Prospect Info: Capitals Top Prospects 2023 #5

[BackToTheBasics]

HFCapitals Top Prospects Poll 2023​

​	Name​	Position​	Shoots​	Height/Weight​	Draft​	Age​	Country​
1​	Ryan Leonard (28/50 votes - 56%)​	RW​	Right​	6'0" 192 lb​	2023 8th overall pk​	18​	United States​
2​	Ivan Miroshnichenko (42/47 votes - 89.4%)​	LW​	Right​	6'1" 185 lb​	2022 20th overall pk​	19​	Russia​
3​	Andrew Cristall (20/44 votes - 45.5%)​	LW​	Left​	5'10" 174 lb​	2023 40th overall pk​	18​	Canada​
4​	Vincent Iorio (18/38 votes - 47.4%)​	D​	Right​	6'4" 200 lb​	2021 55th overall pk​	20​	Canada​

Click to read more...

 

[twabby]

Eazy for Suzy

 

[Hivemind]

HHA's mom didn't vote in the last poll, so I stepped up to vote for him this time.

 

[Ridley Simon]

It was either Lapierre or HHA. Sudz is right behind them.

I went with Lappy

 

[Holtbyisms]

Lappy being underrated, Suzy being overrated. I went with Lappy. I expect a very good year from him in Hershey this coming year.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Lappy. He should have been 3rd

Came off a cup run in the 2nd best league in the world. And hes still very young. He just became old enough to buy a beer.

 

[twabby]

And hes still very young. He just became old enough to buy a beer.

21 is almost the beginning of the prime years of forwards (usually it's like 22-25). He'll be 22 this year and likely won't get much NHL time given who is sitting above him in the depth chart. Seems highly unlikely to me he really becomes anything at this point.

I'm not sold on Suzdalev becoming much either based on his production to date, but I think there is still a wider set of outcomes for him and that's why I have him #5. But certainly there isn't a lot of distance between Iorio/Suzdalev/Lapierre/Chesney and I think any order for them are reasonable. They're a clear second tier behind the top 3 and ahead of the third tier.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

21 is almost the beginning of the prime years of forwards (usually it's like 22-25). He'll be 22 this year and likely won't get much NHL time given who is sitting above him in the depth chart. Seems highly unlikely to me he really becomes anything at this point.

I'm not sold on Suzdalev becoming much either based on his production to date, but I think there is still a wider set of outcomes for him and that's why I have him #5. But certainly there isn't a lot of distance between Iorio/Suzdalev/Lapierre/Chesney and I think any order for them are reasonable. They're a clear second tier behind the top 3 and ahead of the third tier.

Mostly agree with those tiers. Tier 1 might just be 2 players in my rankings. After those 7 its a big drop off.
Also surprised to see Frank on the prospect list.

 

[Calicaps]

21 is almost the beginning of the prime years of forwards (usually it's like 22-25). He'll be 22 this year and likely won't get much NHL time given who is sitting above him in the depth chart. Seems highly unlikely to me he really becomes anything at this point.

I'm not sold on Suzdalev becoming much either based on his production to date, but I think there is still a wider set of outcomes for him and that's why I have him #5. But certainly there isn't a lot of distance between Iorio/Suzdalev/Lapierre/Chesney and I think any order for them are reasonable. They're a clear second tier behind the top 3 and ahead of the third tier.

This is true as a broad statement, but it's also important to remember that the kids coming in today lost significant development time because of the pandemic. How these developmental losses and delays manifest (not just in sports but in all facets of life) are only beginning to be evident and will be different for different kids (because they're people not statistical models). Add in Lappy's neck issues and he may be a bit behind his prior curve. That doesn't mean he doesn't still have the same ceiling, only that he may be on a delayed trajectory for getting there.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

It’s also hard to say that these prospects should be at peek at age 21. College graduates don’t even get to the NHL till age 22 or 23 and plenty of them have turned into All-Stars..

 

[twabby]

It’s also hard to say that these prospects should be at peek at age 21. College graduates don’t even get to the NHL till age 22 or 23 and plenty of them have turned into All-Stars..

