Prospect Info: Bowen Byram - D [2019: 4th Overall] Part II: Now serving a side of overconfidence!

[Islay1989]

JFC the homerism in here hurts.

Byram has a good shot at ending up a top pairing dman but he will be dropping jaws if he does that in the next two years.

Brady was who I wanted all along and I’d still take him every day of the week over Byram.

With Brady in the top6 this is a very different team the last year or two and Byram might not even be on the roster next year. Yes ELCs will be worth their weight in gold to the Avs moving forward but so too would a top6 gritty winger (on an ELC) have been the last two years, as the Avs opened their cup window.

Brady was everything this team needed two years ago and instead we got a “best of his class, potential top pairing D” that everyone around here has since decided is the best prospect since sliced bread and have convinced themselves is going to be a sure fire #1D - based on pretty much absolutely nothing.

We have an embarrassment of riches in D prospects at the moment, at least compared to what Avs fans are used to. But let’s not continue to get too carried away with the idea that we’re going to have two legit 1Ds on this roster because Byram would need to hit his absolute ceiling to make that happen. Would I love to be proven wrong, absolutely. Do I think I will be? Absolutely not.

What matters is how does more for his team through his career, not who does more through 2020. And if Byram hits his absolute ceiling you don't have a #1D, you have something better. And the claim that Avs fans decided Byram is the best thing since sliced bread out of thin air is a blatant fallacy. He is considered a top defensive prospect by pretty much every outlet there is, but somehow Avs fans are getting carried away based on nothing? What a hot take.

Also, most people posting here are saying they would be happy with him touring out to be a good #2, which is a pretty damn safe projection. It would be pretty damn disappointing if a guy taken 4th doesn't end up at least a #2D.

That's debatable. There are more top pairing dmen in the league than power forwards like Brady.

And that's IF Byram becomes a top pairing guy in the NHL.

Ah, the "power forward". The most absurdly overrated concept in all of hockey. Which Cup winning team in the last 10 years or so had a true PWF on the roster that was a steady contributor? Caps with Wilson? And even he was pretty clearly the 3rd wheel on his line and way down the pecking order after Ovi, Backstrom, Kuz, Carlson, Holtby, Orlov in terms of importance to the Cup run. Furthermore, Brady is good, but if he continues to throw his weight around like he does he'll be done at 30. I mean I find it hilarious people salivate over him and in turn fret about keeping Landeskog because he will fall apart (or has already started to), when Brady plays like a more reckless version of youg Landeskog.

All situation top pairing D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power forward who is a winger to boot

 

[Patagonia]

A top DMan is extremely difficult to obtain. With the opportunity to add another that can partner with Makar. Tkachuk is a fine player, but not overwhelmingly better in his draft year. College he played Wing with Bowers.

AVs is more likely to have chosen the top DMen QHughes instead of a Winger. Sakic has selected DMen with 5 of 7 of the top 2 rounds since 2017. Byram was picked ahead of Turcotte/Zegras when a 2C/3C is a greater need (Newhook was drafted later). With his drafting pattern, QHughes is far more likely.

So the debate is not Tkachuk, but QHughes vs Byram.

 

[MarkT]

My point is the same reaction happens with every list.

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this. Criticizing lists like this (and the person who made them) is literally the only way to discuss them. If someone agrees with the list, all they can really say is "Good list. I agree." That doesn't make for very interesting conversation. The only good conversation to be had is to talk about where the list has gone wrong and the mistakes the author may have made.

Now, the exception is if the list is prepared by someone people consider a true expert. In that case the reaction can be awe at the different rankings and sharing different insights gained from the list. But when a list is obviously flawed or there is clear evidence of instances where the author doesn't know what they're talking about, then criticism is pretty much the only response.

 

[henchman21]

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this. Criticizing lists like this (and the person who made them) is literally the only way to discuss them. If someone agrees with the list, all they can really say is "Good list. I agree." That doesn't make for very interesting conversation. The only good conversation to be had is to talk about where the list has gone wrong and the mistakes the author may have made.

