Prospect Info: 2019 NHL Entry Draft Part II

[PKs Broken Stick]

Shot: Even Hughes’ worst offensive tool, his shot, is well above average. He is much more a playmaker than a shooter, so you can see his goal totals being dwarfed by his helpers. He owns a very strong slap shot, and his wrist shot is likewise a legitimate tool. He does get his shots off, averaging more than four per game in USHL league play, but as often as not, they do not look like they are intended to score on their own, but rather in preparation of a more sure fire scoring chance for a teammate. His shot is quickly released and sustains plus velocity. Grade: 60

I repeat, "even Hughes' worst offensive tool, his shot, is well above average".

I appreciate your debate about "what makes a generational player", I think that would be an extremely interesting discussion. I also think it's a very intriguing parallel you make between Kakko and Barkov. But we need to put to rest the myth that Hughes has a weak shot, it's simply untrue.

Ok i can get behind that, but he needs to start shooting to score then. But that's an entirely different matter and not related to the topic.

 

[glenwo2]

Very happy the Draft Lottery happens sooner rather than later.

 

[BurntToast]

This is from McKeen's, one of the best scouting services available and one of the 5 I refer to most when wanting to affirm or counteract my own opinions after watching a player. The reason I source them now is because they are the only major scouting service which grades individual skills numerically, on the 20-80 scale. First, their rating on Kakko's shot:

Shot: He has a quick wrist shot that can beat goalies cleanly. He can shoot the puck with good power and accuracy. He is dangerous around the net and can score from close range. He plays with an unusually short stick which doesn't benefit his shooting. On a more positive note, he has started to shoot the puck more in the Liiga as the season has progressed. A constant scoring threat in the offensive zone, Kakko has the ability and potential to be a good goal-scorer in the NHL. Grade: 60

Obviously, McKeen's thinks the same as everyone else on the planet -- that Kakko has a very good shot and will be a very good goal scorer in the NHL. To give reference to the numerical scores, "50" would be average (for an NHL-er, so not a weakness per se), 60 would be a very good tool, 70 would be absolutely elite, and 80 would be like a super power, very rarely given out for anything.

With that in mind, here is McKeens view on Jack Hughes' shot:

Shot: Even Hughes’ worst offensive tool, his shot, is well above average. He is much more a playmaker than a shooter, so you can see his goal totals being dwarfed by his helpers. He owns a very strong slap shot, and his wrist shot is likewise a legitimate tool. He does get his shots off, averaging more than four per game in USHL league play, but as often as not, they do not look like they are intended to score on their own, but rather in preparation of a more sure fire scoring chance for a teammate. His shot is quickly released and sustains plus velocity. Grade: 60

I repeat, "even Hughes' worst offensive tool, his shot, is well above average".

I appreciate your debate about "what makes a generational player", I think that would be an extremely interesting discussion. I also think it's a very intriguing parallel you make between Kakko and Barkov. But we need to put to rest the myth that Hughes has a weak shot, it's simply untrue.

I could care less about some scouts gimmick to get views. It reminds me of Tod McShay for football. At the end of the day, it’s all an educated guess base on statistics and opinion. Personally I feel like McKeen’s perpective doesn’t properly reflect his own grades.

Kakko : quick, clean, powerful,accurate, scoring threat. He uses a short stick, negative!? (Who Cares): 60.

Hughes: Pass first, shoots a lot, it’s a tool, strong slap shot(um it’s a slap shot), not intended to score and then trys to justify himself by saying it sustains velocity: 60.

I’m calling BS.

 

[Emperoreddy]

LA has some games in hand. If only they win some. Not expecting much tomorrow against Nashville, but they have to be able to beat Florida at home at the very least?

 

[FooteBahl]

Mark your calendars! Draft lottery is April 9th at 8pm

 

[glenwo2]

Mark your calendars! Draft lottery is April 9th at 8pm

We know. And I'm very happy about not having to wait a full extra month and a half this year.

