creating a "grading scale" for bruins top prospects

[Montecristo]

Well since the last few weeks (months) have been a dead zone for hockey I started thinking about how baseball prospects are assigned grades for the 5 major tools that make up a player (hit tool, power, speed, defense, arm) 20-80. I was thinking that those grades when researching baseball prospects makes it a lot more insightful when trying to see how a player will fare in the big leagues. Now it isn't just fans who attributed the grades it is actually MLB scouts, and based on those grades a team will be interested or not interested in a player. I thought maybe the scales could be transferable to the NHL and assigning grades for 5 major attributes could help the casual fan ascertain whether or not he likes a certain prospect or not... For instance, if I as a fan only cared about speed a Michael grabner type prospect would be one I gravitated towards.

Hopefully I'm not repeating another posters idea if its been done before. Even more so I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it might be a fun time killer..

Anyways my 5 tools I think make an NHL player are

1. Shooting (an 80 would be stamkos..a 20 would be Jon Scott)
2. Passing (80, crosby.. 20, Jon Scott)
3. Skating (80 grabner..20 Jon Scott)
4. Stick handling (80 Patrick Kane.. 20 Jon Scott)
5. Physical play (80 lucic 20 Henrik sedin.. Includes "dropping the gloves"

A 50 grade would be considered average. When attributing grades each player should be compared to the best at what they do. So if you want to give a player like chara an "80" for skating because based on his size he is an awesome skater you can't do that. Sure for his size he is a great skater but comparing him to someone like grabner or Darren helm, is he the same? No.

For those who think hockey IQ should be in there I understand but to be honest how can you really grade an intangible like that? Thought it would be too difficult plus its not really a physical trait like the 5 above.

My opinion on some bs prospects, obviously I'm no scout but maybe if enough people offer some insight we could get a relatively accurate consensus.

Ryan Spooner

Shooting-45
Passing-65
Skating-70
Stick handling -60
Physical play-30

Alex khoklachev

Shooting-55
Skating-55
Passing-55
Stickhandling-55
Physical play-45

Anthony camara

Shooting-50
Skating-55
Passing-40
Stickhandling-45
Physical play-65

David pastrnak

Shooting-60
Skating-55
Passing-60
Stickhandling-65
Physical play-40

Linus arnesson

Shooting-35
Skating-55
Passing-55
Stickhandling-50
Physical play- 50

Jared knight

Shooting-60
Skating-55
Passing-40
Stickhandling-45
Physical play-55

Matt grzcelyk

Shooting-50
Skating-65
Passing-60
Stickhandling-55
Physical play-40

Click to read more...

 

[EverettMike]

What are you basing these numbers on? You have watched them? A lot?

These numbers are meaningless unless coming from a scout or at least a person that has watched these guys play a lot.

Edit: misread

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Also, why did you decide for the high/low 80/20? That seems pretty arbitrary.

 

[EverettMike]

Those are what baseball scouts use.

 

[Montecristo]

What are you basing these numbers on? You have watched them? A lot?

These numbers are meaningless unless coming from a scout or at least a person that has watched these guys play a lot.

Edit: misread

I've watched them all play before and read a lot of scouting reports on each guy but am in no way an expert. I was hoping if a lot of posters have seen them play and enough posted grades, we could pool the grades and form a more accurate representation of a players plus tools/below average tools and then compare them to nhlers with similar skill sets.

I'm not trying to be the authority and the period at the end of the sentence with this. My grades were thought out I guess and accurately represent my opinions but were supposed to be used more as a guide or jumping off point for others to chime in. I'll go as far as to say as my grades don't stand on their own. I just haven't seen enough of anyone. But if 30 people have seen a little it equates to a lot and the grades become more accurate when you look at the medians

 

[DominicT]

Appreciate the effort you put into this, but there really is more to it, and I would say the intangibles are measurable.

I would also add that if you are going to use reading scouting reports on them along with whatever amount you are able to watch, use the same criteria they use and you may get a similar opinion of a player (or not).

Here's a sample

http://centralscouting.nhl.com/link3/cs/content.nsf/0/C2B236BDEAF9A956852575D00063D719/$FILE/NHL%20Central%20Scouting%20-%20Forward%20Checklist.pdf

 

[DKH]

the rating system by people who haven't seen these guys is just ****ing hilarious.

I could care less if X was given a 9.9 and Y a 0.1.

