Prospect Info: Logan Stanley: How has he progressed?

[buggs]

Stanley is already eligible because he’s played more than two pro seasons (18-19 and 19-20 in the AHL, plus this year).

Thanks. Clarifies it.

 

[Jetcetera]

Not gonna lie I wrote him off but I'm pleasantly surprised with how he has been playing. Hope he continues to grow

 

[RustyCat]

I love the story here of a kid who has a hard work ethic and is teachable. I think Logan Stanley stays.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

What's his ceiling? Can he be better than Tyler Myers? I'm looking forward to eventually seing his mean streak that I've heard about.

Had his ceiling at 5th/6th dman that kills penalties and could move up when needed.

Now, with a small sample size I think he could rise to a second pairing 3/4 Dman and it won’t shock me if he finds his way on to a power play down the road. He holds the line well and consistently gets shots through. He also has a cannon when given time to get it off. His passing seems solid as well.

He also strikes me as a leader, think he wore a C in junior and I could see him down the road with a letter on his jersey.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

I was addressing the impatience. It had nothing to do with patience. He was a bad pick no matter how good he turns out to be. The decision to pick him that high wasn't based in reality. It was based on hope. Praising the pick now because he's playing limited #6 minutes is called results oriented thinking which leads to making future bad decisions.

Not sure you can say with a straight face “He was a bad pick no matter how good he turns out” .

If Stanley develops to the level this organization believes he can reach, which is what influenced them to make the pick, that and only that will be the determination if this was a good or bad pick.

Only some jaded fans that had their worlds ripped a part when Stanley’s name was announced by Chevy, those that were labelling him a bust on draft night when the majority never saw the kid play a single minute of hockey, these people will be reflecting back 5 years from now proclaiming the pick as bad.

If he becomes a solid NHL dman the real hockey world will grade it as a very good pick.

And reality was Detroit was taking Stanley at 20. So if they moved up-to get him it was based on the organization seeing something in the player that makes it worth moving up.

This may blow some minds but organizations do their homework and see things that analytics misses on young developing players like Stanley. With our track record of drafting off the board we shouldn’t be so critical of their choices so quickly.

 

[Duke749]

Not sure you can say with a straight face “He was a bad pick no matter how good he turns out” .

If Stanley develops to the level this organization believes he can reach, which is what influenced them to make the pick, that and only that will be the determination if this was a good or bad pick.

Only some jaded fans that had their worlds ripped a part when Stanley’s name was announced by Chevy, those that were labelling him a bust on draft night when the majority never saw the kid play a single minute of hockey, these people will be reflecting back 5 years from now proclaiming the pick as bad.

If he becomes a solid NHL dman the real hockey world will grade it as a very good pick.

And reality was Detroit was taking Stanley at 20. So if they moved up-to get him it was based on the organization seeing something in the player that makes it worth moving up.

This may blow some minds but organizations do their homework and see things that analytics misses on young developing players like Stanley. With our track record of drafting off the board we shouldn’t be so critical of their choices so quickly.

It’s not wise to take 6’7 project defensemen in the top 20 that you know will take 4-5 before they sniff the NHL. Even in hindsight.

 

[snowkiddin]

It’s not wise to take 6’7 project defensemen in the top 20 that you know will take 4-5 before they sniff the NHL. Even in hindsight.

Let’s remember they were playing with house money, though. They already “won” Laine, they could afford to take a gamble on a project with their second pick. And I’m glad they did because he is turning out really well.

 

[Skidooboy]

I was told that Logan Stanley would be no good, now I’m seeing them and I think he’s pretty good so I think a lot of people on this board are full of crap.

 

[Skidooboy]

It’s not wise to take 6’7 project defensemen in the top 20 that you know will take 4-5 before they sniff the NHL. Even in hindsight.

Says you.
How long have you been a GM?

because we know 2 real GM’s were willing to do just that.

Just because you think you know something, or someone told you something so you parrot it it as if it’s the gods honest truth, over and over and over....doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

 

[Briscodog]

Golfed with Logan at the Scheifele tourney summer 2019. Just a fantastic guy. At one hole they were giving away free hats from one of the sponsors and wore it the rest of the day. A couple of days later they interviewed at the rookie camp and he was wearing the same hat. Thought that was funny. He had lots of stories and the day was a blast. Can’t wait for him to get a real number so I can grab a jersey. Oh and he was sure he was going to Tampa. Had breakfast with them the week of the draft and they told him they were drafting him. Great to see him excelling.