 

[Nubmer6]

We know. And I'm very happy about not having to wait a full extra month and a half this year.

Happy to have a full extra month and a half to debate who to pick and actually know our position.

 

[NJDevs26]

Happy to have a full extra month and a half to debate who to pick and actually know our position.

Did you have to bring that up lol

But yes there’s no reason for holding off the lottery, just get it over with at the end of the season.

 

[StevenToddIves]

I could care less about some scouts gimmick to get views. It reminds me of Tod McShay for football. At the end of the day, it’s all an educated guess base on statistics and opinion. Personally I feel like McKeen’s perpective doesn’t properly reflect his own grades.

Kakko : quick, clean, powerful,accurate, scoring threat. He uses a short stick, negative!? (Who Cares): 60.

Hughes: Pass first, shoots a lot, it’s a tool, strong slap shot(um it’s a slap shot), not intended to score and then trys to justify himself by saying it sustains velocity: 60.

I’m calling BS.

You realize of course that NHL GMs refer to the high-level scouting services. These aren't written for fantasy hockey owners.

Also it's important to realize the context of these statements. When a scout says that "using a short stick does not benefit Kakko's shooting" it is not a negative. What the scout is saying is that Kakko's shot would benefit from using a longer stick.

When a scout says that Hughes has a strong slap shot, it's because the "shot" category is comprehensive for all types of shots. When a scout says that Hughes' shot is "not always intended to score", it means that, when Hughes does not see a scoring opening, he will shoot off the goalie and try to direct the rebound to a teammate in the net area. And I'm uncertain how a shot having and maintaining velocity would not be seen as a positive.

Now scouting services are not infallible. Many of them have biases. The scouting service of highest prominence is the ISS, and they can be criticized for being too old-school in their preferential treatment for players with size and physicality. Some of the newer services and scouts (Corey Pronman is a great example) go the complete opposite, under ranking players with the power game and overranking small, flashy players, even if there are red flags around other aspects of their game. Some of the newer services overly rely on analytics, an impossible tool to correctly utilize in a draft where players come from over 20 different leagues.

But what do they not do? BS. That's what they do not do. Every year, these scouting services must justify to their subscribers why they, and not another scouting service, should be the one they most often subscribe and refer to. If they BS and are incorrect in their estimations with any regularity, they will lose credibility, and thus their subscribers, and thus their livelihoods. These guys literally make their living on being as correct as possible.

I'm not trying to pick on you. I just like to get all vitriol and hysteria as far away from possible from the Devils prospect/draft boards, because they do not advance the debate. Quite the opposite, they stultify the debate. As I have said before, I can debate all day with someone I disagree with. If the Devils pick third, I would like Byram. Many of you would like Cozens. I would love to debate that. If the Devils pick and Byram and Cozens are off the board, I want Turcotte. Many of you would like Podkolzin or Zegras or Krebs. I would love to debate that. But the debate ends in stupidity if someone argues for Podkolzin by saying something absurd, like that "Turcotte reminds me of Steven Gionta" or "Turcotte is a bust" or "the scouting reports which universally state that Turcotte is an incredible skater are all lying to you and actually he isn't".

I am not the most knowledgeable draft expert on the continent. I'm not even close. To be honest, if I disagree with McKeen's (which I often do) or Corey Pronman (which I often do) or the ISS (which I often do), you might want to take their word for things. These guys all make a living doing this. I'm an ex-draft writer who runs a bar in NYC for a living and watches a lot of hockey.

My point and advice is, a lot of people on these threads respect my opinion and a big reason for it is because I have great respect for their opinions, as well as opposing opinions.

This would be an opposing opinion I would respect: "I think the scouting services are underselling Kakko's ability to be the best player to come out of this draft."

This is the type of vitriol I am trying to eradicate from these boards: "Jack Hughes is like Scott Gomez, and all the scouting services who say he has a strong shot are actually BS-ing you, because his shot is below average in my opinion."

Can we see the difference?