Now, the exception is if the list is prepared by someone people consider a true expert. In that case the reaction can be awe at the different rankings and sharing different insights gained from the list. But when a list is obviously flawed or there is clear evidence of instances where the author doesn't know what they're talking about, then criticism is pretty much the only response.

People can be critical without being dismissive. Immediately people have taken Wheeler/Pronman/Button lists and basically dismissed them completely, going to the levels of saying they can't evaluate, that they are idiots, 'worst list evAr', etc. They are different opinions, and when it comes to nearly anything, you learn more from what you disagree with than what you agree with. If you take other opinions, evaluate, then look at why your own evaluation of something is different... truly question it and make changes where it is fitting... you have a more well rounded opinion.

Pronman is far from perfect and I disagree with A LOT of his rankings, but he is more of an expert on prospects than most anybody on this forum. The guy puts in the work that many don't. But people say the same things about Button, who spent 15 years in a NHL front office and won a Cup.

 

[MarkT]

People can be critical without being dismissive. Immediately people have taken Wheeler/Pronman/Button lists and basically dismissed them completely, going to the levels of saying they can't evaluate, that they are idiots, 'worst list evAr', etc. They are different opinions, and when it comes to nearly anything, you learn more from what you disagree with than what you agree with. If you take other opinions, evaluate, then look at why your own evaluation of something is different... truly question it and make changes where it is fitting... you have a more well rounded opinion.

Pronman is far from perfect and I disagree with A LOT of his rankings, but he is more of an expert on prospects than most anybody on this forum. The guy puts in the work that many don't. But people say the same things about Button, who spent 15 years in a NHL front office and won a Cup.

Of course there's going to be hyperbole. It's a message board. If you're expecting nothing but nuanced critiques I think you're in the wrong place. There have been nuanced critiques though. It seems like you're too focused on the hyperbole/dismissiveness. Also, I totally agree about your point on learning from what you disagree with, but I don't think its realistic to expect people to do that on a regular basis because it's quite intellectually challenging.

Also, one thing to remember is that when you put out a list like this, people are automatically going to look at the rankings for players they know best. If those players are rated inaccurately by the list, then it discredits the whole list. So is Pronman is rating Jost as "very good" potential and describing him like this:

He has a high skill level, showing very quick hands and great coordination in small areas to make skilled plays. He’s a creative playmaker who can see the ice at a high level. When he was an amateur, I thought Jost could become a very good two-way center in the NHL. He’s a good skater...

It's going to make many people question Pronman's expertise. In order to believe his ranking for player's we're not familiar with, he first has to earn our trust with his ranking of players we are familiar with. What I think you're seeing in this thread is people identifying the reason Pronman lost their trust as an expert talent evaluator. Maybe that's not fair, but it's generally how trust works.

To be clear, I'm sure Pronman puts in a ton of work and is indeed much more of an expert than pretty much anyone on this board. But I don't think anyone else here is claiming they could make a better list. I think they're just reacting to the flaws they are able to identify in Pronman's list.

 

[henchman21]

Of course there's going to be hyperbole. It's a message board. If you're expecting nothing but nuanced critiques I think you're in the wrong place. There have been nuanced critiques though. It seems like you're too focused on the hyperbole/dismissiveness. Also, I totally agree about your point on learning from what you disagree with, but I don't think its realistic to expect people to do that on a regular basis because it's quite intellectually challenging.

Also, one thing to remember is that when you put out a list like this, people are automatically going to look at the rankings for players they know best. If those players are rated inaccurately by the list, then it discredits the whole list. So is Pronman is rating Jost as "very good" potential and describing him like this:



It's going to make many people question Pronman's expertise. In order to believe his ranking for player's we're not familiar with, he first has to earn our trust with his ranking of players we are familiar with. What I think you're seeing in this thread is people identifying the reason Pronman lost their trust as an expert talent evaluator. Maybe that's not fair, but it's generally how trust works.

To be clear, I'm sure Pronman puts in a ton of work and is indeed much more of an expert than pretty much anyone on this board. But I don't think anyone else here is claiming they could make a better list. I think they're just reacting to the flaws they are able to identify in Pronman's list.

