Hockey Prospectus Top 100 Prospects

[Manny*]

Not impressed.

 

[TSA0402]

I'm usually not too critical of review rankings, but these were outright terrible.

 

[Corey Pronman]

Hey, I find your approach refreshing. Just wondering when you break up the skills for ranking if there is a weighted system as to which skills will represent more points at the next level. For a defensmen, for instance, I look for first pass and edgework opposed to a shot and straight away speed.

You're in the right direction. Evaluating possession for forwards and defenders have their notable differences, although the major things stay the same. Forwards is more puck control whereas dmen is puck-movement. Forwards influence possession more with speed than defenders and defenders with physical game more than forwards.

I'd say for forwards hockey sense and puck skills are the top ones, skating is the next important. For defenders it's hockey sense and puck-moving skills with physical game after that. It's not perfectly black and white, but if I had to do my best to put it in a nutshell that would be the top tools I believe for each position.

I like different lists, thanks for putting this out there. I think ALOT of people here need to readup on what corsi rating is. Too many people here point stat stare and dont take in many other statistics.

I tried to say "possession skills" for those without the advanced stats knowledge too. Corsi by itself too isn't a perfect indicator of possession as it needs to be adjusted for context, but the point was that on a team basis possession skills drives results more than anything else and that's what I look for in a player.

 

[bishop12]

10. Andrei Loktionov, Center, Los Angeles Kings ??????? lol that sums up this stupid list.

 

[Bookman]

Hell hath no fury like an HF Boards member who's prospect is ranked too low.

 

[vippe]

For the Predators I really don't see how Ekholm(24) is ahead of both Ellis(49) and Josi(54)

He's definately ahead of Josi but I think Ellis is too low ranked. I could certainly see him ahead of Ekholm but Ekholm is a stud so having him ahead isnt awful by any means

 

[AwesomePanthers]

"64. Erik Gudbranson, Defense, Florida Panthers"

Enough said.

Strome and Couturier over Memorial Cup MVP Huberdeau. As much as I like the both of them, that is pretty weird.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Reilly Smith is most certainly not the top Dallas prospect. Hockey Prospectus have very strange lists. I really don't agree with them.

 

[Corey Pronman]

Hell hath no fury like an HF Boards member who's prospect is ranked too low.

I don't have much of a problem with it. It's not like I wrote this list and though "Everyone will have zero problems with this."

At the end of the day over the last few months I've wrote detailed reports on over 300 prospects available at the site based on my personal views and the countless conversations I've had with industry sources. My thoughts on all the top 100 prospects are detailed in those articles, and my ranking process in this one all of which I'm willing to elaborate on.

Despite I guess some of the controversial rankings to this so called "consensus" I went against, there is researched, informative merit to all those decisions. If you want to debate it, I'm fully willing.

 

[Duke749]

Scheifele outside top 107? Really?

It HAS to be a mistake. Right?

 

[Paranoid Android]

I really like when an author goes against the grain and comes up with his own list rather than just going with the status quo. People fall for hype and groupthink on this board way too easily.

I can't speak for other teams, but I like everything he said about Nashville.

 

[rynryn]

Hell hath no fury like an HF Boards member who's prospect is ranked too low.

as evidenced by all the Wild crying about our prospects HF rankings.


edit: don't mind the list. honestly really impressed by the dedication anyone shows to compile a list according to arcane formulae whether I agree or not. As long as Granlund is in the top 5 on a list I'm satisfied. For my bit of whining, I don't think it's very likely Scandella will be better than Brodin. Especially if this ranking weighs puck possession so heavy.

 

[dacostalove]

If you are going to argue why a player is bad try going beyond the stat line... tell me why... what you see in his game that is a problem.

The stat line is a post really saying nothing.

you used to be the king of the stat line

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

I don't have much of a problem with it. It's not like I wrote this list and though "Everyone will have zero problems with this."

At the end of the day over the last few months I've wrote detailed reports on over 300 prospects available at the site based on my personal views and the countless conversations I've had with industry sources. My thoughts on all the top 100 prospects are detailed in those articles, and my ranking process in this one all of which I'm willing to elaborate on.

Despite I guess some of the controversial rankings to this so called "consensus" I went against, there is researched, informative merit to all those decisions. If you want to debate it, I'm fully willing.

