Hockey Prospectus Top 100 Prospects

[Corey Pronman]

Fair enough. I couldn't find your prospect analyzes, but here is my question.

1. I think every Panthers prospect is too low (and that's not because I'm a fan). It's not just the Florida prospects I disagree with, but if 'd go through the hole list I could probably write a book about it. I appreciate your work, but I think you were very harsh on the Panthers prospects.

- Jonathan Huberdeau: maybe #7 isn't bad, but both Strome and Couturier over the Memorial Cup MVP. What's your reasoning? It's not his ranking that is the problem imo, but more those two players over him. And don't get me wrong, I was super high on both of them before the draft, and still is.

Back during my draft work, I ranked Coot, Strome and Huber 2-3-4 respectively and during those pieces I gave explanations for each of my first 20 prospect rankings. For those 3, here are those explanations.

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=977

I thought they were very close. If you said, "Huberdeau should be 5th on that list!" I would answer with "Ya sure I can see that." I should note though, for a whole other debate, I don't see Memorial Cup MVP as any sort of pro argument for Huberdeau. Short sample performance even in high leverage situations isn't really indicative of anything.

- Erik Gudbranson: My biggest concern about your list. Last years 3rd overall pick, and scored the most goals by any Canadian defenseman in the WJC. He developed his offensive game this year, but scoring over twice as many goals as he did the two previous season (and he played only 44 games). How could he drop that much? I'm actually shocked, even if he had a terrible season he would still easily be in the top30. Biggest "mistake" in your ranking imo.

He didn't really "drop". Going into the draft in the scouting industry there were two camps on Gud. Some saw him as a top 3-5 pick which is where he went, but others which were a minority although a significant minority --including myself, saw him as a top 10-15 player in the draft. I still do, and his ranking reflects that. His physical game is elite, ridiculous skater for his size and he's a tremendous athlete. However my concerns lie in the other more critical aspects of his game. His offensive upside is fine, not poor although there's not a ton of puck-moving skills there. His hockey sense is the area I have the most concerns with.

I did quite a bit of research on Gud before going ahead with that ranking and called many pro scouts who saw him this year and the consensus was that despite his increase in numbers, his overall play was underwhelming in the OHL in regards to his decision-making etc. I don't think looking at WJC scoring is indicative of anything again because of small sample, and the numbers increase in the O was nice over 44 games, but the sample or scoring rates would need to increase to really be a significant factor especially since I look at production as a secondary element.

I think he has the raw abilities to be a first pairing defender, but I'm skeptical he becomes one. I know the Panthers think he'll be on the club this year, but I think if he does it may not be a pretty Freshman campaign and quite a few OHL scouts I've talked to have also been skeptical about if he can make the jump right now. Right now I'd say he becomes a fine second pairing defender, and my ranking reflects that.

- Nick Bjugstad at #82, he had mono so his production didn't start well, but he finished really strong. He has a sick upside, but wasn't drafted as high because he was a project at the time. He possesses so much skill and his size makes him a dominating player on the ice. Also here I wonder how the 2011 18th overall pick can be so low.

- Drew Shore: Amazing year, a steal from the 2010 draft imo. Did you see his sick goal in the WJC, he has it all. He could have made the team this year. Ranked 80th on your list.

Bjugstad: There's still some risk in his projection. I agree on the upside, and I could see this time next year he become a top 50 prospect if not higher if he improves on some subtle aspects of his game and has a huge second season in Minny. I don't think that was a controversial ranking at all TBH. There's upside, but the risk devalues it a fair bit and the upside I don't think is crazy high but more of a really good 2nd line center.

Shore: Funny you say that. Before I sent this list to our editor, I threw it around to plenty of friends in the scouting industry for final critiques and Shore was one of the prospects a lot of US based guys told me to put lower or get off. Compared to scouts I've talked to, I find myself quite high on him. Very well-rounded prospect whose really found a way to grow into his offensive tools.

