Athletic’s Corey Pronman ranks his top U-23 players

[Sidney the Kidney]

Seems like people are having a really hard time understanding the concept of his list.

People understand the concept. Doesn't mean the list makes any more sense.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

People understand the concept. Doesn't mean the list makes any more sense.

I don’t see why it doesn’t. First, it’s just his opinion. Second, they’re all very young. Just because someone is doing good now doesn’t mean one of the other guys can’t have a better career.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Can we put Pronman's opinions to bed once and for all?

If one day I ever hit the lottery and don't have to work for a living, among the things I'm going to do is go through Pronman's historical rankings and see how accurate they ended up being compared to everyone else who's done those kinds of rankings. As much as he's cited by people, I think it's completely fair to ask if he's just another guy who does rankings who puts out a lot of information and uses great phrases, but despite occasionally being able to identify unexpected hits/misses isn't any more accurate than anyone else who also has occasional hits/misses.

Spoiler

My money is on the latter.

 

[danpantz]

Could just be the homer in me but I feel like Charlie McAvoy should probably be higher than 24

 

[McFlash97]

Is this under 23 or 23 and under... because McDavid is still 23. So shy is Matthew's on here... he is also 23... huh

 

[Zach716]

Why would Matt Barzal be on a U-23 list?

Why would Matthews be either? Weird list lol

 

[McFlash97]

Why would Matt Barzal be on a U-23 list?

Why would 23 year old Matthew's be ? Lol. Good logic

 

[Sparksrus3]

Why would Matt Barzal be on a U-23 list?

why would Matthews be on the list . Both are 23 unless Leaf years are different

 

[danpantz]

why would Matthews be on the list . Both are 23

Matthews made the cutoff by 2 days or something. Been mentioned a couple times in this thread.

Sept 15th, just like the league uses.

 

[Sparksrus3]

Matthews made the cutoff by 2 days or something. Been mentioned a couple times in this thread.

Sept 15th, just like the league uses.

but this is Pronman not the NHL and it’s October

 

[danpantz]

but this is Pronman not the NHL and it’s October

Okay but it's his article, and he used that date for the cut off and Matthews squeeked in by 2 days which is why he's on the list.

 

[2Pair]

Can we put Pronman's opinions to bed once and for all?

People need to realize that he isn't a scout. Isn't even close to being qualified to speak about prospects or even hockey players in general. He's a clickbait writer that learned from his time at ESPN that it's much easier to say something controversial than it is to say something intelligent.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

what a bunch of whiners

 

[Yepthatsme]

Interesting note, only four people eligible for this list lead there team in points last season. In order:

Matthews -80p
M. Tkachuk -61p
Dubois -49p
B. Tkachuk -44p

I think people are sleeping on just how good the Tkachuk brothers are.

 

[Monsieur Verdoux]

If one day I ever hit the lottery and don't have to work for a living, among the things I'm going to do is go through Pronman's historical rankings and see how accurate they ended up being compared to everyone else who's done those kinds of rankings. As much as he's cited by people, I think it's completely fair to ask if he's just another guy who does rankings who puts out a lot of information and uses great phrases, but despite occasionally being able to identify unexpected hits/misses isn't any more accurate than anyone else who also has occasional hits/misses.

Spoiler

My money is on the latter.

It's easy to make fun of Pronman, but he also has done some good work. For instance I found this article pretty interesting. It's about Pronman's own hits and misses and how those selections compares to the real ones.

"I took my 2010 through 2017 draft boards, which are all available publicly online at various publication points. I then presumed I had the 16th pick in each round 1-7, and then just pick the highest player available on my board. In parentheses is the rank I gave that player going into their draft. There’s a bit of a chaos theory element here, because I pick a guy a team wants, they would pick someone else, which could take a guy another team wants and so on. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s just for illustration purposes."

From the comments section:

"If you look at his drafts from 2010 on, here's some players he'd have:

F - Nikita Kucherov
F - Viktor Arvidsson
F - Brayden Point
F - Matthew Barzal
F - Teuvo Teravainen
F - Anthony Duclair
F - David Kase
F - Pavel Buchnevich
F - Sonny Milano
F- Anton Slepyshev
D - Jordan Weal
D - Nathan Beaulieu
D - Sebastian Aho
D - Nikita Gusev

That's a pretty solid list, and that's only from 2010 and on, so does not include past drafts or free agency, both of which an actual team would have the benefit of having. Plus, keep in mind that he picked 16th each year, so no top 10 picks!!!!!!"

