don't want to hear the rational. Edit: I had written something rude, but instead, I'll take the higher ground. If you don't want to hear my opinion, there is an ignore button, I suggest you use it.

If there was a rationale behind your criticisms that would be one thing but there isn't. That's why it's hard to take your posts seriously.

People who watch the players routinely contradict your posts but you don't indicate whether you are actually watching the players. Are you or are you just stat watching and/or watching a youtube clip here and there?

 

[McJadeddog]

Nope. Won’t ignore. I’ll call your bull**** everytime. Enjoy the “high” road.

I shall. You keep on keeping on, pretending that you know more than other people, and arguing against those strawmen.

 

[McJadeddog]

If there was a rationale behind your criticisms that would be one thing but there isn't. That's why it's hard to take your posts seriously.

People who watch the players routinely contradict your posts but you don't indicate whether you are actually watching the players. Are you or are you just stat watching and/or watching a youtube clip here and there?

"Saw them good" doesn't mean a damn thing. If this isn't obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Professional scouts from the NHL can't do better than an algorithm that a few guys on a website threw together on a lark. So forgive me for not putting all that much faith in HF posters who have seen a guy play a few times. Seeing somebody play, even for "professionals" doesn't mean anything.

 

[North]

"Saw them good" doesn't mean a damn thing. If this isn't obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Professional scouts from the NHL can't do better than an algorithm that a few guys on a website threw together on a lark. So forgive me for not putting all that much faith in HF posters who have seen a guy play a few times. Seeing somebody play, even for "professionals" doesn't mean anything.

So your answer is no.

And you think your opinion based on nothing means anything?

 

[McJadeddog]

So your answer is no.

And you think your opinion based on nothing means anything?

No, I don't watch CHL players. Yes, I therefore pretty much only use stats. Any other questions?

The hilarious thing, is that you probably think that watching games counts more than the on-ice results that statistics show.

To be fair though, I don't look at every players stats, and then run them against some gold standard of statistical achievement either. So I'm a guilty of personal bias as well. I'm just not dumb enough to think that the way I evaluate players is all that advanced. Unlike some around here, I don't think that highly of myself.

 

[Senor Catface]

No, I don't watch CHL players. Yes, I therefore pretty much only use stats. Any other questions?

The hilarious thing, is that you probably think that watching games counts more than the on-ice results that statistics show.

To be fair though, I don't look at every players stats, and then run them against some gold standard of statistical achievement either. So I'm a guilty of personal bias as well. I'm just not dumb enough to think that the way I evaluate players is all that advanced. Unlike some around here, I don't think that highly of myself.

Again, everyone is pretty level headed in this topic. Lots of good back and forth. Differing opinions. I find no one thinks too highly of their own opinions.

They just think less of some opinions.

Hope that helps!

 

[North]

No, I don't watch CHL players. Yes, I therefore pretty much only use stats. Any other questions?

The hilarious thing, is that you probably think that watching games counts more than the on-ice results that statistics show.

To be fair though, I don't look at every players stats, and then run them against some gold standard of statistical achievement either. So I'm a guilty of personal bias as well. I'm just not dumb enough to think that the way I evaluate players is all that advanced. Unlike some around here, I don't think that highly of myself.

So then why do you feel you have any right to police people’s excitement about the players they actually watch?

You come into this thread to douse enthusiasm for prospects and you know nothing about them really.

You have no basis for your opinion because you don’t have any real idea what their skill set is, how the team plays, etc.

Context matters a lot when it comes to viewing prospects and you have none besides your personal bias.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

This thread turned hostile fast! On a lighter note I appreciate this thread quite a bit. I don’t really have the time to really dive into our prospects beyond the AHL and you guys are really enlightening. From the stats posted nearly every day to just very thought out opinions. Plus it makes me sound smart with my fellow Oiler buddies when I bring up Samorukov when we are out for beers. Cheers.