- I don't see any Quinton Howden who scored 40 goals for MJ, and also played well for team Canada at the WJC. And also Alex Petrovic, who had a monster year in Red Deer. Mike Santos (Cats assistant GM) said Petrovic had the same chance to make the NHL this year as Gudbranson. Why aren't they there?

- When I see Grimaldi at 36, which is very talented, but yet small, the rankings surprise me even more. I'd have Bjugstad, Howden, Petrovic and Shore over him at this point. So Bjugstad, Shore and Gudbranson are all WAY to low, Grimaldi maybe a bit too high, and Petrovic and Howden should definitely make the list.

Howden: Not a huge fan, but I did have him ranked as Florida's #6 prospect behind Bjugstad. The skating is very good, especially considering his size. He's got a fine frame, and solid hands but asides from the skating, there's not a lot to his game that shows a player who can be above-average in the possession game. He's certainly got a good shot, but shot tools don't translate well to the NHL outside of the elite few since goal-scoring from a shooting ability in the NHL is only about 11.5% true talent.

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/5/28/1490918/more-on-goal-scoring-and-true

To me he's a really good 3rd line player and that's not a top 100 prospect.

Grimaldi: Been high on him for a long while. Had him #10 during the draft. Here's my report on him and why he was so high

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=975

Petrovic: I don't think Petrovic is a top 100 talent, but scouts I talked to in the WHL were certainly quite impressed with his development especially in his hockey sense and he's a top 10 prospect in a pretty deep system. Very good physical game, plays well in his own end, ok-fine hands for a big man but not that much upside despite his numbers this year and lackluster mobility. Probably a good third pairing guy with his skill set, #4 in a perfect world. I wouldn't have him in the league this year, but not my call obviously.

2. And for the organization rankings? Detroit #1? That's a major mystery for me. Yeah, I agree they got some steals in Pulkinen and Tatar, but still they aren't even close to be #1. And Florida with three bluechipers and probably the deepest prospect-pool after Dale Tallon had 21 draftpicks the two last years.

I really have a hard time seeing these rankings as "objective" without some sort of base here. Your love for Red Wings is pretty clear imo. Yes, I'm a Florida fan, but still trying to be critical to my own team. But there is no way Florida isn't #1 (or maybe #2 behind Ottawa). I really would like a good explanation how you can rank Florida 9th with prospects like: Markström, Gudbranson, Huberdeau, Bjugstad, Howden, Grimaldi, McFarland, Petrovic, Brittain, Bengtsson, Trocheck, Shore, Donskoi+++. Deepest pool, and most bluechippers, but still just 9th on your list.

A good answer would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Detroit:

Instead of going through each prospect, here is my system overview of the Wings top 10 prospects

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1024

That is based on my own viewings and talking to industry sources on those prospects. Tell me what part of those reports are incorrect and why because that information on those prospects is why I have Detroit so high.

I think Florida is a very strong system. Not having another top 50 name or two kept them out of my top 5. Also in the mainstream Markstrom gives that system a lot of value but I don't think goalie prospects are that significant value-wise, explained here with links to other good studies on the topic:

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=216

FYI it wasn't shown in that column but will be in our annual, I think Joonas Donskoi is gigantic sleeper in that system and if he develops like I think he can, he may even be on my top 100 next year.

I hope that was a sufficient explanation, and if you would like to continue debating fire away.

 

[Roo Mad Bro]

Mr. Pronman-

Can you tell me your thoughts on Sean Couturier? A lot of Flyers fans (including myself) are very happy to have him in the organization.

Thanks.

 

[PsychoDad]

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.

so Boston got crushed by Vancouver but won through the best goaltender. Thats why they outscored Canucks 23:8, while getting shut out twice.

sometimes I really do wonder what part of their bodies people use for thinking.

 

[Rhaego]

Siemens isn't on the list either

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

so Boston got crushed by Vancouver but won through the best goaltender. Thats why they outscored Canucks 23:8, while getting shut out twice.

sometimes I really do wonder what part of their bodies people use for thinking.

