Are ceiling and talent terms thrown around too much

[tgoat]

I've watched some games of rookies/u23 players and read people talk bout their ceiling and talents. Though they make bad mistakes as players as we all do, people tend to believe they will become something very elite as a player some day.

So what does ceiling/talent basically mean? Are these terms thrown around a bit too much?

Click to read more...

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I couldn't tell you. I always see "X has more talent and a higher ceiling" as it matters. Those aren't results.

Malkin may have more talent. Crosby is better. Same debate happens with Tavares and Stamkos a lot.

 

[Plural]

Ceiling (or potential as I see it sometimes being referred as) is a big part of discussion about draft eligible prospects. But Ceiling or potential is often over stated with NHL players. Results are what matter the most.

 

[Hynh]

Ceilings (and floors) are most important for players 17-20. If a defenceman has zero offense at the junior level you know his ceiling is low. If his ceiling is low you shouldn't take him in the first round.

"Talent" on the other hand is too nebulous to matter. It's up there with "intangibles" as a wishy-washy reason to like a player.

 

[BobbyShehan]

Ceilings (and floors) are most important for players 17-20. If a defenceman has zero offense at the junior level you know his ceiling is low. If his ceiling is low you shouldn't take him in the first round.

"Talent" on the other hand is too nebulous to matter. It's up there with "intangibles" as a wishy-washy reason to like a player.

With all due respect, I see the complete opposite. Talents are tangibles. Whether a kid is good at skating, puck handling, goal scoring, etc. is talent evaluation. Any pro scout can do this. A "ceiling" is what you project for this talent to be in the future. This is almost totally subjective but good scouts are somehow able to analyse the tangibles, the talents of a specific player, and figure out how they can develop and to what "ceiling". Age, growth, background, attitude come into play and make this exercise of figuring out a player's ceiling more of an educated guess than a scientific analysis of his talent.

 

[Brainiac]

Well, it works to a certain degree for young players. But I always laugh when we hear about a 24-25 yo. guy having potential because he was drafted Xth overall.

 

[Hynh]

With all due respect, I see the complete opposite. Talents are tangibles. Whether a kid is good at skating, puck handling, goal scoring, etc. is talent evaluation. Any pro scout can do this. A "ceiling" is what you project for this talent to be in the future. This is almost totally subjective but good scouts are somehow able to analyse the tangibles, the talents of a specific player, and figure out how they can develop and to what "ceiling". Age, growth, background, attitude come into play and make this exercise of figuring out a player's ceiling more of an educated guess than a scientific analysis of his talent.

Talents (or tools as lots of people call them) are something tangible but saying "he's got talent" isn't saying anything at all.

 

[WesMcCauley]

The most dumb thing about so many people beeing interested in prospects and draft eligble players is that they think that just because he is drafted top 10 he will become a superstar. In the trade forum for example when you see people propose trades and say no we cant give away our first rounder for a very good player because that 14th pick in the draft might become a top 6 guy i 5 years.... Look at the #10 picks in the NHL draft since 2000.

2016 Tyson Jost
2015 Mikko Rantanen
2014 Nick Ritchie
2013 Valeri Nichushkin
2012 Slater Koekkoek
2011 Jonas Brodin
2010 Dylan McIlrath
2009 Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson
2008 Cody Hodgson
2007 Keaton Ellerby
2006 Michael Frolik
2005 Luc Bourdon
2004 Boris Valabik
2003 Andrei Kostitsyn
2002 Eric Nystrom ´
2001 Dan Blackburn
2000 Mikhail Yakubov

They get hyped up every year but rarely become a superstar or even a very good NHL player. Problem with ceiling and talent is that you never know how a player will do when they play in the NHL. You can be unreal in OHL or whatever(Yakupov for example) but then you just arent good enough when you come to the NHL. Its a different game, they are just so much better. Sure the scouts know how to evaluate etc but thats very different than saying he will be a great NHL player in 5 years. Drafting inside top 5 is usually easy, pretty much everyone have the same rankings because they usually stand out and you obviously pick the players that you rank the highest in terms of talent and potential.
The great scouts find hidden gems in the later rounds and pick for example Erik Karlsson the 30th projected pick with their #15 pick because they are great scouts. Thats great scouting. Taking Mcdavid with the first pick isnt exactly anything Edm should get credit for doing, everyone would have done that.
The best scouts find players with potential to fill a need for the club in all rounds and tons of them dont work out but the best scouts find more players with real NHL level potential than the average scouts.

 

[Seanaconda]

Giant post above me mps killed it in WC and looked like a player.

OP ceiling is the top level a player can reach if they fulfil their expectations. So ceiling is an operant thing to judge for scouts. Talent tends to be skill level but doesn't always relate to overall effectiveness.

Normally what's important is how good would their floor be combined with how likely they would hit their cieling/ how high their cieling is vs is it worth taking him if he doesn't hit it.

 

[FireBurningBin]

Floor is thrown around too much because it simply doesn't exist unless the player is scoring at a ppg rate in the KHL in his draft year. "Safe" picks seem to bust pretty often. Obviously there is a balance to be found but in the first 45 you probably want to project a top 6/4 talent in some capacity.

 

[Seanaconda]

Floor is thrown around too much because it simply doesn't exist unless the player is scoring at a ppg rate in the KHL in his draft year. "Safe" picks seem to bust pretty often. Obviously there is a balance to be found but in the first 45 you probably want to project a top 6/4 talent in some capacity.

Most guys with a good floor tend to be really fast and big guys that play well. / guys drafted in the top 10.

