Prospect Info: Logan Stanley: How has he progressed?

[TS Quint]

So it now appears your post was NOT deleted because someone complained about it.

That's what you claimed.

Clearly you don't know what necroposting is. Perhaps look up words you aren't familiar with.

"A necropost is a post on an old, abandoned thread that has been considered dead for a while. One that no longer serves any purpose but is bumped back up to the top of the forums by someone posting in it." It's seen as a form of spam and clogs up the forums with old and unneeded topics."

View attachment 394075

Reading is hard for some people.

Don’t complain to me. Complain to the Mods.

 

[Atoyot]

You also said Stanley is not likely to be a good pick.

I’m not saying you railed on the guy the whole time. But you did say his height gave him a lower chance of being a good prospect.

He wasn't likely to be a good pick. What's your point?
Say you're gambling and you have two options, one has a 40% chance of winning and the other has a 60% chance. You can bet on the 40% and win pretty often, but it would never be the correct choice and over time if you keep choosing it you will lose more than you'll win. Over time the most you can possibly win is by choosing the 60% option over and over again.
He wasn't likely to be good, he has outperformed the expectations so far. Everybody who said he wasn't likely to be this good is wrong and happy about it. Doesn't change the fact that if you draft players with a 20% of making it continuously over players that have a 30% chance of making it you're going to have worse results over time. Doesn't change the fact that the best results you can have is by choosing the players most likely to make it, even though sometimes the 20% player will make it and the 30% won't.

Again, can't imagine a scenario where Garret would say that being bigger is a bad thing. Maybe he said that players over a certain height statistically have a lower chance of making it because of how often they get drafted solely because of their size despite not having much else going for them and you misunderstood? I could see that being a reality. But no, not that size is a negative attribute.

 

[Whileee]

He wasn't likely to be a good pick. What's your point?
Say you're gambling and you have two options, one has a 40% chance of winning and the other has a 60% chance. You can bet on the 40% and win pretty often, but it would never be the correct choice and over time if you keep choosing it you will lose more than you'll win. Over time the most you can possibly win is by choosing the 60% option over and over again.
He wasn't likely to be good, he has outperformed the expectations so far. Everybody who said he wasn't likely to be this good is wrong and happy about it. Doesn't change the fact that if you draft players with a 20% of making it continuously over players that have a 30% chance of making it you're going to have worse results over time. Doesn't change the fact that the best results you can have is by choosing the players most likely to make it, even though sometimes the 20% player will make it and the 30% won't.

Again, can't imagine a scenario where Garret would say that being bigger is a bad thing. Maybe he said that players over a certain height statistically have a lower chance of making it because of how often they get drafted solely because of their size despite not having much else going for them and you misunderstood? I could see that being a reality. But no, not that size is a negative attribute.

I think I would be a bit more circumspect in our assessment of Stanley. The assessment of "likelihood" for success that we amateurs used was almost entirely based on age, size and point production. At that time, there really weren't very many public resources for looking at more information (like some of the tracking that some publicly available sources provide now). So, it's quite possible that Stanley's true probability of success was underestimated by many fans who were relying on a fairly rudimentary approach to assessing prospects. Clearly, he was a polarizing prospect among various NHL scouts and draftniks. I think some of the vitriole from this Board was based on a somewhat simplistic and exaggerated perspective about Chevy and the Jets' approach to drafting, that was amplified over time in this echo chamber.

 

[Upperdeckjet]

For those of you strenuously backpedaling on the Stanley pick, (Voltaren) Diclofenac 2.32% gel applied topically twice daily can be effective.
Ice or hot packs (magic bag stocked at Walmart is comforting) will work as well.

 

[John Agar]

For those of you strenuously backpedaling on the Stanley pick, (Voltaren) Diclofenac 2.32% gel applied topically twice daily can be effective.
Ice or hot packs (magic bag stocked at Walmart is comforting) is available.

Is it form fitting to the head...?

Because that is where the back pedaling causation is....

 

[Joe Hallenback]

He really is a very good passer. But his agility and lateral mobility is his biggest weakness. He also has a booming accurate shot

My take from good old pre covid times

 

[garret9]

You also said Stanley is not likely to be a good pick.

I’m not saying you railed on the guy the whole time. But you did say his height gave him a lower chance of being a good prospect.

Close but not quite...

I did say he's not likely a good pick, and I still stand by it.

Stanley's just seldom beat the odds and be a + NHLer. Out of all the tall guys who performed the way he did in his draft and draft+1 season if he's what he looks like right now (a #5/6 guy with maybe #4 upside) he already is an exceptional player relative to how players like Stanley tend to do.

I never said his height gave him a lower chance of being a good prospect. That's just weird.