In terms of CORSI, sometimes I wonder if people on here learned to read and follow conversations.

 

[Meatwagon]

Brutal list, it lost me once jaden Schwartz was placed at 29? There are a multitude of mistakes but that (&Kabanov) was the worst

 

[Pietraneglo222]

Brutal list, it lost me once jaden Schwartz was placed at 29? There are a multitude of mistakes but that (&Kabanov) was the worst

It's a mistake according to what principle? People keep polluting this thread with incoherent criticism.

 

[YARR123]

It's a mistake according to what principle? People keep polluting this thread with incoherent criticism.

Yeah even though theres alot of posts either Mr. pronman explaining or people discussing and every 10 posts or a "Pejorative Slured list" or "lol i laughed so hard" or "my fav prospects in not on the list boohoo"

These lists that are done according to a certain system, and are done by some sort of hockey authority often tend to differ alot from the consensus (ex. Button's rankings). And whenever that happens it's an uproar in HF, which kinda sucks.

 

[Jonathan17]

Scheifele outside top 107? Really?

Yeah, I think Scheifele has a chance to be the best player out of this year's draft so that is a terrible omission.

The Bruins rankings are totally out of whack. Ryan Spooner is right now the Bruins top-performing prospect. Dougie Hamilton is their overall top prospect. Khokhlachev is all potential at this point, with some serious question marks in his game. Pretty bizarre.

 

[Benttheknee]

Where is Kadri? Filatov is on the list, is older, has played more NHL games made the list, so is Kadri missed by accident, not in the top 110, or didn't qualify for a reason?

 

[King In The North]

That was a horrible list

 

[Minister of Offence]

Brutal list, it lost me once jaden Schwartz was placed at 29? There are a multitude of mistakes but that (&Kabanov) was the worst

Clearly he thinks Kabanov is going to be a player. He hasn't made a mistake yet and I don't see how a guy named Meatwagon is supposed to decide whether he has or not yet.

 

[Corey Pronman]

Mr. Pronman-

Can you tell me your thoughts on Sean Couturier? A lot of Flyers fans (including myself) are very happy to have him in the organization.

Thanks.

Well I'm obviously very, very high on Couturier. I thought he was the 2nd best prospect this past draft. Here' a link to my report and reasoning for his high ranking at the draft.

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=977

Yeah even though theres alot of posts either Mr. pronman explaining or people discussing and every 10 posts or a "Pejorative Slured list" or "lol i laughed so hard" or "my fav prospects in not on the list boohoo"

These lists that are done according to a certain system, and are done by some sort of hockey authority often tend to differ alot from the consensus (ex. Button's rankings). And whenever that happens it's an uproar in HF, which kinda sucks.

"Sigh"

Once again, as I've done with those who have, if you ask me a direct question respectfully I will answer it thoroughly. I have no issues with being held accountable for what I say and put out there and if anything I want to answer questions and address concerns.

Where is Kadri? Filatov is on the list, is older, has played more NHL games made the list, so is Kadri missed by accident, not in the top 110, or didn't qualify for a reason?

I graduated him.

From the article:

My criteria for a prospect is based on a subjective evaluation if Prospect X has become an established NHL regular. While this leaves room for error, I feel I make fewer errors in terms of prospect definition then when I set arbitrary age or games played limits.

I feel Kadri towards the end of the last year established himself as a regular in Toronto. Filatov obviously has not.

 

[nomorekids]

it's clear that writers need to take a tee-ball approach here at HF. Just like every kid getting up to bat in every inning, no one keeping score, and both teams being declared the winner.

There there...all of your favorite team's prospects are number one! IT'S A TIE!!

 

[YARR123]

"Sigh"

Once again, as I've done with those who have, if you ask me a direct question respectfully I will answer it thoroughly. I have no issues with being held accountable for what I say and put out there and if anything I want to answer questions and address concerns.