People are simply viewing through their own scope. Pronman can't (and shouldn't) cater to a fanbase. Expecting him to win over fans of certain teams because he evaluates their prospects perfectly is kinda nonsense. A lot of Avs fans stay within the Avs bubble of players and only look at them. It causes bias. I remember getting reamed in the Hall deal talks by simply saying Timmins wasn't a good enough defensive prospect to close the deal, and how I was wrong. A lot of people just don't have the scope to see outside their own view, and when they don't, they should try to learn instead of dismiss. Along with that, Pronman is trying to evaluate hundreds and hundreds of players. His job is to look at all ~20-30+ prospects of each team and all the players coming up, and the ones drafted in the last few years. With volume, comes errors.

The discredit is part of the issue here... people are hurt because 'their' guy is lower than he 'should' be. Then they lash out at it instead of understanding it.

On Jost... I think I've talked about this a lot. Technique and fundamentals, Jost is not only good, he might be great. If a person is in the camp that once the fundamentals are there it just takes maturity, Jost looks like a skater ready to break out. I'm not in that camp at all. My biggest red flag in skating is good technique and fundamentals with good or average skating with it. My belief in that is that those types regress to a mean because all NHLers are good skaters. You either need to be elite, or good with room for improvement to maintain being a good or better skater. My biggest critique on Pronman relates to this. He's more worried about technique and skating being pretty, than how it is really effective during the game. I would also say he values wings more than he should.

Also... Pronman's 'very good' tier is a very good 3rd liner/4-5D/high end back up goalie tier. I don't think Jost will ever be a good 3rd liner here, but that level isn't absurd for Jost. On the right team, it is probably close to accurate.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

People can be critical without being dismissive. Immediately people have taken Wheeler/Pronman/Button lists and basically dismissed them completely, going to the levels of saying they can't evaluate, that they are idiots, 'worst list evAr', etc. They are different opinions, and when it comes to nearly anything, you learn more from what you disagree with than what you agree with. If you take other opinions, evaluate, then look at why your own evaluation of something is different... truly question it and make changes where it is fitting... you have a more well rounded opinion.

Pronman is far from perfect and I disagree with A LOT of his rankings, but he is more of an expert on prospects than most anybody on this forum. The guy puts in the work that many don't. But people say the same things about Button, who spent 15 years in a NHL front office and won a Cup.

There were some positives about Pronman’s list. I think his 1,2, and 3 rankings were pretty good. There’s certainly potential for that to change, but he did well on that front.

A lot of the players throughout were appropriately rated.

One of the issues I take with his list is his undervaluing of defenceman and goaltenders. He didn’t have Carter Hart until somewhere in the 40’s.

I think he’s sticking to his draft thoughts on Miro Heiskanen and Cale Makar, by how low he has them ranked. Which seems kinda weird considering how the two players have developed. Of course as Avalanche fans the Makar ranking will stick out to us. He continues to underrate Makar’s physical game too. I don’t think he’s ever adjusted it. He just trots out the same old 35 rating and analysis, pretty much on par with the Hughes brothers on his list, who never initiate contact.

 

[henchman21]

There were some positives about Pronman’s list. I think his 1,2, and 3 rankings were pretty good. There’s certainly potential for that to change, but he did well on that front.

A lot of the players throughout were appropriately rated.

One of the issues I take with his list is his undervaluing of defenceman and goaltenders. He didn’t have Carter Hart until somewhere in the 40’s.

I think he’s sticking to his draft thoughts on Miro Heiskanen and Cale Makar, by how low he has them ranked. Which seems kinda weird considering how the two players have developed. Of course as Avalanche fans the Makar ranking will stick out to us. He continues to underrate Makar’s physical game too. I don’t think he’s ever adjusted it. He just trots out the same old 35 rating and verbage, pretty much on par with the Hughes brothers on his list, who never initiate contact.

Pronman, by his own admission, says it is difficult for him to rank goalies. I don't think he underrates defensemen so much as he overrates wings.