 

[Missionhockey]

@StevenToddIves, I agree that scouts a lot of these scouting services have credibility because a lot of them have the resources and the time that an average person doesn't have, but I also think they have a tendency to exaggerate. For example, I think Larsson was advertised as a great skater during his draft year. When he made it to the pros it became pretty obvious he was only average in that regard. Or how often do we hear someone say they have "Gretzky like" vision? Or someone has fantastic "hockey IQ." I also find that a lot of these names that these kids get compared to play nothing alike. I remember during the 2003 draft someone compared Parise to Gomez, and it's hard to think of two more opposite players.

I think a lot of their vernacular gets exaggerated because a lot of these kids, especially the first rounders, get enamored by some of these kids skills, even though for even the very best, it's a guessing game whether these skills are going to translate.

Personally, I think whenever a scout says someone has great "vision" or is "shifty" I tend to think, how "shifty" is that player actually? This kid might have a skill that he performs well, but it's covered by a blanket statement that covers 20 other kids. Even flaws are glossed over. Whenever a guy is criticized for being soft, I want to see an example of it before I attach that label to the kid. This type of exaggeration makes me pretty skeptical of scouting reports overall.

 

[Cheddabombs]

If we got 1st overall I feel like I'd lean towards Kakko, the kid is exceptional in so many areas.

 

[Ripshot 43]

If we got 1st overall I feel like I'd lean towards Kakko, the kid is exceptional in so many areas.

And so is Hughes... but in more.

 

[Cheddabombs]

And so is Hughes... but in more.

not disagreeing that Hughes isn't exceptional, I'm just more enamoured with Kakko is all.

 

[glenwo2]

He's worth the #1 pick.

But Kakko is also worth the #1 pick, too.

I think THIS TIME around, both players will deserve being where they will be drafted. (unlike the draft where we got Nico; sorry but Nolan Patrick isn't all that impressive)

 

[Emperoreddy]

He's worth the #1 pick.

But Kakko is also worth the #1 pick, too.

I think THIS TIME around, both players will deserve being where they will be drafted. (unlike the draft where we got Nico; sorry but Nolan Patrick isn't all that impressive)

There isn’t anything out there saying Kakko is worth going 1st over Hughes. It isn’t the same thing at all.

 

[Cheddabombs]

There isn’t anything out there saying Kakko is worth going 1st over Hughes. It isn’t the same thing at all.

Disagree on this. I don't think it's cut or dry but I think there's definitely merit to choosing Kakko over Hughes.

 

[glenwo2]

There isn’t anything out there saying Kakko is worth going 1st over Hughes. It isn’t the same thing at all.

I'm just convincing myself that Kakko would not be a bad consolation prize if we end up with the 2nd pick overall.

 

[BurntToast]

You realize of course that NHL GMs refer to the high-level scouting services. These aren't written for fantasy hockey owners.

Also it's important to realize the context of these statements. When a scout says that "using a short stick does not benefit Kakko's shooting" it is not a negative. What the scout is saying is that Kakko's shot would benefit from using a longer stick.

When a scout says that Hughes has a strong slap shot, it's because the "shot" category is comprehensive for all types of shots. When a scout says that Hughes' shot is "not always intended to score", it means that, when Hughes does not see a scoring opening, he will shoot off the goalie and try to direct the rebound to a teammate in the net area. And I'm uncertain how a shot having and maintaining velocity would not be seen as a positive.

Now scouting services are not infallible. Many of them have biases. The scouting service of highest prominence is the ISS, and they can be criticized for being too old-school in their preferential treatment for players with size and physicality. Some of the newer services and scouts (Corey Pronman is a great example) go the complete opposite, under ranking players with the power game and overranking small, flashy players, even if there are red flags around other aspects of their game. Some of the newer services overly rely on analytics, an impossible tool to correctly utilize in a draft where players come from over 20 different leagues.

