Hockey's Future's Top 50 Prospects: 26-50

[Aaron Vickers]

Gentelemen one thing to remember is, just because a player isn't found on the HF Top 50 list, doesn't mean they weren't given consideration.

It is my understanding that this list was shortened from a list nearly 100 players long. It isn't as though there wasn't thought given to a lot of these players that haven't yet been seen on the list.

 

[NYRangers]

Gentelemen one thing to remember is, just because a player isn't found on the HF Top 50 list, doesn't mean they weren't given consideration.

It is my understanding that this list was shortened from a list nearly 100 players long. It isn't as though there wasn't thought given to a lot of these players that haven't yet been seen on the list.

Who cares if a player is given consideration but not the credit they deserve? If Henrik isn't put on the list it'd be pretty insane since his numbers and accomplishments outwiegh the goalies already on the list.

 

[NYRangers]

Better question. To even crack the top 50 what would he have to do? His stats don't have much room for improvement as does his international play from his teenage years to now.

 

[Mizral]

Messenger,

Sorry man, I've said all that I need to say. I'm not going to rehash the same post again. Read my post you quoted the majority of the answers to this 'flawed logic' I have. I will answer your one question though, the scouting service I was talking about was McKeens.

 

[Slats432]

I suggest all staff just drop this thread and if Messenger or Leafaholix or NYRangers wants to debate the list or its process with a staff member, PM me, I am the committee chair and will answer any questions.

 

[andora]

...

ok, my mistake..

aside from your description of the two kids, is there anything that would suggest kesler's six month differential is an advantage?

actually, a different question, when did each of these guys begin playing hockey?

..........

 

[andora]

bump

 

[leafaholix*]

That's a mighty fine question.

 

[andora]

i just can't fathom kesler's six month youth difference really making any difference at their ages, both pretty much professional players.. i mean, if i accept that point as something valid from kesler's side of the equation, why can't i simply bring up these two:

1 - steen has played against men in the SEL for a few years while kesler's played against college guys

2 - steen grew up with thomas steen as his dad, and easily picked up unmeasureable knowledge and information from his father...

 

[andora]

bump

 

[sunb]

i just can't fathom kesler's six month youth difference really making any difference at their ages, both pretty much professional players.. i mean, if i accept that point as something valid from kesler's side of the equation, why can't i simply bring up these two:

1 - steen has played against men in the SEL for a few years while kesler's played against college guys

2 - steen grew up with thomas steen as his dad, and easily picked up unmeasureable knowledge and information from his father...

Those are definitely very intriguing advantages that Steen possess but Kesler also has some advantages.

For example. Kesler is bigger than Steen. Kesler is younger than Steen.

Size is a definite advantage in today's NHL.
Kesler is six month younger, it may not be a big difference but it is still difference nonetheless.

 

[andora]

ok, there's that six months again, and again i'll ask WHAT makes that an advantage, please revert a little higher on this page 11 to see my questions

 

[sunb]

bump

Oh boy, just when I thought the 13,000+ posts Andora consisted of thought-provoking messages and smoldering comments. He now amazes me even further by unleashing "the dancing banana". The knowledge that fuels this poster is just limitless!

 

[leafaholix*]

Those are definitely very intriguing advantages that Steen possess but Kesler also has some advantages.

For example. Kesler is bigger than Steen. Kesler is younger than Steen.

Size is a definite advantage in today's NHL.
Kesler is six month younger, it may not be a big difference but it is still difference nonetheless.

How?

Those 6 months have no affect on hockey... none. They were both born before the start of the new hockey season... which made them eligible for the same level if they were to play in the same league.

It's not like Steen got a head start.

 

[sunb]

ok, there's that six months again, and again i'll ask WHAT makes that an advantage, please revert a little higher on this page 11 to see my questions

I think it is a miniscule advantage. If you don't agree that is your problem. Of players who perform similarly and generate the same output, the one younger by one year is always applauded. Over-ages excel in junior leagues and are not hyped. This is the reason why. Six months, while not a huge advantage is still a tiny advantage. It shows that Kesler can still improve (albeit in a six-month window) so comparing Steen and the Kesler six-months-from-now can might show us Kesler being the better player.