People are really hung up on that 20-80 scale. I personally hate the 20-80 as it doesn't allow nuance and puts players into groups, but the basic idea is to put players in groups rating from not pro quality to elite with 50 being average. Again I hate the scale, but I'd put Makar at 40. He's below average, but can surprise from time to time. Ian Cole would be a 50. G and Hughes at 30 is about right to me. Both are extremely lacking compared to other NHL players. That slight difference just isn't a big deal to me.

 

[Richard Doll]

I don't bother reading these lists, they mean nothing to me.

If he has Makar with some low rating on physicality though, he needs to watch some games. Cale has straight out flattened some guys in games.

 

[BKarchitect]

Pronman sticks to his guns way longer than the eye test says he should. He's always been this way. Sometimes it works out, often he just looks like he's not really paying attention to the here and now and more concerned that what he said on draft day is still relevant years later.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

Pronman, by his own admission, says it is difficult for him to rank goalies. I don't think he underrates defensemen so much as he overrates wings.

People are really hung up on that 20-80 scale. I personally hate the 20-80 as it doesn't allow nuance and puts players into groups, but the basic idea is to put players in groups rating from not pro quality to elite with 50 being average. Again I hate the scale, but I'd put Makar at 40. He's below average, but can surprise from time to time. Ian Cole would be a 50. G and Hughes at 30 is about right to me. Both are extremely lacking compared to other NHL players. That slight difference just isn't a big deal to me.

30 is pretty generous to Hughes, honestly. I’d probably have it at 25. He more than makes up for it in other areas of his game obviously, but it’s just not something he does.

I don’t know. I’m just completely baffled by him ranking the three premier young defenceman in the game a whole tier below guys like Jack Hughes, Kaapo Kakko, Patrik Laine, and Matt Tkachuk. Those guys have great potential too, but I really struggle to see where he is finding the discrepancy.

 

[MarkT]

People are simply viewing through their own scope. Pronman can't (and shouldn't) cater to a fanbase. Expecting him to win over fans of certain teams because he evaluates their prospects perfectly is kinda nonsense. A lot of Avs fans stay within the Avs bubble of players and only look at them. It causes bias. I remember getting reamed in the Hall deal talks by simply saying Timmins wasn't a good enough defensive prospect to close the deal, and how I was wrong. A lot of people just don't have the scope to see outside their own view, and when they don't, they should try to learn instead of dismiss. Along with that, Pronman is trying to evaluate hundreds and hundreds of players. His job is to look at all ~20-30+ prospects of each team and all the players coming up, and the ones drafted in the last few years. With volume, comes errors.

The discredit is part of the issue here... people are hurt because 'their' guy is lower than he 'should' be. Then they lash out at it instead of understanding it.

On Jost... I think I've talked about this a lot. Technique and fundamentals, Jost is not only good, he might be great. If a person is in the camp that once the fundamentals are there it just takes maturity, Jost looks like a skater ready to break out. I'm not in that camp at all. My biggest red flag in skating is good technique and fundamentals with good or average skating with it. My belief in that is that those types regress to a mean because all NHLers are good skaters. You either need to be elite, or good with room for improvement to maintain being a good or better skater. My biggest critique on Pronman relates to this. He's more worried about technique and skating being pretty, than how it is really effective during the game. I would also say he values wings more than he should.

Also... Pronman's 'very good' tier is a very good 3rd liner/4-5D/high end back up goalie tier. I don't think Jost will ever be a good 3rd liner here, but that level isn't absurd for Jost. On the right team, it is probably close to accurate.

I don't think it's fair to assume everyone here always has an Avs-centric bias. But my point still stands. People are always going to check these list first for the players they themselves feel confident in evaluating. In this case that certainly means Avs players, but you'll notice in the thread a lot of names of non-Avs players people feel are rated incorrectly. So, once people check those players and find the evaluations lacking, it's of course going to damage the credibility of the list as a whole.