My own thoughts: I'd say Pronman knows how to evaluate forwards, but he isn't particularly good to evaluate defensemen.

Pronman: How NHL draft boards work

People need to realize that he isn't a scout. Isn't even close to being qualified to speak about prospects or even hockey players in general. He's a clickbait writer that learned from his time at ESPN that it's much easier to say something controversial than it is to say something intelligent.

I disagree, at least partly. Pronman has his own style and logic, and many times I disagree with him, but there are still lot of things why I appreciate his work.

 

[BB06]

What a terrible post. Stamkos literally just won a cup and Matthews has been real good the last few series he's played in LMAO

Playins don’t count lmao not real playoffs. Even then he had 1 EVP in 5 games. 3 of which came in a miracle collapse against a goalie that had gotten injured midway through that game and missed the rest of the playoffs after that and the other an empty net assists. In reality he has 13 points in 19 playoff games. 3 assists over that span really shows his one dimensional skills and limited play making. Stamkos was absolutely useless towards Tampa outside of 1 goal they win regardless of him being there.

 

[Mickey Marner]

People need to realize that he isn't a scout. Isn't even close to being qualified to speak about prospects or even hockey players in general. He's a clickbait writer that learned from his time at ESPN that it's much easier to say something controversial than it is to say something intelligent.

Yeah, people need to remember when they read lists from him that if he were all that and a bag of potato chips, he'd currently be employed by an NHL team. But we live in a world where Kim Kardashian might be the most famous woman. People have been conditioned to consume vapid crap and then bitch about it.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's easy to make fun of Pronman, but he also has done some good work. For instance I found this article pretty interesting. It's about Pronman's own hits and misses and how those selections compares to the real ones.

"I took my 2010 through 2017 draft boards, which are all available publicly online at various publication points. I then presumed I had the 16th pick in each round 1-7, and then just pick the highest player available on my board. In parentheses is the rank I gave that player going into their draft. There’s a bit of a chaos theory element here, because I pick a guy a team wants, they would pick someone else, which could take a guy another team wants and so on. It’s not a perfect process, but it’s just for illustration purposes."

Yes, he had Kucherov at 19. He then had Dmitrij Jaskin right behind Kucherov and Sven Baertschi right in front of Kucherov, and then Ryan Strome, Mark McNeill and Rocco Grimaldi in the top-10. I can find someone else who had Kucherov higher (16th) and still had Baertschi above him and then had Khokhlachev in the top-10. I can go on and on with this.

Hell, look at the next year. Even he stuck Yakupov #1, then had Grigorenko #2. We all know about Yakupov; Grigorenko went 12th and wouldn't be in the 1st-round if you did a re-rank. Forsberg and Galchenyuk are pretty clearly 1/2 from that draft; he had them 4/3. He had Teravainen 5, who'd probably be 3 now but got taken 18. He had Hertl 18, who went 17 and would probably be 4 now. He had Pontus Aberg at 9; he was taken 37 and I don't know if he'd get ranked that high now. Again, I can go on and on through the years like this. I want to see someone have said "you know what, I would not rank Yakupov #1 - in fact, I wouldn't put him top-10." That would be impressive.

I'm not saying Pronman or anyone else doesn't occasionally get it right with ranking guys higher than expected and they go on to justify it. Of course they do; as a matter of chance, that's going to happen. I'm saying they also blow it the other way, ranking guys way too high who then underperform, and yet that always gets lost in the shuffle. What I'd like to see is someone whose hits outnumber their misses to the point you can really say "that's not just dumb luck," and I'm not convinced Pronman fits that bill. I can (and will) say "I think he's thorough with his work and comments" and still say "I don't think his rankings are any better than an average of all rankings by all people."

 

[Maplebeasts]

why would Matthews be on the list . Both are 23 unless Leaf years are different

Why would Matthews be either? Weird list lol

Why would 23 year old Matthew's be ? Lol. Good logic

Lol read the article. Matthews makes the cutoff date, Barzal doesn't.

 

[Pyrophorus]

The biggest thing that jumps out is Heiskanen at a mere 14, jesus. He's already a #1D and arguably a Top10D in the entire league.

I think he got #1 right, I think Auston Matthews will have the best NHL career, though I hope it turns out to be Laf.

From Jordan Maresky:

In the entire history of the NHL, only 5 players have scored 120 even-strength goals in their first 280 career games. Those players are: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Brett Hull, Eric Lindros, And... Auston Matthews.