But what do they not do? BS. That's what they do not do. Every year, these scouting services must justify to their subscribers why they, and not another scouting service, should be the one they most often subscribe and refer to. If they BS and are incorrect in their estimations with any regularity, they will lose credibility, and thus their subscribers, and thus their livelihoods. These guys literally make their living on being as correct as possible.

I'm not trying to pick on you. I just like to get all vitriol and hysteria as far away from possible from the Devils prospect/draft boards, because they do not advance the debate. Quite the opposite, they stultify the debate. As I have said before, I can debate all day with someone I disagree with. If the Devils pick third, I would like Byram. Many of you would like Cozens. I would love to debate that. If the Devils pick and Byram and Cozens are off the board, I want Turcotte. Many of you would like Podkolzin or Zegras or Krebs. I would love to debate that. But the debate ends in stupidity if someone argues for Podkolzin by saying something absurd, like that "Turcotte reminds me of Steven Gionta" or "Turcotte is a bust" or "the scouting reports which universally state that Turcotte is an incredible skater are all lying to you and actually he isn't".

I am not the most knowledgeable draft expert on the continent. I'm not even close. To be honest, if I disagree with McKeen's (which I often do) or Corey Pronman (which I often do) or the ISS (which I often do), you might want to take their word for things. These guys all make a living doing this. I'm an ex-draft writer who runs a bar in NYC for a living and watches a lot of hockey.

My point and advice is, a lot of people on these threads respect my opinion and a big reason for it is because I have great respect for their opinions, as well as opposing opinions.

This would be an opposing opinion I would respect: "I think the scouting services are underselling Kakko's ability to be the best player to come out of this draft."

This is the type of vitriol I am trying to eradicate from these boards: "Jack Hughes is like Scott Gomez, and all the scouting services who say he has a strong shot are actually BS-ing you, because his shot is below average in my opinion."

Can we see the difference?

No, I cannot. I don’t care about you elitist attitude. I can see Mr. Jack Hughes having similar stats to Gomez. Where he may put up 20-25 goals but his point production will primarily be 1). Assists and 2). On the PP. I am not comparing them based on skill sets, but even if I did I am allowed to do so.

Second, not only are scouts bias they are wrong all the time. Why do we even bother doing redrafts. The hype for drafts in any sport is uncontrollable. People eat it up, but you can’t have followers if you don’t write something. It’s easy to just copy and paste. Or they will write hogwash about prospects’ shots.

My issues with the draft, (past and present) stems from the referencing of prospects. Hughes has no weaknesses and is the best at this draft but Kakko is in the same tier as him. Kakko 2- Hughes 0 in head to heads. Also Hughes’s “Ranked 60 shot” seems to be a no show against older combustion .I think there there can be an argument that anyone within the top 6-7 have a strong chance of being the best player out of this draft. Oh wait I am wrong it could be a 6th rounder from some obscure eastern European league. So guess what, if someone wants to compare Hughes to Mike Rupp, let them and stop fretting over it.

 

[OmNomNom]

No, I cannot. I don’t care about you elitist attitude. I can see Mr. Jack Hughes having similar stats to Gomez. Where he may put up 20-25 goals but his point production will primarily be 1). Assists and 2). On the PP. I am not comparing them based on skill sets, but even if I did I am allowed to do so.

Second, not only are scouts bias they are wrong all the time. Why do we even bother doing redrafts. The hype for drafts in any sport is uncontrollable. People eat it up, but you can’t have followers if you don’t write something. It’s easy to just copy and paste. Or they will write hogwash about prospects’ shots.

My issues with the draft, (past and present) stems from the referencing of prospects. Hughes has no weaknesses and is the best at this draft but Kakko is in the same tier as him. Kakko 2- Hughes 0 in head to heads. Also Hughes’s “Ranked 60 shot” seems to be a no show against older combustion .I think there there can be an argument that anyone within the top 6-7 have a strong chance of being the best player out of this draft. Oh wait I am wrong it could be a 6th rounder from some obscure eastern European league. So guess what, if someone wants to compare Hughes to Mike Rupp, let them and stop fretting over it.