If its Kirk or Dom who has access to evaluators or myself who has seen many of these guys live well over 30 times- and even the Grzelcyk's and Fitzgerald's I'll admit I have seen less than 10, especially Fitz, unless you count as a 9 year old in the lobby at the Garden.

I go by the eye ball test, reading stuff, others opinions and therein lies the key for me. I likely will see my bud today who has a kid in the NHL and coached many of the local kids like Kreider, the Bourques, many others including a handful just drafted; or rely on other people I know- when you hit 50 and you been going to multiple Bruins games since you were 5 and your folks and relatives had a strong Bruins and professional sports connection you get to know people.

Certainly doesn't make me correct- I missed badly on both Rico Fata and Daniel Tkachuk, but overall I think I like my pie chart mentality and fill in mentally what I see

8 slices

speed
strength
competitiveness
skating
shot
character
physicality
and the all important decision making

I don't need some rating system- I watch, I ask, I rely on experience

I not only cant even spell Cherdov's name without looking it up, I wouldn't know him if he asked me when I go to Market Basket today what aisle the maple syrup is in; so my view is really what Kirk thinks- how the heck would I know, I've never seen him, don't know anyone who has, and its easier to find a needle in a haystack than talk to someone who has seen him play.

I have zero clue- but some of these guys like Knight who this is what this thread at is easy

Knight

speed- above average
hitting/body checking/physicality- BR said best body checker in the league
shot- top three in OHL/ won shoot out/Don Sweeney said 'elite release'/Kyle Woodlief of RL said incredible
strength- 196 with 6 % body fat sounds ok to me
character- no one better- right Mark Hunter
decision-making- up until the Cassidy burying I watched him a dozen times easy between London and Providence and always made right play

that is what I go buy- and I ask and asked multiple teammates both present as in Providence, on other AHL teams (now) and Boston and they all back up my claim and say 'hosed' to be nice

make the list I enjoy these- beats guys like What the Puck telling me I'm a homer and he's so right that Eriksson is a third liner


commenting about Pastrnak is a challenge because even though I went to all 5 DC days and subscribe to Red Line and EB sent me the ISS 100 page scouting report on him and others, its guess work. I do like him and had him top 5 but I do the pie chart

and the biggest thing on any pie chart of attributes assuming the player can skate and is over 5'8" is decision-making and competitiveness; if they have that they usually earn a living in this game

what pisses me off, and I know its a message board, are the cheap shots at prospects people have rarely if ever seen. They are most likely trying to move a family member, a favorite player or someone along but they have to do it by ******** on some other freaking kid who may still be a teenager. **** them- and right to ignore.

 

[Danton Heineken]

Jared Knight - 80, 80, 80, 80, 80. Five-tool player.

 

[ODAAT]

Just win games when it counts, could care less about how pretty or fugly those wins are

 

[Fenian24]

Knight for Crosby, according to DKH's rating Pens should have to add more to make it happen. All those skills and one coach just can't see it and his career is on hold because of it. Cassidy would obviously have hindered Corey Perry's career as well.

 

[BNHL]

Appreciate the effort you put into this, but there really is more to it, and I would say the intangibles are measurable.

I would also add that if you are going to use reading scouting reports on them along with whatever amount you are able to watch, use the same criteria they use and you may get a similar opinion of a player (or not).

Here's a sample

http://centralscouting.nhl.com/link3/cs/content.nsf/0/C2B236BDEAF9A956852575D00063D719/$FILE/NHL%20Central%20Scouting%20-%20Forward%20Checklist.pdf

Nothing about size?

 

[member 96824]

Nothing about size?

IMO, it's probably smart to do it like that. Checklist looks to be based solely on playing ability and size creates an inherant bias.

Similar reason to why David Fischer would be drafted before Claude Giroux or more recently(if I had to put my money somewhere) Alex Tuch being drafted over Robby Fabbri.

Obviously size matters, but in evaluating a players ability to play the game of hockey skill wise, does being 6'3" matter all that much?

 

[LouJersey]

IMO, it's probably smart to do it like that. Checklist looks to be based solely on playing ability and size creates an inherant bias.

Similar reason to why David Fischer would be drafted before Claude Giroux or more recently(if I had to put my money somewhere) Alex Tuch being drafted over Robby Fabbri.

Obviously size matters, but in evaluating a players ability to play the game of hockey skill wise, does being 6'3" matter all that much?

That's what she said...

I agree with this... Exhibit A.. Mike McCarron

 

[BNHL]

I heard Chiarelli say he prefers size when drafting and he said girth,not height,his words.Whether the choices reflect that,not always.