You want Laf to be #6, its a good thing to want to be.
Yes AM34, deserves to be #1.

 

[wetcoast]

he seems to heavily favor forwards over defensemen

To be fair Pronman does do with with prospects but he doesn't seem to account for how well some of the young Dmen have already done.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Interesting note, only four people eligible for this list lead there team in points last season. In order:

Matthews -80p
M. Tkachuk -61p
Dubois -49p
B. Tkachuk -44p

I think people are sleeping on just how good the Tkachuk brothers are.

Yeah Matthew Kachunk especially is an elite young player and doesn't get enough props.

 

[majormajor]

I've never been a Pronman fan but man are there ever some wildly off-base criticisms here. He's really pissed some people off by ranking their favorite player low or something.

People need to realize that he isn't a scout. Isn't even close to being qualified to speak about prospects or even hockey players in general. He's a clickbait writer that learned from his time at ESPN that it's much easier to say something controversial than it is to say something intelligent.

He is a scout. There is no doctoral degree for scouting, you just watch and evaluate hockey players, that's all.

Yeah, people need to remember when they read lists from him that if he were all that and a bag of potato chips, he'd currently be employed by an NHL team. But we live in a world where Kim Kardashian might be the most famous woman. People have been conditioned to consume vapid crap and then bitch about it.

I bet Pronman could get hired by an org if he wanted to go that route, but having never worked inside an org before, he'd have to start low and work his way up, and that would be a paycut and loss of status from working for TheAthletic. Most scouts are part-timers making peanuts. Though there's actually a lot of anonymous scout-consultants that don't work exclusively for any one team, and for all we know Pronman could get a ton of work in such a role.

Yes, he had Kucherov at 19. He then had Dmitrij Jaskin right behind Kucherov and Sven Baertschi right in front of Kucherov, and then Ryan Strome, Mark McNeill and Rocco Grimaldi in the top-10. I can find someone else who had Kucherov higher (16th) and still had Baertschi above him and then had Khokhlachev in the top-10. I can go on and on with this.

Hell, look at the next year. Even he stuck Yakupov #1, then had Grigorenko #2. We all know about Yakupov; Grigorenko went 12th and wouldn't be in the 1st-round if you did a re-rank. Forsberg and Galchenyuk are pretty clearly 1/2 from that draft; he had them 4/3. He had Teravainen 5, who'd probably be 3 now but got taken 18. He had Hertl 18, who went 17 and would probably be 4 now. He had Pontus Aberg at 9; he was taken 37 and I don't know if he'd get ranked that high now. Again, I can go on and on through the years like this. I want to see someone have said "you know what, I would not rank Yakupov #1 - in fact, I wouldn't put him top-10." That would be impressive.

I'm not saying Pronman or anyone else doesn't occasionally get it right with ranking guys higher than expected and they go on to justify it. Of course they do; as a matter of chance, that's going to happen. I'm saying they also blow it the other way, ranking guys way too high who then underperform, and yet that always gets lost in the shuffle. What I'd like to see is someone whose hits outnumber their misses to the point you can really say "that's not just dumb luck," and I'm not convinced Pronman fits that bill. I can (and will) say "I think he's thorough with his work and comments" and still say "I don't think his rankings are any better than an average of all rankings by all people."

You can't find an NHL team that was willing to take Kucherov higher than where Pronman would have taken him, that's the end of the debate.

Grigorenko was not #2 quality, but I wouldn't be so sure that he wouldn't go in the 1st round, that whole draft was abysmal and relatively devoid of talent. He had Forsberg much higher (good) and I don't know why you'd think Galchenyuk would be especially prized in a re-draft.

Everyone including Yzerman, Jarmo, or whoever else you think is a draft-wiz, has tons of misses. It's just about doing relatively well, and if Pronman really would have drafted Kucherov, Point, Barzal, Aho, etc.. then you have to think he's doing at least average.

 

[2Pair]

I've never been a Pronman fan but man are there ever some wildly off-base criticisms here. He's really pissed some people off by ranking their favorite player low or something.



He is a scout. There is no doctoral degree for scouting, you just watch and evaluate hockey players, that's all.

A scout knows what he is looking at and what he is looking for. Pronman is a journalism major that watches hockey games

 

[majormajor]

A scout knows what he is looking at and what he is looking for. Pronman is a journalism major that watches hockey games

From your definition he might be a bad scout, but a bad scout is still a scout.