Sure but college prospects typically step into the NHL much quicker because they are in their prime once they graduate (or forego their final year). Nate Schmidt for instance played significant NHL minutes in his first year out of college and didn't look out of place. He ended up carving out a good NHL career despite really never becoming more than he was in 2014-2016. College players who don't immediately provide some sort of impact are typically out of the league sooner rather than later because the opportunity for growth is pretty much over. Chase Priskie and Shane Gersich are examples of this.

Lapierre (and McMichael) are at the critical points in their careers. If neither really show much next year then they likely aren't going to be anything in the NHL. Maybe they are really late bloomers but the odds are better that a guy like Suzdalev sees improvement to become an NHLer. 19-21 is really where the growth typically happens and that uncertainty combined with his decent enough production gives him the edge right now for #5.

 

[YippieKaey]

HHA's mom didn't vote in the last poll, so I stepped up to vote for him this time.

I missed the vote but im here now dear. Come over and i'll bake you some cake

 

[um]

Sure but college prospects typically step into the NHL much quicker because they are in their prime once they graduate (or forego their final year). Nate Schmidt for instance played significant NHL minutes in his first year out of college and didn't look out of place. He ended up carving out a good NHL career despite really never becoming more than he was in 2014-2016. College players who don't immediately provide some sort of impact are typically out of the league sooner rather than later because the opportunity for growth is pretty much over. Chase Priskie and Shane Gersich are examples of this.

Lapierre (and McMichael) are at the critical points in their careers. If neither really show much next year then they likely aren't going to be anything in the NHL. Maybe they are really late bloomers but the odds are better that a guy like Suzdalev sees improvement to become an NHLer. 19-21 is really where the growth typically happens and that uncertainty combined with his decent enough production gives him the edge right now for #5.

This is one of your most bizarre takes. His prime was right before he got caught juicing.

 

[HTFN]

Sure but college prospects typically step into the NHL much quicker because they are in their prime once they graduate (or forego their final year). Nate Schmidt for instance played significant NHL minutes in his first year out of college and didn't look out of place. He ended up carving out a good NHL career despite really never becoming more than he was in 2014-2016. College players who don't immediately provide some sort of impact are typically out of the league sooner rather than later because the opportunity for growth is pretty much over. Chase Priskie and Shane Gersich are examples of this.

Lapierre (and McMichael) are at the critical points in their careers. If neither really show much next year then they likely aren't going to be anything in the NHL. Maybe they are really late bloomers but the odds are better that a guy like Suzdalev sees improvement to become an NHLer. 19-21 is really where the growth typically happens and that uncertainty combined with his decent enough production gives him the edge right now for #5.

Your insistence on being wrong about this is just crazy. So many people defy this take regularly, for so many reasons... it's an average.

You're like a doctor with the world's worst bedside manner (see: human element) because it's just statistically more likely your patient will die. Might as well give up treatment and make peace with it, anecdotes are just anecdotes after all.

It really says so much more about your inability to put the pieces together than you realize.

 

[twabby]

Your insistence on being wrong about this is just crazy. So many people defy this take regularly, for so many reasons... it's an average.

You're like a doctor with the world's worst bedside manner (see: human element) because it's just statistically more likely your patient will die. Might as well give up treatment and make peace with it, anecdotes are just anecdotes after all.

It really says so much more about your inability to put the pieces together than you realize.

Well I might as well just buy that Powerball ticket now. Sure, I might only have a 1 in 500 million shot of winning on average, but that’s just an average. You can’t say anything about the ticket I just bought!

 

[HTFN]

Well I might as well just buy that Powerball ticket now. Sure, I might only have a 1 in 500 million shot of winning on average, but that’s just an average. You can’t say anything about the ticket I just bought!

The fact that this is where you thought you had to go just seals it.

 

[twabby]

The fact that this is where you thought you had to go just seals it.

It’s odd that this is the line of argument you continuing to pursue and the hill you’re dying on.

The idea that you can’t make inferences about individuals based on the characteristics of a population they belong to is certainly bold, I’ll give you that!