I certainly don't agree with a fair share of your rankings (Kabanov a prime example), but one must say that your rankings are thought provoking, well reasoned in context and are generally welcomed. Clearly you have a very defined take on prospect analysis and are willing to back it up with some detailed thought processes. I can't fault you for that and some of the criticism in this thread is very unjustified.

Some of the rankings are clearly quite different to the general semi-educated concensus, but that isn't a bad thing. In Ten years time, this list will contain some rankings of players which many in this thread "think" are absurd that come to fruition and were perfecrly justified, whilst others will not pan out. Just a shame that the majority of this board is too quick to condemn and lacks the cognitive ability to understand that the concensus now will not equate to reality in any remote form ten years from now.

 

[Green Snow Storm]

This list seems fairly off. Only a matter of opinion I guess, but still wow some of those rankings.

 

[Freudian]

Just a shame that the majority of this board is too quick to condemn and lacks the cognitive ability to understand that the concensus now will not equate to reality in any remote form ten years from now.

There are people believing all kinds of things and they can spend an awful amount of time trying to convince others they are correct (google 9/11). If the premise is flawed, the end result is flawed no matter how much work you put into it.

Take a minute and think about how the main contributors of this years Stanley Cup winning team would have been viewed using the method HP use and the problems of leaning on individual puck skills when grading prospects to this extreme extent.

While the work put into it is admirable the whole thing is based on a flawed model of how you win hockey games. It basically assumes the Red Wings way of playing hockey is by far the most effective one.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

There are people believing all kinds of things and they can spend an awful amount of time trying to convince others they are correct (google 9/11). If the premise is flawed, the end result is flawed no matter how much work you put into it.

Take a minute and think about how the main contributors of this years Stanley Cup winning team would have been viewed using the method HP use and the problems of leaning on individual puck skills when grading prospects to this extreme extent.

While the work put into it is admirable the whole thing is based on a flawed model of how you win hockey games. It basically assumes the Red Wings way of playing hockey is by far the most effective one.

Boston had the best goaltender in the playoffs, in terms of puck possession and overall control of the game, they were average. They outplayed Montreal and Philadelphia but then were crushed by Tampa Bay and Vancouver. Like always Detroit had the best puck possession but lost due to puck luck.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Man, could this list be any more biased to the Islanders and against the Rangers?

This set of rankings looks like it was made almost for the sole purpose of generating discussion and talk (either about the site, the rankings, the author, etc.). I had to click on the link just to see what "scout" would rank Kabanov 14th. Controversy (no matter how silly) will generate hits.

Well done, in that regard. Well done. You got your attention.

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Despite I guess some of the controversial rankings to this so called "consensus" I went against, there is researched, informative merit to all those decisions. If you want to debate it, I'm fully willing.

How long have you been doing these lists? Do you have any old ones that can be compared with reality?

 

[Felix Unger]

Man, could this list be any more biased to the Islanders and against the Rangers?

You're just wrong about this. I've been following CP for a while. If you've read any of CP's pre-draft rankings, you'll realize that he rated Isles prospects very highly before they were drafted. So this is much more of a reflection of the fact that CP likes what the Isles have done than being Isles-biased.

If you like, criticize CP for loving Kabanov, which he has done consistently since the draft. He thought teams were fools for passing on him. Lots of people disagree, many of them Isles fans. But bias has nothing to do with it.

CP also loved Strome before the draft. He also loved de Haan, and Mayfield.

Cheers,

Dan-o

 

[Minister of Offence]

Love it when everyone loses their minds over Pronman's rankings.

At least he doesn't sit there and make his prospect lists with past draft results in his hand, like every other list. You guys act like a top 5 pick has never been surpassed by a 3-6 rounder.

 

[Corey Pronman]

I certainly don't agree with a fair share of your rankings (Kabanov a prime example), but one must say that your rankings are thought provoking, well reasoned in context and are generally welcomed. Clearly you have a very defined take on prospect analysis and are willing to back it up with some detailed thought processes. I can't fault you for that and some of the criticism in this thread is very unjustified.

Some of the rankings are clearly quite different to the general semi-educated concensus, but that isn't a bad thing. In Ten years time, this list will contain some rankings of players which many in this thread "think" are absurd that come to fruition and were perfecrly justified, whilst others will not pan out. Just a shame that the majority of this board is too quick to condemn and lacks the cognitive ability to understand that the concensus now will not equate to reality in any remote form ten years from now.