 

[Oilers in NS]

Rafalski would be his ceiling just remember Rafalski wasn't an NHLer until his mid 20s. He developed in the NCAA and overseas. Should be some serious competition among our defenceman next year

I had a friend who played with Rafalski in Finland. I liked how Rafalski would bait players in. When he played D for the Devils, he would make the opposing players move towards the Stevens side. The players would fall for it and KABOOM, Stevens would hit them into next week.
On an over/under how many games would Stevens be suspended for in an NHL season in the present day NHL?

 

[Aerchon]

Numbers without context (watching all the games of said player and watching a ton of other hockey to compare) are not reliable.

Ignoring the numbers completely is obviously very bad as well.

You need both plus a healthy dose of unbiased hockey sense. Otherwise you are just another Internet idiot with their pinions. Which is what most of us are in most of these situations.

 

[McJadeddog]

So then why do you feel you have any right to police people’s excitement about the players they actually watch?

You come into this thread to douse enthusiasm for prospects and you know nothing about them really.

You have no basis for your opinion because you don’t have any real idea what their skill set is, how the team plays, etc.

Context matters a lot when it comes to viewing prospects and you have none besides your personal bias.

I know what the stats say, and that is it. Although I don't claim to be an expert in that area either.

As far as "policing" goes, I could care less what other people on the internet think. In case that isn't really, really obvious. If people want to get excited about Bear, or any other prospect, great, good for them. Anyway, enough with the bickering back and forth.

 

[North]

I know what the stats say, and that is it. Although I don't claim to be an expert in that area either.

As far as "policing" goes, I could care less what other people on the internet think. In case that isn't really, really obvious. If people want to get excited about Bear, or any other prospect, great, good for them. Anyway, enough with the bickering back and forth.

I agree it is enough, but i’ll leave with one last comment.

You care enough to caution people not to get excited.

If you had something to back that up people would take it seriously. You don't.

Let people have their excitement and enjoyment for something Oilers related in what’s turned into a rather difficult season.

 

[CycloneSweep]

I know what the stats say, and that is it. Although I don't claim to be an expert in that area either.

As far as "policing" goes, I could care less what other people on the internet think. In case that isn't really, really obvious. If people want to get excited about Bear, or any other prospect, great, good for them. Anyway, enough with the bickering back and forth.

But even when you look at the stats you come up with false conclusions

 

[oilers'72]

Dmitri Samorukov had 3 assists, a shot, was +2 and named third star, as the Storm flooded out the kitchen of the Rangers 8-4.
Ontario Hockey League – Official Site of the Ontario Hockey League (includes video)

Kirill Maksimov had a goal, 6 shots, lost his only faceoff and was +1, but the Sting got under the skin of the IceDogs 6-5.
Ontario Hockey League – Official Site of the Ontario Hockey League (includes video)

Evan Bouchard had an assist, 3 shots, took a coincidental cross-checking call, and was -1, as the Knights used the Otters as lance practice 3-1.
Ontario Hockey League – Official Site of the Ontario Hockey League (includes video)

Ryan McLeod had no points, 3 shots, won 11 of 15 faceoffs, got called for cross-checking (SHGF) and was +1, as the Spirit made the Petes wear different name tags 8-0.
Ontario Hockey League – Official Site of the Ontario Hockey League (includes video)

 

[McJadeddog]

I agree it is enough, but i’ll leave with one last comment.

You care enough to caution people not to get excited.

If you had something to back that up people would take it seriously. You don't.

Let people have their excitement and enjoyment for something Oilers related in what’s turned into a rather difficult season.

Well I do, but some people don't want to listen to it. When I say that Maksimov isn't scoring at a rate that should excite anybody in his draft+2 season, and that others who scored at similar rates in their same draft+2 season did not turn out great, these people basically just say "each prospect is different, it could be different this time!". Of course they are right, it could be different, and there are probably examples of players who scored at similar rates and turned out great. I would argue that these players are more rare however, and shouldn't be taken as the "norm". But some people don't want to hear that, and want to just cheer on prospects, ignoring the normal precedent.