Uh, actually what I meant was that it's a pity every other poster in this thread doesn't even think about whats going on here, and just post a dumb comment without even thinking whats the thought process behind the list/rankings. sorry if I said someithng that made you misunderstand me, I'm no native in english and I make mistakes


And I do have question as well: You obviously regard Granlund very highly, so what do you see his projection to be? An average first line center or maybe a franchise player around which a team can be built? or even a superstar? And finally, if you don't mind, what do you think make him the top prospect right now.

 

[Corey Pronman]

Uh, actually what I meant was that it's a pity every other poster in this thread doesn't even think about whats going on here, and just post a dumb comment without even thinking whats the thought process behind the list/rankings. sorry if I said someithng that made you misunderstand me, I'm no native in english and I make mistakes


And I do have question as well: You obviously regard Granlund very highly, so what do you see his projection to be? An average first line center or maybe a franchise player around which a team can be built? or even a superstar? And finally, if you don't mind, what do you think make him the top prospect right now.

What you said wasn't an issue, I was referring to what you were talking about re: comments. No worries.

I think very highly of Granlund obviously. I don't think he can be a top 10-20 player in the NHL, I don't think any prospect right now is that type of player, but he certainly has the tools in my opinion to be a perennial All-Star in the league with great defensive contribution. Whether or not you determine that to be a franchise player is a matter of opinions.

Elite hands, elite hockey sense and I don't use those words lightly. When I say elite, I consider that when he steps into the NHL, those tools will be amongst the top 10-15 in the entire league at the very least.

The skating was an issue at his draft, but he's been working on his lower body to try and improve that part. It wasn't really an issue of mechanics like say with Pulkkinen, but rather just strength and that will come with time, and it's looking like his skating is starting to steadily come along.

He's just a dynamic possession player. Thinks the game at a unique level in the hockey world and just can do so many things to keep the puck out of his zone and to maintain offensive pressure on the opposition. His top-end creativity, instincts, vision, timing, and game processing on top of the obviously wow-quality puck skills just makes him such a a desirable prospect. The body is obviously a concern, but he's bounced back from the concussion as we saw at the WC and doesn't shy from the physical game which will help a bit.

 

[Meatwagon]

It's a mistake according to what principle? People keep polluting this thread with incoherent criticism.

A lot of the comments floating around are opinion based just like the article in the OP. I personally feel that rankings are out of order. Am I a scout, no. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion one way or another. Just for starters I think that Schenn and RHN should be above Granlund. It's not a knock on Granlund by any means, Schenn has been rated the #1 prospect for a while and he hasn't done anything to change his opinion based ranking. My personal opinion is that RHN has a higher up side, based on points and possibility of being a #1 center with Hall and PVR on his wings in a few years. Really though Granlund and RHN should be about even as far as rankings go. They are both elite prospects are both franchises have a lot to look forward to. The one thing that may have attributed to Schenn's fall is that most people have him penciled as a #2 center and that's about it. Those people may be right but they may be wrong. His WJC's record breaking performance shows he has elite talent and may one day be a #1 center. He has some good players ahead of him on Philly's depth chart so it may be awhile before he has a legit shot, but that doesn't mean that he will never be a #1 center. I feel Kabanov is rated to high also. If I were building a team, all things being equal, I would take Runblad, Kuznetsov, Tartar, El Nino and Schwartz over him. Kabanov has a great skill set and should become a good NHLer in the not so distant future. I just like the upside of the other players listed to make a bigger impact for their respective franchises.

There are other rankings that may be a little off, I would say some prospect are 10-15 positions to high or to low. I dont feel I need to go into everyone of them, Im not writing a published report and getting paid to do it. If you still think I am still just providing "incoherent criticism" that's fine I just wanted to defend my position with a little more clarity.

 

[Meatwagon]

Clearly he thinks Kabanov is going to be a player. He hasn't made a mistake yet and I don't see how a guy named Meatwagon is supposed to decide whether he has or not yet.