I thought it is simple. But I guess the horse is never dead.

 

[leafaholix*]

I think it is a miniscule advantage. If you don't agree that is your problem. Of players who perform similarly and generate the same output, the one younger by one year is always applauded. Over-ages excel in junior leagues and are not hyped. This is the reason why. Six months, while not a huge advantage is still a tiny advantage. It shows that Kesler can still improve (albeit in a six-month window) so comparing Steen and the Kesler six-months-from-now can might show us Kesler being the better player.

I thought it is simple. But I guess the horse is never dead.

6 months ago Steen was ranked as a top 35 prospect. 6 months later Kesler has fallen off the "prestigious" list... seems like your boy's going backwards. Or could it be that he was tremendously overrated... and nothing has changed?

 

[sunb]

How?

Those 6 months have no affect on hockey... none. They were both born before the start of the new hockey season... which made them eligible for the same level if they were to play in the same league.

It's not like Steen got a head start.

I thought were upset with me and weren't going to "converse" with me any further?

Anyways, I think being six months younger is something that some people look at. Just look at this past draft. Some posters on these HFboards put forth that Malkin and Tukonen had more untapped potential simply because they were a couple months younger than the rest of their draft-company.

It is a miniscule advantage. Very miniscule. Probably non-existant but six months is still six-months. Who knows how much better Kesler can get in six months?

Lets compare Kesler in six months to the Steen of today and see who is better then.

 

[leafaholix*]

I thought were upset with me and weren't going to "converse" with me any further?

I felt for you and decided to give you another chance.

Anyways, I think being six months younger is something that some people look at. Just look at this past draft. Some posters on these HFboards put forth that Malkin and Tukonen had more untapped potential simply because they were a couple months younger than the rest of their draft-company.

Malkin and Tukonen were better than 95% of the eligible prospects because they were BETTER PLAYERS, not because they were 2 months younger.

It is a miniscule advantage. Very miniscule. Probably non-existant but six months is still six-months. Who knows how much better Kesler can get in six months?

You're assuming Steen started hockey at a younger age than Kesler... until you come up with this evidence, you are completely wrong and 6 months is not even a factor. Because 6 months ago Steen was a better prospect than Kesler is today... or even in 6 more months.

 

[sunb]

I felt for you and decided to give you another chance.


Malkin and Tukonen were better than 95% of the eligible prospects because they were BETTER PLAYERS, not because they were 2 months younger.


You're assuming Steen started hockey at a younger age than Kesler... until you come up with this evidence, you are completely wrong and 6 months is not even a factor. Because 6 months ago Steen was a better prospect than Kesler is today... or even in 6 more months.

Many GMs were contemplating almost taking Malkin over Ovechkin since Malkin was 9 months younger than Ovechkin, and if you look at the RSL stats, they had a good reason to do so since Malkin's performance now is similar to Ovechkin's 9 months ago.

If you think Steen is a better prospect than Kesler in six months then you have a different argument. I am just saying hypothetically, that if two prospects are similar performance & output-wise, the one six months younger has an advantage. Everyday you hear people saying "yeah but prospect A is better because he is one year younger than prospect B." If one year is such a huge difference, why should six months be no difference at all?

Theoretically-speaking, being six months younger is an advantage. Being bigger is also advantage. If you want tangible-evidence, you know it is impossible for me to provide such information. You are so insatiable. That is good. Insatiable is good. Perhaps I am not as good in explaining why bigger = better & younger = better. Let's leave it at that.

 

[BuppY]

HOLLY MOLLY COW you would take King over Kesler just because he's closer to the NHL. That has nothing to do with this list. It's not about who's closer at this point it's who's going to be a impact player when they make it and how they are performing at the time. To have Kesler drop out of the top 50 was lunatic, he was at 23 last year, either you guys messed up last year and tried to avoid that problem this, or you forgot to include him. I don't understand how he can drop soo low. Mind explaining why his ranking fell. I would take Steen over Kesler but Kesler not being on the top 50 list is just crazy.