 

[Duke749]

Let’s remember they were playing with house money, though. They already “won” Laine, they could afford to take a gamble on a project with their second pick. And I’m glad they did because he is turning out really well.

This is very true and likely played a role. I agree.

Says you.
How long have you been a GM?

because we know 2 real GM’s were willing to do just that.

Just because you think you know something, or someone told you something so you parrot it it as if it’s the gods honest truth, over and over and over....doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

It’s not wise to take 6’7 project defensemen in the top 20 that you know will take 4-5 before they sniff the NHL. Even in hindsight.

It is very wise if you see something worth taking them for and you know the only opportunity to nab the player is drafting them in the top 20 because another team will draft him.

What would actually be unwise would be losing out on getting the player you wanted by not drafting them in the round they went in, because of some unwritten belief longer projects cant be drafted in the top 20.

You draft off potential regardless of the time it takes to reach it. If Stanley had the highest ceiling by our scouting department then its a very wise pick.

 

[MardyBum]

Looking like he may be an NHL player going forward, was worried the injury was going to be a problematic setback.

Would still rather have had 22 and 36 though .

 

[KingBogo]

Looking like he may be an NHL player going forward, was worried the injury was going to be a problematic setback.

Would still rather have had 22 and 36 though .

I would much rather have Stanley than the 2 players selected at 22 and 36. Combined Rubstov and Leberge have 4 NHL games for 0 points. Rubstov does have an impressive 11 points in 44 games in the KHL, after an equally impressive 13 points in 42 games in the AHL last season. Lebarge did get 22 points in 47 games last season splitting his time equally between the ECHL and AHL. The other player we got in the deal at 79 Luke Green, is probably a better prospect than either Rubstov or Leberge, and Stanley is miles better than both at this point.

 

[Duke749]

It is very wise if you see something worth taking them for and you know the only opportunity to nab the player is drafting them in the top 20 because another team will draft him.

What would actually be unwise would be losing out on getting the player you wanted by not drafting them in the round they went in, because of some unwritten belief longer projects cant be drafted in the top 20.

You draft off potential regardless of the time it takes to reach it. If Stanley had the highest ceiling by our scouting department then its a very wise pick.

How is it wise to take a guy who is essentially a lottery ticket even with all the positives that high in the draft? You’re speaking in hindsight assuming he was always going to work out. The data does not support that. Not even close.

 

[MardyBum]

I would much rather have Stanley than the 2 players selected at 22 and 36. Combined Rubstov and Leberge have 4 NHL games for 0 points. Rubstov does have an impressive 11 points in 44 games in the KHL, after an equally impressive 13 points in 42 games in the AHL last season. Lebarge did get 22 points in 47 games last season splitting his time equally between the ECHL and AHL. The other player we got in the deal at 79 Luke Green, is probably a better prospect than either Rubstov or Leberge, and Stanley is miles better than both at this point.

The two players selected at 22 and 36 might not be the two players we selected at 22 and 36.

Crazy thought.

But I guess you only trust our scouting staff for 18th OA's and not 22 or 36 OA's. Obviously Rubtsov and Lebarge were high on their lists, the scrubs that they are.

I hope it becomes a joke that anyone would dare laugh at that trade. It's not nearly anywhere near there yet.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

How is it wise to take a guy who is essentially a lottery ticket even with all the positives that high in the draft? You’re speaking in hindsight assuming he was always going to work out. The data does not support that. Not even close.

Hindsight? I was suggesting we draft Stanley back in January of his draft year, and was on this forum battling the absurdity thrown at him on draft night, supporting and saying it was a solid pick.

The data? Here is the thing, the data was flawed, the data didn’t tell the whole story, and good teams don't draft solely on data. Stanley had a very slow D -2 season to start his junior career out, and followed it up with an average D-1 season, but a season in which he took solid steps in his development and by season end he was playing at a completely different level.

If you were someone that based your opinion of Stanley solely off the data, your opinion was very low. If you actually followed his D-1 season and watched his play you realized the numbers were not telling the whole story and there was some skill to go with the size.

If he pans out it was the exact correct place to draft him by the organization because it was the only place they could draft him if Detroit was taking him at 20.

 

[Skidooboy]

How is it wise to take a guy who is essentially a lottery ticket even with all the positives that high in the draft? You’re speaking in hindsight assuming he was always going to work out. The data does not support that. Not even close.

You do realize that the data isn't the only prerequisite you go on right.

Theres brains, attitude, personality, work ethic..... and again, stats are useful, but useful isn't definitive.