First what does a nickname have to do with anything. It was a nickname I recieved playing softball. I'm 6'5" and at the time was about 290lbs. I injured my hip diving for a liner at third and a teammate said the paddy wagon needs to come get me. Another teammate made the joke it had better be a meaty paddy wagon. And the name stuck, so I'm not really sure how you can make a assumption of a person based off a screen name. But if you feel you have the clairvoyance to be able to see through a computer screen and have the ability to judge my character and/or hockey knowledge, then you sir are a modern miracle and should be enlisted by the defense department to thwart off cyber terrorism.

As far as my Kabanov statement, I never said he sucks or will never play in the NHL. I was stating that I feel he is ranked a little to high. If you feel he is ranked properly and really is the 14th best propsect in hockey than great, thats YOUR opinion and I have stated MINE. I listed in another reply the players I would rank above him, feel free to disagree with whom I would rather take on my team if the draft were held today and what positions the players would be ranked/picked. I am in no way trying to denigrate Kabanov, I was actually a little peeved that the Blues past on him, with their 2nd round pick(Wannstrom instead, BLAH) and was hoping he would still be there when they picked in the 3rd round but he was gobbled up by the Islanders. Hindsight is always 20/20 and the Blues obviously made a mistake by passing on him in the 2nd, but so did the other teams. NYI is lucky to have him in their pipeline, I personally dont think he is the 14th best prospect in all of hockey.

But feel free to take tough guy internet shots some more, that will show your true character.

 

[Meatwagon]

Mr. Pronman,

I would like to know why you have Jaden Schwartz rated so low? He has done nothing but produce huge pts at every level.

At Notre Dame high school he broke the scoring records of Vincent Lecavalier and Brad Richards with 39 g, 72 a in 44GP.

USHL he won scoring title with 83 points in 60 games. He was also named to the league's First All-Star Team and was awarded Top Offensive Player honors. Also had the highest rookie point totals since Tomas Vanek

At CC he scored at a 1.57 ppg clip and if I'm not mistaken that was right around Parise's rookie season ppg pace. He is now a front runner for the Hobey Baker Award(which I hope he doesn't win, the Blues dont need anymore curses).

I am listing these stats to show the level of players he has compared with at every age level. If he were to turn into anyone of those aforementioned players, he would definitely be ranked much higher. I'm not trying to denigrate your work or anything else, I would just like to hear you opinion(if possible) on this particular matter.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Minister of Offence]

First what does a nickname have to do with anything. It was a nickname I recieved playing softball. I'm 6'5" and at the time was about 290lbs. I injured my hip diving for a liner at third and a teammate said the paddy wagon needs to come get me. Another teammate made the joke it had better be a meaty paddy wagon. And the name stuck, so I'm not really sure how you can make a assumption of a person based off a screen name. But if you feel you have the clairvoyance to be able to see through a computer screen and have the ability to judge my character and/or hockey knowledge, then you sir are a modern miracle and should be enlisted by the defense department to thwart off cyber terrorism.

As far as my Kabanov statement, I never said he sucks or will never play in the NHL. I was stating that I feel he is ranked a little to high. If you feel he is ranked properly and really is the 14th best propsect in hockey than great, thats YOUR opinion and I have stated MINE. I listed in another reply the players I would rank above him, feel free to disagree with whom I would rather take on my team if the draft were held today and what positions the players would be ranked/picked. I am in no way trying to denigrate Kabanov, I was actually a little peeved that the Blues past on him, with their 2nd round pick(Wannstrom instead, BLAH) and was hoping he would still be there when they picked in the 3rd round but he was gobbled up by the Islanders. Hindsight is always 20/20 and the Blues obviously made a mistake by passing on him in the 2nd, but so did the other teams. NYI is lucky to have him in their pipeline, I personally dont think he is the 14th best prospect in all of hockey.

But feel free to take tough guy internet shots some more, that will show your true character.

No tough guy shots were intended lol. You have your opinions, I have mine...and Corey Pronman has his.