Imagine you're watching TV and an expert comes on to talk about a lot of different issues. One of the issues he discusses is something you yourself are an expert in, and he makes several factual errors or voices opinions no real expert would agree with. Are you going to trust that "expert" when he goes on to talk about other issues you don't know as much about? Or are you going to assume he's making just as many errors about those other topics. I think it's human nature to do the latter.

Unfortunately it puts people like Pronman and Button in nigh impossible situations, since they're never going to get all their ratings and opinions to be on the par of someone who is basically a specialized expert in certain players. Basically, I sincerely doubt Pronman watched every game for every player on his list, so his knowledge isn't likely to measure up to someone who has watched every game for any given player.

So to be clear, I think what you're describing is absolutely happening here in certain cases, but not the majority.

 

[henchman21]

30 is pretty generous to Hughes, honestly. I’d probably have it at 25. He more than makes up for it in other areas of his game obviously, but it’s just not something he does.

I don’t know. I’m just completely baffled by him ranking the three premier young defenceman in the game a whole tier below guys like Jack Hughes, Kaapo Kakko, Patrik Laine, and Matt Tkachuk. Those guys have great potential too, but I really struggle to see where he is finding the discrepancy.

Hughes and Kakko are from previous evaluations and belief. Hughes will surprise people next year, but I have more questions on Kakko just simply due to his skating being as poor as it is. That was a surprise to me. Them having rough rookie seasons isn't enough to drop their evaluations.

Laine is pretty easy... he's got very clear 50g upside. In a game that is starved for goals, he's one of the best and has the potential for a lot more. Since he entered the league, he's 7th in goals tied with Kane and Tavares. That is with a 'rough' season and falling out of favor. If he lives up to his offensive potential, he could easily be the 2nd best player in this group. That's a big if, but if he does... he looks like a guy who will put up 600+ goals in his career. That is the very definition of an elite player. I hate his all around game though, so I have a hard time seeing him stick in organizations and that probably causes me to lower him artificially.

Cheese is a top line power forward who does a bit of everything. He's a better Landeskog while being a pest. I wouldn't rank him 5, but he's in my top 10 for sure.

 

[henchman21]

I don't think it's fair to assume everyone here always has an Avs-centric bias. But my point still stands. People are always going to check these list first for the players they themselves feel confident in evaluating. In this case that certainly means Avs players, but you'll notice in the thread a lot of names of non-Avs players people feel are rated incorrectly. So, once people check those players and find the evaluations lacking, it's of course going to damage the credibility of the list as a whole.

Imagine you're watching TV and an expert comes on to talk about a lot of different issues. One of the issues he discusses is something you yourself are an expert in, and he makes several factual errors or voices opinions no real expert would agree with. Are you going to trust that "expert" when he goes on to talk about other issues you don't know as much about? Or are you going to assume he's making just as many errors about those other topics. I think it's human nature to do the latter.

Unfortunately it puts people like Pronman and Button in nigh impossible situations, since they're never going to get all their ratings and opinions to be on the par of someone who is basically a specialized expert in certain players. Basically, I sincerely doubt Pronman watched every game for every player on his list, so his knowledge isn't likely to measure up to someone who has watched every game for any given player.

So to be clear, I think what you're describing is absolutely happening here in certain cases, but not the majority.

That is holding them to an impossible standard, and again, being an expert in the Avs's 10 best prospects or a few others, makes people biased for those prospects. When a player they don't know as well is higher than their guy, they point that out using their 'expert' opinion. Scouting is not black and white, and there are simple differences of opinion and priorities that can cause massive differences.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

Hughes and Kakko are from previous evaluations and belief. Hughes will surprise people next year, but I have more questions on Kakko just simply due to his skating being as poor as it is. That was a surprise to me. Them having rough rookie seasons isn't enough to drop their evaluations.

Laine is pretty easy... he's got very clear 50g upside. In a game that is starved for goals, he's one of the best and has the potential for a lot more. Since he entered the league, he's 7th in goals tied with Kane and Tavares. That is with a 'rough' season and falling out of favor. If he lives up to his offensive potential, he could easily be the 2nd best player in this group. That's a big if, but if he does... he looks like a guy who will put up 600+ goals in his career. That is the very definition of an elite player. I hate his all around game though, so I have a hard time seeing him stick in organizations and that probably causes me to lower him artificially.