I mean the Data said NOT top pick mark Schiefele at #9 right.? The data said Kyle Connor was #17 not the 5-10 or better he'd get picked at if the draft was today.

The data applies to human children right.There is always risk. ALWAYS...Children don't grow up for a while, and some take longer to physically mature than others.

So yeah if you have a feeling and you know an organization with a reputation for drafting well has a feeling and you already have A history of drafting well above average with a guaranteed NHL player in your back pocket, it might make a ton of sense.

 

[Jet]

Citation missing... thus far the only variables that have been consistent in general terms for aging curves and such are:

1) The less good you are, the later you typically enter the league, the lower your peak, and the earlier you leave the league

2) The peak performance and aging curve relative to usage in all 3 positions is essentially the same but the usage curve is not

3) Physical and bigger players (which has some confounding overlap) has a steaper post-peak decline then those who are not

4) (EDIT FORGOT THIS ONE) Elite players retain their peak longer

Where is this data coming from?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Had his ceiling at 5th/6th dman that kills penalties and could move up when needed.

Now, with a small sample size I think he could rise to a second pairing 3/4 Dman and it won’t shock me if he finds his way on to a power play down the road. He holds the line well and consistently gets shots through. He also has a cannon when given time to get it off. His passing seems solid as well.

He also strikes me as a leader, think he wore a C in junior and I could see him down the road with a letter on his jersey.

I'll even one-up you on this. Who is to say that he doesn't have potential to be a first pairing defenseman on a good team?

I'm not saying he will, but to have a trajectory that began with the player never even getting a sniff of the NHL to a very impressive start on the bottom six, to some people saying that he may eventually be a second pairing guy... it's not much more of a leap to see him on the top two one day.

No other player in this organization (outside of Scheifele, perhaps and maaaaybe Connor) has been such a pleasant surprise (Editor's note: I recognize that it's still a small sample size, but I see him only improving, not getting worse).

 

[ps241]

Golfed with Logan at the Scheifele tourney summer 2019. Just a fantastic guy. At one hole they were giving away free hats from one of the sponsors and wore it the rest of the day. A couple of days later they interviewed at the rookie camp and he was wearing the same hat. Thought that was funny. He had lots of stories and the day was a blast. Can’t wait for him to get a real number so I can grab a jersey. Oh and he was sure he was going to Tampa. Had breakfast with them the week of the draft and they told him they were drafting him. Great to see him excelling.

Love this post thank you for sharing!!

 

[garret9]

Where is this data coming from?

Throughout multiple studies on age curves and regression.
I can think of about 5-10 studies on each of those points (some covering a few of them).

Of all the studies I can think of only one "showed differently" than those assumptions and it wasn't very good study. It basically said "points per game peaks at 28/29 but points per ice time at 24-25... but we know coaches can't be wrong so 28/29 is peak performance."

Other than that all research has shown the same, at verying minimal degrees of marginal differences as expected with variance and methodology differences.

It doesn't cover everything but the website meta hockey has a repository of links to many studies.

 

[TS Quint]

I'm saying "he's too big" has never been an argument against Stanley. It's always been an argument for Stanley regardless of who was making the argument. It's always been "it's great that he's big, but does he have the skills to go with that size" never "he's too tall to be good" which is how you characterized it.

Too tall was brought up by a very popular stats poster who you will have your post deleted if you point out his predictions were wrong in the Stanley draft thread regardless of how ridiculously small his sample size is. Many jumped on board.

 

[White Out 902]

Says you.
How long have you been a GM?

because we know 2 real GM’s were willing to do just that.

Just because you think you know something, or someone told you something so you parrot it it as if it’s the gods honest truth, over and over and over....doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

None of us are GMs. It's a message board to express our opinions. Capeesh?

 

[Weezeric]

Yup. 100% agree on all fronts.

Also, it's a tough concept on process vs outcome for the better selection (let's pretend we're in a fictional world where we know the probabilities perfectly with skill, work ethic, genetics, etc.):

Player A: 80% chance NHL: 10% top line player, 30% middle six, rest 4th line/depth
Player B: 60% chance NHL: 1% top line player, 10% middle six, rest 4th line/depth

Now... let's say B makes it and A misses. B ends up the better player, but A was the better call to make.

We don't know if this is what happened. There's a LOT of guessing and unknowns on what the probabilities actually are, even if you are scout for the best team that integrates numbers and scouting perfectly. But, it's just one possible scenario.

Ah, this takes me back to the hockey graphs podcast days.