I have no problem with people "condeming" me as long as they back it up with reasons. The information used for the reports was based on this year viewings plus scouting information gathered from many industry sources and that information is supplied in my recent Top 10 Prospects series. The ranking process was a scientific one based on convincing studies. My reasons are laid out from my reports I've put on the site over the last two months and the researches I've cited. If people want to argue that's fine, but they better dispute one of those two things with evidence.

There are people believing all kinds of things and they can spend an awful amount of time trying to convince others they are correct (google 9/11). If the premise is flawed, the end result is flawed no matter how much work you put into it.

Take a minute and think about how the main contributors of this years Stanley Cup winning team would have been viewed using the method HP use and the problems of leaning on individual puck skills when grading prospects to this extreme extent.

While the work put into it is admirable the whole thing is based on a flawed model of how you win hockey games. It basically assumes the Red Wings way of playing hockey is by far the most effective one.

Here's the article showing Corsi is tied to possession

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2008/08/zone-time.html

and here's two showing Corsi/outshooting/possession is heavily tied to winning

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/05/possession-is-everything.html

http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/2011/01/even-strength-outshooting-and-team.html

That's my evidence. Your move.

Boston had the best goaltender in the playoffs, in terms of puck possession and overall control of the game, they were average. They outplayed Montreal and Philadelphia but then were crushed by Tampa Bay and Vancouver. Like always Detroit had the best puck possession but lost due to puck luck.

That's more or less it. Great teams will lose. Even if you dominate possession, you'll lose games a lot as 38% of games are won/lost due to random chance

http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/11/22/1826590/luck-in-the-nhl-standings

The playoffs are a bit of a crapshoot and not a great indicator of who was truly the best team based on raw results. Boston was a bit weird because they truly had a superhuman goalie that could overcome average possession, but most of the time great goaltending in the playoffs is more luck than team-building skills.

Man, could this list be any more biased to the Islanders and against the Rangers?

Ya, Erixon should have been 5th instead of 11th you're right.

This set of rankings looks like it was made almost for the sole purpose of generating discussion and talk (either about the site, the rankings, the author, etc.). I had to click on the link just to see what "scout" would rank Kabanov 14th. Controversy (no matter how silly) will generate hits.

Well done, in that regard. Well done. You got your attention.

Or you could have just read this part,

"If you have a question about why a certain prospect is ranked where, please review my scouting report of the respective player from their respective team's column from the Top 10 Prospects series as it should answer a fair number of questions I anticipate regarding the rankings of Kirill Kabanov, David Savard, Gustav Nyquist, and Mattias Ekholm, amongst others."

Clicked the link there, scrolled to the Islanders column, and read the detailed explanation for Kabanov.

 

[Corey Pronman]

How long have you been doing these lists? Do you have any old ones that can be compared with reality?

No I don't. This was my first Top 100 that had this type of information in regards to viewing each prospect at least once this year (most by video) and talking to many industry sources who saw them a lot in person and relayed a ton of information to me.

I've done prospect rankings before, but they were experimental/stats-based. This was a ranking that I had thousands of lines of notes on from viewings and talking to sources throughout the year, complemented with quality market studies for the ranking portion and was heavily scouting-based.

I have no history to fall back on, but I do have in-depth reasoning and information for why I did what and can explain each and every ranking with high detail. If that isn't sufficient for some then c'est la vie.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

I'm curious as to why McNeill is ranked significantly above Baertschi, actually. McNeill was actually my first choice for the Flames at their draft position, but I did feel that they were almost dead even in terms of potential.

 

[Freudian]

Here's the article showing Corsi is tied to possession

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2008/08/zone-time.html

and here's two showing Corsi/outshooting/possession is heavily tied to winning

http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/05/possession-is-everything.html

http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/2011/01/even-strength-outshooting-and-team.html

That's my evidence. Your move.

I'm not arguing that puck possession is unimportant. I am arguing the amount of weight you put on it is so unproportional that your rankings aren't all that useful.

Furthermore you seem to greatly overestimate how small players with puck skills contribute to puck possession while underestimate how being physically imposing can contribute to it. Hence, all the small skill guys high on your list.

I'm assuming you haven't been a member of the Church of Corsi for long enough that your method can be evaluated against reality, so you have a grace period of a few years. May the Excel gods be with you.