 

[sunb]

HOLLY MOLLY COW you would take King over Kesler just because he's closer to the NHL. That has nothing to do with this list. It's not about who's closer at this point it's who's going to be a impact player when they make it and how they are performing at the time. To have Kesler drop out of the top 50 was lunatic, he was at 23 last year, either you guys messed up last year and tried to avoid that problem this, or you forgot to include him. I don't understand how he can drop soo low. Mind explaining why his ranking fell. I would take Steen over Kesler but Kesler not being on the top 50 list is just crazy.

Amen.
Personally I think Mark Stuart was a bigger omission since he was #15 last year and an excellent defenseman. Also, Henrik Lundqvist (sp?) not being there is simply blasphemy. But the HF staff worked hard though and I know it can't be perfect.

 

[andora]

Oh boy, just when I thought the 13,000+ posts Andora consisted of thought-provoking messages and smoldering comments. He now amazes me even further by unleashing "the dancing banana". The knowledge that fuels this poster is just limitless!

can't answer a question so you turn snippy..

and also, now it's a miniscule advantage.. i just don't get it, first, you talk about two kids with one starting a year earlier and talk it up like a strong advantage and now it's miniscule

as well, you haven't even answered the question i'm looking to have answered. based on the example you provided with those two kids, i wondered who started hockey earlier / who's played longer.. that is all i'm looking for

 

[leafaholix*]

Many GMs were contemplating almost taking Malkin over Ovechkin since Malkin was 9 months younger than Ovechkin, and if you look at the RSL stats, they had a good reason to do so since Malkin's performance now is similar to Ovechkin's 9 months ago.

Malkin is a comparable talent to Ovechkin, Kesler is not a comparable talent to Steen.

If you think Steen is a better prospect than Kesler in six months then you have a different argument. I am just saying hypothetically, that if two prospects are similar performance & output-wise

They are not comparable talents... so the 6 month "advantage" becomes even less significant than it was 10 minutes ago.

the one six months younger has an advantage. Everyday you hear people saying "yeah but prospect A is better because he is one year younger than prospect B." If one year is such a huge difference, why should six months be no difference at all?

Maybe because Player B is arguably a similar talent to Player A... this is not the case when talking about Steen and Kesler.

Theoretically-speaking, being six months younger is an advantage. Being bigger is also advantage. If you want tangible-evidence, you know it is impossible for me to provide such information. You are so insatiable. That is good. Insatiable is good. Perhaps I am not as good in explaining why bigger = better & younger = better. Let's leave it at that.

So you're saying bigger is better in every case?

 

[sunb]

can't answer a question so you turn snippy..

and also, now it's a miniscule advantage.. i just don't get it, first, you talk about two kids with one starting a year earlier and talk it up like a strong advantage and now it's miniscule

as well, you haven't even answered the question i'm looking to have answered. based on the example you provided with those two kids, i wondered who started hockey earlier / who's played longer.. that is all i'm looking for

Nope I never called it a "big advantage," stop putting words in my mouth. Size is a big advantage but six months is not and never was.

I don't know whose played more hockey and who started hockey earlier. For all I know, Kesler could've started playing hockey at nine and Steen could've started at six. I am not Kesler's father nor am I Steen's uncle. But I do know that Kesler is six months younger. If you aren't satisfied with that, I don't know what to say.

All I can provide is that theoretically, a player who is younger has an advantage.

 

[sunb]

Malkin is a comparable talent to Ovechkin, Kesler is not a comparable talent to Steen.


They are not comparable talents... so the 6 month "advantage" becomes even less significant than it was 10 minutes ago.


Maybe because Player B is arguably a similar talent to Player A... this is not the case when talking about Steen and Kesler.


So you're saying bigger is better in every case?

I think you are confused. I am not saying Kesler is better than Steen because he is bigger.

I said that theoretically, if two players are the same, the one who is bigger has an advantage in the eyes of scouts and GMs. Why would someone take a 50 point who is 6'1'' when a 6'3'' 50 point scorer (with all the other abilities being the same) is available?

I infered that logic and disagreed with your initial post saying that "Kesler has no advantages on Steen", which was clearly wrong since Kesler is bigger.