Cheese is a top line power forward who does a bit of everything. He's a better Landeskog while being a pest. I wouldn't rank him 5, but he's in my top 10 for sure.

I don’t disagree with much your saying about those guys. However, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the potential of Makar, Hughes, and Heiskanen is just as great, and more so in my eyes than a few of the players rated a tier group above them.

They’ve also put a lot more positive play on tape than Jack Hughes and Kakko. I do think Jack trends better than Kakko moving forward and has big potential.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

That is holding them to an impossible standard, and again, being an expert in the Avs's 10 best prospects or a few others, makes people biased for those prospects. When a player they don't know as well is higher than their guy, they point that out using their 'expert' opinion. Scouting is not black and white, and there are simple differences of opinion and priorities that can cause massive differences.

I mean, you’re kind of taking a shot at everyone on this board when you say stuff like this. Seemingly you have an issue with people thinking Makar is a great player with potential to get better, since he’s one of the Avs players being focussed on in this thread and on Pronman’s list.

And as @MarkT alluded too. People have been saying there are non-Avs players rated too low as well.

Most people on this board like talking about Avs players because they are a fan of the team. It doesn’t mean they don’t watch other hockey and can’t appreciate, or discern other players value.

 

[MarkT]

That is holding them to an impossible standard, and again, being an expert in the Avs's 10 best prospects or a few others, makes people biased for those prospects. When a player they don't know as well is higher than their guy, they point that out using their 'expert' opinion. Scouting is not black and white, and there are simple differences of opinion and priorities that can cause massive differences.

Well, yeah. That was my point. it's the unfortunate reality of presenting yourself as an expert. If you don't want to be held to a standard like that, don't present yourself as an expert. And unfortunately a list like this only has any value if it's made by an expert.

And I'm not denying that bias exists. Obviously it does. But you seem to be implying that every single person on this board is so blinded by their biases that they're unable to make accurate critiques of this list.

 

[henchman21]

I mean, you’re kind of taking a shot at everyone on this board when you say stuff like this. Seemingly you have an issue with people thinking Makar is a great player with potential to get better, since he’s one of the Avs players being focussed on in this thread and on Pronman’s list.

And as @MarkT alluded too. People have been saying there are non-Avs players rates to low as well.

Most people on this board like talking about Avs players because they are a dan of the team. It doesn’t mean they don’t watch other hockey and can’t appreciate, or discern other players value.

I'd have Makar solidly in my top 10, and probably 5th or 6th. So it isn't that. I'm taking a shot at everybody who freaks out on these lists. They are simply lists and opinions. One day, people rant and rave about them on how they are terrible and the people who write them are idiots. Then the next day they use them to win a point in an argument. We see it time and time again.

Well, yeah. That was my point. it's the unfortunate reality of presenting yourself as an expert. If you don't want to be held to a standard like that, don't present yourself as an expert. And unfortunately a list like this only has any value if it's made by an expert.

And I'm not denying that bias exists. Obviously it does. But you seem to be implying that every single person on this board is so blinded by their biases that they're unable to make accurate critiques of this list.

Certainly not everyone, but the majority here don't put in the time and effort it would take to accurately evaluate all these players. I'm totally fine with that, just don't go hyperbolic on somebody who has.

 

[Pokecheque]

I mean, you’re kind of taking a shot at everyone on this board when you say stuff like this. Seemingly you have an issue with people thinking Makar is a great player with potential to get better, since he’s one of the Avs players being focussed on in this thread and on Pronman’s list.

And as @MarkT alluded too. People have been saying there are non-Avs players rated too low as well.

Most people on this board like talking about Avs players because they are a fan of the team. It doesn’t mean they don’t watch other hockey and can’t appreciate, or discern other players value.

I don't think he's doing that at all--he's just taking issue with people frothing at the mouth at Pronman's list. And yes, there's an inherent bias among most of us here, it stands to reason. Not everyone is susceptible to it but it's there and it is indeed coloring some of the more angry responses we're reading on here.