 

[HTFN]

It’s odd that this is the line of argument you continuing to pursue and the hill you’re dying on.

The idea that you can’t make inferences about individuals based on the characteristics of a population they belong to is certainly bold, I’ll give you that!

Please, we've been over this countless times. I like analytics. I think they're phenomenally useful tools after you've evaluated the individual.

What I have a problem with is your cut and paste, "it always works this way" methodology. Plenty of others do too. There are some banging posts in the last week or so that told you exactly what the problem is and you've never paid them any attention, or just have no real answer, so you wait a few days and then double down on the exact same crap somewhere else.

Then you want to compare developing draft picks to winning the f***ing Powerball, and you think that's a win for you. Well, if Kucherov is the powerball, there are a shitload of other winning lottery tickets. You don't have to hit the absolute jackpot for you to still be wrong about the way things work, and you have been so much more often than you care to admit that it's getting embarrassing.

These are reflective stats, not predictive ones, and you need to be able to hold them against individuals and judge where you think things will go based on the individual or you have no place giving feedback in the game, period. For as long as sports are played by humans that will always be true.

 

[Ridley Simon]

So…… on to Prospect #6?

 

[twabby]

Please, we've been over this countless times. I like analytics. I think they're phenomenally useful tools after you've evaluated the individual.

What I have a problem with is your cut and paste, "it always works this way" methodology. Plenty of others do too. There are some banging posts in the last week or so that told you exactly what the problem is and you've never paid them any attention, or just have no real answer, so you wait a few days and then double down on the exact same crap somewhere else.

Then you want to compare developing draft picks to winning the f***ing Powerball, and you think that's a win for you. Well, if Kucherov is the powerball, there are a shitload of other winning lottery tickets. You don't have to hit the absolute jackpot for you to still be wrong about the way things work, and you have been so much more often than you care to admit that it's getting embarrassing.

These are reflective stats, not predictive ones, and you need to be able to hold them against individuals and judge where you think things will go based on the individual or you have no place giving feedback in the game, period. For as long as sports are played by humans that will always be true.

I don’t think you’re accurately characterizing my position. You claim that I have a cut and paste “things always work out this way” position, yet in this very thread I was careful to qualify my statements. For example:

21 is almost the beginning of the prime years of forwards (usually it's like 22-25). He'll be 22 this year and likely won't get much NHL time given who is sitting above him in the depth chart. Seems highly unlikely to me he really becomes anything at this point.

I'm not sold on Suzdalev becoming much either based on his production to date, but I think there is still a wider set of outcomes for him and that's why I have him #5. But certainly there isn't a lot of distance between Iorio/Suzdalev/Lapierre/Chesney and I think any order for them are reasonable. They're a clear second tier behind the top 3 and ahead of the third tier.

Sure but college prospects typically step into the NHL much quicker because they are in their prime once they graduate (or forego their final year). Nate Schmidt for instance played significant NHL minutes in his first year out of college and didn't look out of place. He ended up carving out a good NHL career despite really never becoming more than he was in 2014-2016. College players who don't immediately provide some sort of impact are typically out of the league sooner rather than later because the opportunity for growth is pretty much over. Chase Priskie and Shane Gersich are examples of this.

Lapierre (and McMichael) are at the critical points in their careers. If neither really show much next year then they likely aren't going to be anything in the NHL. Maybe they are really late bloomers but the odds are better that a guy like Suzdalev sees improvement to become an NHLer. 19-21 is really where the growth typically happens and that uncertainty combined with his decent enough production gives him the edge right now for #5.

I’ve bolded qualifying statements that indicate uncertainty in outcomes.

Help me out here. I’m willing to meet arguments halfway or even all the way if they are grounded in reality. I’m flexible and can admit when I’m wrong. See the Jack Eichel discussion and my initial vs. current evaluation of Brooks Orpik.

But I can’t really continue this discussion with you when we can’t agree on a shared reality such as the validity of well established hard sciences such as statistics/probability, or even the definition of simple words such as “always”.