But your the one saying he made a brutal list. We really don't know that yet. All I'm saying. I embrace someone with credibility putting out a list that isn't the exactly same thing everyone else puts out. There's some bold opinion in there, from a guy that I expect has watched a ton of hockey. I just laugh at the people that tell him he's wrong before we even know it.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

My main issue with a ranking like this is the author stresses the importance of puck possession and how it relates to Corsei ratings in determining his rankings, but doesn't (as far as I can tell. I asked for examples or links to these calculations, but wasn't answered) show how he arrives at the conclusions.

Things like Corsei ratings can be applied to NHL player comparisons because there are actual numbers we can view, actual statistical information on these various players that has been kept track of, in order for anyone to view why Player A is rated higher than Player B.

But IMO, the flaw in these rankings is there is no such hard evidence to suggest Player A is a better puck possession player than Player B, and thus would have a higher Corsei rating than Player B, other than the author's opinion that Player A would score better in Corsei ratings than Player B.

Two prime examples: Kirill Kabanov versus Gabriel Landeskog. Where is the author finding stuff like QualComp, TOI/60, etc. for these two players? How can he apply Corsei ratings as a basis for his rankings if these kinds of statistics aren't kept track of for these prospects?

The term "puck possession" is a nice one, and associating it with Corsei ratings is, in itself, not flawed. But I'm just not seeing the statistical evidence to link the author's opinion of a player to the actual statistical calculation to determine which players would actually have high/low Corsei ratings.

When one talks about Corsei ratings as a baseline of ANY discussion of player ranking, one needs statistical evidence to back it up. I'm not sure the OP adequately did that, at least not from what I can see (again, if someone can link me to where the OP actually does the statistical comparisons of players to arrive at his rankings, I might change my tune).

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

My main issue with a ranking like this is the author stresses the importance of puck possession and how it relates to Corsei ratings in determining his rankings, but doesn't (as far as I can tell. I asked for examples or links to these calculations, but wasn't answered) show how he arrives at the conclusions.

Things like Corsei ratings can be applied to NHL player comparisons because there are actual numbers we can view, actual statistical information on these various players that has been kept track of, in order for anyone to view why Player A is rated higher than Player B.

But IMO, the flaw in these rankings is there is no such hard evidence to suggest Player A is a better puck possession player than Player B, and thus would have a higher Corsei rating than Player B, other than the author's opinion that Player A would score better in Corsei ratings than Player B.

Two prime examples: Kirill Kabanov versus Gabriel Landeskog. Where is the author finding stuff like QualComp, TOI/60, etc. for these two players? How can he apply Corsei ratings as a basis for his rankings if these kinds of statistics aren't kept track of for these prospects?

The term "puck possession" is a nice one, and associating it with Corsei ratings is, in itself, not flawed. But I'm just not seeing the statistical evidence to link the author's opinion of a player to the actual statistical calculation to determine which players would actually have high/low Corsei ratings.

When one talks about Corsei ratings as a baseline of ANY discussion of player ranking, one needs statistical evidence to back it up. I'm not sure the OP adequately did that, at least not from what I can see (again, if someone can link me to where the OP actually does the statistical comparisons of players to arrive at his rankings, I might change my tune).

That's why it's his rankings and how he interprets puck possession quantified in a skill set. He doesn't need to create a formula because every formula would be open to criticism. In my opinion a fast shifty shooter on the wing will nearly always have a positive corsi. Mitchell, Shannon and Zharkov are three quick names that come to mind. Big PF seem to have worse CORSI but often will have a slightly higher sh % due to shots in close.

 

[Corey Pronman]

Mr. Pronman,

I would like to know why you have Jaden Schwartz rated so low? He has done nothing but produce huge pts at every level.

At Notre Dame high school he broke the scoring records of Vincent Lecavalier and Brad Richards with 39 g, 72 a in 44GP.

USHL he won scoring title with 83 points in 60 games. He was also named to the league's First All-Star Team and was awarded Top Offensive Player honors. Also had the highest rookie point totals since Tomas Vanek

At CC he scored at a 1.57 ppg clip and if I'm not mistaken that was right around Parise's rookie season ppg pace. He is now a front runner for the Hobey Baker Award(which I hope he doesn't win, the Blues dont need anymore curses).