 

[MarkT]

I'd have Makar solidly in my top 10, and probably 5th or 6th. So it isn't that. I'm taking a shot at everybody who freaks out on these lists. They are simply lists and opinions. One day, people rant and rave about them on how they are terrible and the people who write them are idiots. Then the next day they use them to win a point in an argument. We see it time and time again.

Are you sure people are "freaking out" rather than harshly criticizing? Also, are you sure it's the same people who say the lists are terrible and then try to use them as evidence? I'm asking because it seems to me like you're lumping a lot of valid criticism in with over-the-top criticism.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

I don't think he's doing that at all--he's just taking issue with people frothing at the mouth at Pronman's list. And yes, there's an inherent bias among most of us here, it stands to reason. Not everyone is susceptible to it but it's there and it is indeed coloring some of the more angry responses we're reading on here.

I don’t understand what the touchiness is about some of us wanting to take a closer look at Pronman’s list. It’s fun offseason discussion.

I think sometimes in the search for objectivity, we miss what’s right in front of us.

Cale Makar and Quinn Hughes didn’t have good rookie seasons. They were historic, or very close to historic seasons for rookie defenceman. Miro Heiskanen was in the Conn Smyth conversation at 21-years old. Pronman has these players rated 11th, 13th, and 14th on his list of U-23 players. Am I being biased, or is something amiss?

 

[henchman21]

Are you sure people are "freaking out" rather than harshly criticizing? Also, are you sure it's the same people who say the lists are terrible and then try to use them as evidence? I'm asking because it seems to me like you're lumping a lot of valid criticism in with over-the-top criticism.

I've defined the freaking out a few times here, and yeah that is happening all over HF, reddit, athletic comments section, and twitter. And yeah people who have used Pronman's or other evaluations in the past throw out hyperbole here. The last two lists released by Wheeler and Pronman have both had this reaction.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Honestly I didn't even look at any Avs ranking when I saw his list and still haven't even now.

The one exception being Makar.


My issues with the list stem entirely from players not even related to Colorado. Svechnikov below Tkachuk is a travesty.

Heiskanen, Hughes, and Cale are all too low but my real issue here is Heiskanen. He should be above both Makar and Hughes right now.



My true issue with the list doesn't even necessarily have to do with any specific rankings to be honest. My problem is that Pronman suggests at the beginning that the rankings are all about the future and the projections of these players, not about whi they are as players right now. Which is great, thats how it should be. And that's how the list starts I think with Dahlin right at #2.

But if it's about projecting upside and forecasting the future, how on Earth does Tkachuk land at 5? Ahead of a potential 50 goal scorer in Laine, ahead of potentially the best winger in the game soon in Svechnikov?

How is Robert Thomas ranked at 20? How is McAvoy at #24. Considering McAvoy is already a legit Top pairing and bordering on #1D.

It's just completely all over the place.


I also prefaced my criticism by saying I dont like Pronman or his evaluating to begin with, but some of these just seem completely indefensible and they have nothing to do with a Colorado bias.


I get that every scout and every talent evaluator in the world will see things differently, but I think Pronman has taken a major step back in his evaluating abilities since joining the Athletic. I really don't put any stock in his rankings anymore.


I actually consider Button one of the better guys in the business. His lists always look wildly different then the consensus but more often then not the guy he is really high on that the consensus isn't, usually those guys wind up with pretty good evaluations from Craig in the long run.

 

[MarkT]

I've defined the freaking out a few times here, and yeah that is happening all over HF, reddit, athletic comments section, and twitter. And yeah people who have used Pronman's or other evaluations in the past throw out hyperbole here. The last two lists released by Wheeler and Pronman have both had this reaction.

Well, a certain percent of people are going to immature or stupid. Expecting those people to not exist is pretty similar to this:

 

[henchman21]

Well, a certain percent of people are going to immature or stupid. Expecting those people to not exist is pretty similar to this:

I mean... people still do try to kill windmills!