I think justifying your opinions and thinking them through isn't a bad thing to do. The idea of "well my opinion is ___ reminds me of ___, and you can't challenge that because it's my opinion!" will literally lead to nowhere in a discussion

If it's all opinions, then why is it that 1st rounders more often than not make the nhl, with that % decreasing in each round? That tells me that scout projections aren't a crapshoot by any means

 

[OmNomNom]

Also, reminder to check out Flight 151 to visit @StevenToddIves , right Steve?

 

[Emperoreddy]

Scouts are wrong all the time and it’s a crap shoot.

Might as well just pick names out a hat then.

 

[StevenToddIves]

If we got 1st overall I feel like I'd lean towards Kakko, the kid is exceptional in so many areas.

Yeah, but it won't happen. There's just no controversy this year for who us number one. It's Hughes. Kakko is outstanding, but the gulf between him and Hughes is significant and pronounced. If 31 teams win the lottery, 31 teams draft Hughes.

 

[StevenToddIves]

No, I cannot. I don’t care about you elitist attitude. I can see Mr. Jack Hughes having similar stats to Gomez. Where he may put up 20-25 goals but his point production will primarily be 1). Assists and 2). On the PP. I am not comparing them based on skill sets, but even if I did I am allowed to do so.

Second, not only are scouts bias they are wrong all the time. Why do we even bother doing redrafts. The hype for drafts in any sport is uncontrollable. People eat it up, but you can’t have followers if you don’t write something. It’s easy to just copy and paste. Or they will write hogwash about prospects’ shots.

My issues with the draft, (past and present) stems from the referencing of prospects. Hughes has no weaknesses and is the best at this draft but Kakko is in the same tier as him. Kakko 2- Hughes 0 in head to heads. Also Hughes’s “Ranked 60 shot” seems to be a no show against older combustion .I think there there can be an argument that anyone within the top 6-7 have a strong chance of being the best player out of this draft. Oh wait I am wrong it could be a 6th rounder from some obscure eastern European league. So guess what, if someone wants to compare Hughes to Mike Rupp, let them and stop fretting over it.

I agree with you that scouts can be wrong, and scouting services. As much as I love Nico, if the 2017 draft was redone Elias Pettersson would go first overall, and he lasted past the top 5. So scouts can be wrong, even universally.

But no one was comparing Nico Hischier to Scott Gomez that year. And Jack Hughes is a far stronger prospect than Nico was. What the scouts did was underestimate Pettersson, not overestimate Nico. I asked you respectfully to do the same vis a vis Hughes and Kakko, but for some reason you refuse this. You prefer vitriol over logical debate, and thus I cannot respond to this anymore.

So feel free to compare Jack Hughes to Scott Gomez, or Mike Rupp, or whomever. Just don't expect any knowledgable Devils fans to respect these opinions. And then, as all naysayers do, you call Hughes overrated when he becomes a star in the NHL, you can tell us all he's not as good as we think he is and you told us so. None of this sounds fun to me, but it seems really important to you that you prove yourself right. It's so incessantly negative, I don't even understand what the payoff is. But you won't compromise, not even a single aspect, even when contradicted by actual facts and prudent debate. So, I suppose the debate is done, then. So, continue to believe that all the scouts and scouting services and draft experts in the media are lying and you alone are correct in your assumptions. Jack Hughes will be a bust, and every scout in the world is wrong for ranking him #1, and all 31 teams will make a mistake by drafting him #1. You win, good job!

 

[StevenToddIves]

Also, reminder to check out Flight 151 to visit @StevenToddIves , right Steve?

I'm there every Tuesday and Thursday night. Even if I'm not there, drop my name and they will certainly put the Devils game on for you.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Scouts are wrong all the time and it’s a crap shoot.

Might as well just pick names out a hat then.

Dumbledore will make all picks for all teams from now on, because the scouts are all lying to us.