 

[BNHL]

I was mistaken,this is what he said;"Peter Chiarelli said that the Bruins tend to target heavier players when it came to the draft, finding that a prospects weight had a better correlation to NHL success than height, referencing the advantage for players with a lower centre of gravity."

 

[DominicT]

Nothing about size?

Page 2 - Physical play

 

[Beesfan]

Nice idea, poor execution. For example, Anthony Camara and David Pasternak are not equivalent skaters, not even close. If you are really intending to evaluate these prospects on an NHL scale (i.e. against Crosby, Stamkos), then most these numbers need to come way down. Otherwise a team with Knight, Camara , Arnesson, etc., would be an above-average NHL team, and that just isn't happening.

 

[BNHL]

Page 2 - Physical play

Dom-I saw that but I think it more referenced the way they used whatever size they had.

 

[Montecristo]

Appreciate the effort you put into this, but there really is more to it, and I would say the intangibles are measurable.

I would also add that if you are going to use reading scouting reports on them along with whatever amount you are able to watch, use the same criteria they use and you may get a similar opinion of a player (or not).

Here's a sample

http://centralscouting.nhl.com/link3/cs/content.nsf/0/C2B236BDEAF9A956852575D00063D719/$FILE/NHL%20Central%20Scouting%20-%20Forward%20Checklist.pdf

I think that list is great it really doesn't leave a single think out and for a team scout having a formula like that to narrow down a player so specifically must really help in player evaluation.

Unfortunately it seems a little too particular, a little too advanced for the amateur scout. And by amateur scout I mean an amateur at scouting. Outside of a very small percentage of posters here that criteria seems a bit too particular. I was trying to offer up a dumbed down version of scouting where we the fans and casual observers could actually comprehend the very basics of what makes a good player and give an evaluation. I know that a player like Tyler Seguin is a great skater. But I can't tell accurately tell you his 1-10 grade on 10 different types of skating...so I just lump it all together.

Sure you can try to quantify hockey sense and intangibles but aren't those qualities all part of the mental aspect of the game? Im not trying to down play them they are hugely important but they dont fit the other 5 basic criteria which are physical traits not mental ones.

Also on that criteria list..where are these lists filled out top to bottom on all the top prospects in the game? The template is great but without any scouts in the media releasing there own filled out list we as fans can't research them the way in MLB media you can find website after website where networks hire scouts to compile top prospects lists with the 20-80 scale actually in place for each major category! Every top prospects list in hockey I see is just the players names the stats and why that author thinks they slot at 1, 2, 15 etc. It seems very arbitrary to me. So this guy is good because I just have to trust the author telling me he's good. Well what is he good at? What grade does he get when stacking his qualities up against the best. Hes an A shooter? So he's stamkos then.... I just want to see scouting done on a curve not an eyeball test. Dont tell me he's got a tremendous shot and leave it that. What's tremondous? Bergeron? Iginla? Well if bergeron is a 50 and iginlas is a 60 then ths tremondous shot could either be average or plus. End rant

 

[Montecristo]

Nice idea, poor execution. For example, Anthony Camara and David Pasternak are not equivalent skaters, not even close. If you are really intending to evaluate these prospects on an NHL scale (i.e. against Crosby, Stamkos), then most these numbers need to come way down. Otherwise a team with Knight, Camara , Arnesson, etc., would be an above-average NHL team, and that just isn't happening.

Exactly! This is the post I've been waiting for. I know my grades are wrong, of course they are. I think camara is a very underrated skater and in the wjc felt pastrnak seemee to be an overrated one. So I grades them the same. And you think im wrong and say no camara is a 35 skater pastrnak is 65 or whatever you say. Then poster c comes along with his big ideas and on and on it goes until the sample is large enough to take the median grade from every metric and apply them to the prospects.

In hindsight I probably do have to bring the grades down across the board but to scale. Again it was meant more of a jumping off point I didn't really throw my grades out there puffing my chest. I wanted discussion criticism and debate.

 

[reffree]

Anyways my 5 tools I think make an NHL player are

1. Shooting (an 80 would be stamkos..a 20 would be Jon Scott)
2. Passing (80, crosby.. 20, Jon Scott)
3. Skating (80 grabner..20 Jon Scott)
4. Stick handling (80 Patrick Kane.. 20 Jon Scott)
5. Physical play (80 lucic 20 Henrik sedin.. Includes "dropping the gloves"


Ryan Spooner

Physical play-30

You think Spooner is more effective physically than Sedin? You're in for a big disapointement ...