I am listing these stats to show the level of players he has compared with at every age level. If he were to turn into anyone of those aforementioned players, he would definitely be ranked much higher. I'm not trying to denigrate your work or anything else, I would just like to hear you opinion(if possible) on this particular matter.

Thanks in advance.

I'm actually a little surprised you're upset at the Schwartz ranking. I really like Schwartz, and I thought if anything I may have been criticized for putting him too high when I put this list out.

I don't think if he's a legit top line forward in the league, but could be on a poor team, or just be a below-average top line player on a normal team, or an extremely good 2nd line player.

Brilliant thinker with top-end sense, creativity and overall playmaking ability and plus to plus plus hands. His primary possession skills are top-end. The speed is going to hurt him, and was one of the main aspects that kept him out of the top 25, even top 20. He's a very agile skater with good edge work, but I'd like to see that extra gear especially for a smaller player to be able to get up and down the ice quicker at even-strength. The frame as I'm sure you're aware is underwhelming as well, but he does work hard in the physical game to try and overcome it.

My main issue with a ranking like this is the author stresses the importance of puck possession and how it relates to Corsei ratings in determining his rankings, but doesn't (as far as I can tell. I asked for examples or links to these calculations, but wasn't answered) show how he arrives at the conclusions.

My mistake if I didn't, I believe I answered someone else with a similar question earlier in this thread. There's actually links in the article, but for time's sake

Possession relating to Corsi:
http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2008/08/zone-time.html

Outshooting (which is Corsi) relation to winning

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

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

[/quote]

Things like Corsei ratings can be applied to NHL player comparisons because there are actual numbers we can view, actual statistical information on these various players that has been kept track of, in order for anyone to view why Player A is rated higher than Player B.

But IMO, the flaw in these rankings is there is no such hard evidence to suggest Player A is a better puck possession player than Player B, and thus would have a higher Corsei rating than Player B, other than the author's opinion that Player A would score better in Corsei ratings than Player B.

Of course, that's scouting. Scouts are projecting usually a player to be able to do X, Y and Z when they draft a kid. I'm simply projecting Corsi output based on scouting-based information I've received. It's completely subjective and not scientific outside of the market based studies that influence my approach.

Two prime examples: Kirill Kabanov versus Gabriel Landeskog. Where is the author finding stuff like QualComp, TOI/60, etc. for these two players? How can he apply Corsei ratings as a basis for his rankings if these kinds of statistics aren't kept track of for these prospects?

The term "puck possession" is a nice one, and associating it with Corsei ratings is, in itself, not flawed. But I'm just not seeing the statistical evidence to link the author's opinion of a player to the actual statistical calculation to determine which players would actually have high/low Corsei ratings.

When one talks about Corsei ratings as a baseline of ANY discussion of player ranking, one needs statistical evidence to back it up. I'm not sure the OP adequately did that, at least not from what I can see (again, if someone can link me to where the OP actually does the statistical comparisons of players to arrive at his rankings, I might change my tune).

I never claim to have Corsi at the Junior level, I say that players with the possession skill tend to be the most influential at the top level. What I define as puck possession is subjective. This is not a stats-based ranking. It's a scouting one whose ranking philosophy is influenced by studies.

I've said this previously in this thread, but I polled a few NHL execs prior to doing this ranking to get a grasp of what some head evaluators considered possession to primarily come from. I got some different answers, but the small consensus combined with my opinion came out to the skills I emphasized more in these rankings.

Do I know which players will do well possession-wise in the NHL based on their skill set? No, it's an educated guess based on information I currently have, just like anytime someone makes these kinds of lists across the industry.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Thanks for the link, Corey. I'll look through them and see if I have any follow up queries.

 

[Jonathan17]

Nice 2 goals and 2 assists by Schiefele tonight. edit: lol

A few of us mentioned him in this thread. I still don't see how he is not in the top 107 prospects. Can you explain how Kabanov is almost 100 spots higher?