If I make the above argument, people will usually come back with the argument of "well how many times have you watched X player play live? *I've* seen him live Y number of times, therefore I know more". This is so false that its not even funny, but people don't like to hear that they aren't all that great at evaluating prospects by watching them play. I KNOW that I'm not good at it, which is why I don't make an effort to watch them. As soon as I start watching a player, at any level really, my personal bias kicks in. When you look at stats, you don't have that personal bias. You may disagree with this assessment methodology, and that is fine, but don't pretend that I don't have reasons for my positions on players, because I most definitely do.

If you are one of the "saw him good" people, who heavily believes that watching CHL players play is the only way to make a prognosis, I've linked below a very interesting article to read. I would also suggest reading the underlying articles it links to. Basically the premise is that a computer algorithm can consistently out perform professional NHL scouts (who are very likely better at evaluating a prospect than your over HF poster). Here is the article: https://thehockeywriters.com/the-nhl-has-a-scouting-problem/

 

[North]

Well I do, but some people don't want to listen to it. When I say that Maksimov isn't scoring at a rate that should excite anybody in his draft+2 season, and that others who scored at similar rates in their same draft+2 season did not turn out great, these people basically just say "each prospect is different, it could be different this time!". Of course they are right, it could be different, and there are probably examples of players who scored at similar rates and turned out great. I would argue that these players are more rare however, and shouldn't be taken as the "norm". But some people don't want to hear that, and want to just cheer on prospects, ignoring the normal precedent.

If I make the above argument, people will usually come back with the argument of "well how many times have you watched X player play live? *I've* seen him live Y number of times, therefore I know more". This is so false that its not even funny, but people don't like to hear that they aren't all that great at evaluating prospects by watching them play. I KNOW that I'm not good at it, which is why I don't make an effort to watch them. As soon as I start watching a player, at any level really, my personal bias kicks in. When you look at stats, you don't have that personal bias. You may disagree with this assessment methodology, and that is fine, but don't pretend that I don't have reasons for my positions on players, because I most definitely do.

If you are one of the "saw him good" people, who heavily believes that watching CHL players play is the only way to make a prognosis, I've linked below a very interesting article to read. I would also suggest reading the underlying articles it links to. Basically the premise is that a computer algorithm can consistently out perform professional NHL scouts (who are very likely better at evaluating a prospect than your over HF poster). Here is the article: https://thehockeywriters.com/the-nhl-has-a-scouting-problem/

The problem is you’re only looking at it one way. That’s what you’re not getting.

Does that algorithm get it 100% right?

 

[PerformanceMcOil]

The problem is you’re only looking at it one way. That’s what you’re not getting.

Actually it is worse than that, since they played around with the methodology to make it look better, and only show the result of one team (who did quite badly with their scouting). Why is Justin Williams (83 points as a 17 YO) being drafted ahead of Ramzi Abid (135 points as a 17 YO) for instance? Maybe I'm old school, but is it too much to ask that if people are going to use things like this as evidence for something that they actually take the time to make sure it says what they think it says?

For instance, as far as I can tell, their 'much larger experiment' only links to the data on the Canucks. Unless they have more compelling evidence, there is no reason to accept what they say at face value. Besides that, they don't even touch defencemen which makes their methodology irrelevant in this case.

Anyway, the surest way to have a high prediction rate when scouting is to predict everyone will bust. You will be right the vast majority of the time.

Edit: Oh and it looks like they messed up with some of their stats - they actually used Williams' 18 YO season for instance. I assume they meant draft season rather than 17 YO season, but who knows what they actually did? A lot of these 'analyses' seem to rely on the fact that no one is going to bother trying to check their calculations. It's the difference between a blog and peer-reviewed work. They are *not* equal in quality (and peer reviewed work isn't always all that either).

I only had to read the comments to get these errors. Just another reminder that someone writing authoritatively doesn't actually make them an authority.