Pretty much if they don't improve at all that's what they will be in the nhl. That's the idea of floor.

 

[Legionnaire]

Ceiling, perhaps. Talent, no. Talent is something different than success. It takes hard work to be successful, and it takes both to be the best.

I hope you all understand how good all these guys are to even be playing in the NHL. Lottery ticket kind of good.

 

[tgoat]

The most dumb thing about so many people beeing interested in prospects and draft eligble players is that they think that just because he is drafted top 10 he will become a superstar. In the trade forum for example when you see people propose trades and say no we cant give away our first rounder for a very good player because that 14th pick in the draft might become a top 6 guy i 5 years.... Look at the #10 picks in the NHL draft since 2000.

2016 Tyson Jost
2015 Mikko Rantanen
2014 Nick Ritchie
2013 Valeri Nichushkin
2012 Slater Koekkoek
2011 Jonas Brodin
2010 Dylan McIlrath
2009 Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson
2008 Cody Hodgson
2007 Keaton Ellerby
2006 Michael Frolik
2005 Luc Bourdon
2004 Boris Valabik
2003 Andrei Kostitsyn
2002 Eric Nystrom ´
2001 Dan Blackburn
2000 Mikhail Yakubov

They get hyped up every year but rarely become a superstar or even a very good NHL player. Problem with ceiling and talent is that you never know how a player will do when they play in the NHL. You can be unreal in OHL or whatever(Yakupov for example) but then you just arent good enough when you come to the NHL. Its a different game, they are just so much better. Sure the scouts know how to evaluate etc but thats very different than saying he will be a great NHL player in 5 years. Drafting inside top 5 is usually easy, pretty much everyone have the same rankings because they usually stand out and you obviously pick the players that you rank the highest in terms of talent and potential.
The great scouts find hidden gems in the later rounds and pick for example Erik Karlsson the 30th projected pick with their #15 pick because they are great scouts. Thats great scouting. Taking Mcdavid with the first pick isnt exactly anything Edm should get credit for doing, everyone would have done that.
The best scouts find players with potential to fill a need for the club in all rounds and tons of them dont work out but the best scouts find more players with real NHL level potential than the average scouts.

I think Mikko Rantanen stands out on that list, but yeah there are busts and nonbusts ofc .
It makes harder for scouts to evaluate ceiling for players coming from bigger rink leagues, coz of the adaptation to smaller one... but I think that subject's been beaten to death .
And too bad on the Yakupov case, maybe it was just the edmonton system that made it difficult for him to play

Giant post above me mps killed it in WC and looked like a player.

OP ceiling is the top level a player can reach if they fulfil their expectations. So ceiling is an operant thing to judge for scouts. Talent tends to be skill level but doesn't always relate to overall effectiveness.

Normally what's important is how good would their floor be combined with how likely they would hit their cieling/ how high their cieling is vs is it worth taking him if he doesn't hit it.

thanks for this explanation

 

[FireBurningBin]

Most guys with a good floor tend to be really fast and big guys that play well. / guys drafted in the top 10.

Pretty much if they don't improve at all that's what they will be in the nhl. That's the idea of floor.

And those players don't make the NHL other than as 13th forwards.

 

[tgoat]

Started to think about this and MacKinnon is one of that kind. He has the talent and high ceiling. Good perfomance in his rookie year, then a bit down years, but then rised to highest ranking players and I think we've seen him touching the ceiling in these two recent years. On the other hand, McDavid has always performed at top notch level, but we don't know if he has even performed at his max level

 

[Patty Ice]

So what does ceiling/talent basically mean? Are these terms thrown around a bit too much?

!00%

How many would have labeled Point's ceiling properly when he was still a prospect? Heart and desire cannot be measured that's what separates a Daigle from a Pavelski and cannot be observed by the casual fan.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

!00%

How many would have labeled Point's ceiling properly when he was still a prospect? Heart and desire cannot be measured that's what separates a Daigle from a Pavelski and cannot be observed by the casual fan.

tbf even as a prospect point was good enough to where he should have been a late 1st/early 2nd, just he was a bit small so fell to tampa.

also, fun fact, tampa traded up one spot in the draft to take point, who the wild also wanted.

 

[Patty Ice]

tbf even as a prospect point was good enough to where he should have been a late 1st/early 2nd, just he was a bit small so fell to tampa.

also, fun fact, tampa traded up one spot in the draft to take point, who the wild also wanted.

I understand but would you have labeled him a future superstar when he was drafted?

 

[EhlersChin]

I'm still waiting for laine to hit his "ceiling" and take home the; Rocket, Art Ross, Hart and Ted Lindsay every year as I've been told will happen. I guess hes still so "raw"?

 

[3074326]

I think they're worthy of getting thrown around a lot. In order to plan for the future, things like talent and ceiling have lots of value. Talent is easier to identify than ceiling, but both terms are necessary when evaluating the future of any franchise or organization in the world.

The two go hand-in-hand. Talent is referring to the tools that person has. Ceiling is referring to how good they can be if they catch on. High ceiling = high talent, low ceiling = lower talent. Harder to judge the catching on part.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

I understand but would you have labeled him a future superstar when he was drafted?

no

 

[Nithoniniel]

Never liked the term 'ceiling' since it implies a limit to the development a player could achieve. A better term would be 'hit projection', which would be what is envisioned for the player if his development curve is good enough to be considered a success. It would provide a reasonable idea of what the player could be if things went well, while not so restrictive. Doesn't roll off the tongue as easily though.