Since you brought it up, I'm no expert in that area but maybe if he was shorter with the same everything else he'd be less awkward and more agile. Maybe he'd be better than but that's not my field lol.

 

[garret9]

To add to the above post... Very rarely do players that score as low as he did make the NHL.

Only modern junior guys who did were (bolded are probably best comps):
1) Mark Fistric - Shorter but not small, physical depth guy. Meh comp but not terrible.
2) Shea Weber - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
3) Tyler Myers - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
4) Kurtis Foster - Might actually be a good comp for Stanley for low end as a regular NHLer.
6) Braydon Coburn - Might actually be a good comp for Stanely for high end as a regular NHLer.
7) Travis Hamonic - Shorter but not small, physical, former top pairing guy. Not a good comp but probably the more reasonable best case scenario.
8) Marc Staal - Slightly shorter. Better scoring all years but D+2 but went straight to NHL. Analytics suggest maybe should have been out of the NHL many years ago.
9) Nick Schultz - Another iffy comp but in that list. He actually performed the best in his D year but the worst in his D+1 of all these comps.

Then there's a few players who went on to score a lot after their D+1 year, likely suggesting the previous year was usage or oiSh% related:
10) Vlasic - My personal best case scenario but highly unlikely and not a great comp.
11) Letang - LOL not a comp
12) Phaneuf - Not really a comp

So you can see the range of players that performed like Stanley statistically and play like Stanley and also made the NHL are quite small. There is a much larger list but they never touched the ice.

Stanley will be Stanley. He won't be any of those players. But that shows why some were low on him on his draft day. Yes, he could end up a top4 at his prime like Coburn, but he might also end up a guy who is a career 3rd line skilled player like Foster or Fistric.

 

[WolfHouse]

I'm cheering for Stanley - hesitantly - but man, how our standards have fallen... seems so long ago we were debating whether Myers should be our 3rd D and complaining about Ben Chiarot...

Now we're stoked that Stanley hangs in there during games...

 

[WolfHouse]

To add to the above post... Very rarely do players that score as low as he did make the NHL.

Only modern junior guys who did were (bolded are probably best comps):
1) Mark Fistric - Shorter but not small, physical depth guy. Meh comp but not terrible.
2) Shea Weber - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
3) Tyler Myers - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
4) Kurtis Foster - Might actually be a good comp for Stanley for low end as a regular NHLer.
6) Braydon Coburn - Might actually be a good comp for Stanely for high end as a regular NHLer.
7) Travis Hamonic - Shorter but not small, physical, former top pairing guy. Not a good comp but probably the more reasonable best case scenario.
8) Marc Staal - Slightly shorter. Better scoring all years but D+2 but went straight to NHL. Analytics suggest maybe should have been out of the NHL many years ago.
9) Nick Schultz - Another iffy comp but in that list. He actually performed the best in his D year but the worst in his D+1 of all these comps.

Then there's a few players who went on to score a lot after their D+1 year, likely suggesting the previous year was usage or oiSh% related:
10) Vlasic - My personal best case scenario but highly unlikely and not a great comp.
11) Letang - LOL not a comp
12) Phaneuf - Not really a comp

So you can see the range of players that performed like Stanley statistically and play like Stanley and also made the NHL are quite small. There is a much larger list but they never touched the ice.

Stanley will be Stanley. He won't be any of those players. But that shows why some were low on him on his draft day. Yes, he could end up a top4 at his prime like Coburn, but he might also end up a guy who is a career 3rd line skilled player like Foster or Fistric.

Wasn't Marc Staal the one tanking Trouba's career?

 

[garret9]

Positive Stanley post:

FYI here is the best public model for short samples for adjusting for sheltering (IMO still gives too much credit to those sheltered but not bad):

That's a negative number but that's relative to average, not relative to replacement level.

So based on this, Garret would say Stanley has been hurting offense more than he's helping defense but this is pretty decent for a rookie. Could have #4 upside with this at his prime.

 

[garret9]

Wasn't Marc Staal the one tanking Trouba's career?

I think Trouba is like Morrissey:
He had better chemistry with his older partner but is also struggling to live up to the hype and it's hard to stear a sinking ship.

That said, analytics haven't liked Staal for a loooong while.

 

[Whileee]

To add to the above post... Very rarely do players that score as low as he did make the NHL.

Only modern junior guys who did were (bolded are probably best comps):
1) Mark Fistric - Shorter but not small, physical depth guy. Meh comp but not terrible.
2) Shea Weber - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
3) Tyler Myers - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
4) Kurtis Foster - Might actually be a good comp for Stanley for low end as a regular NHLer.
6) Braydon Coburn - Might actually be a good comp for Stanely for high end as a regular NHLer.
7) Travis Hamonic - Shorter but not small, physical, former top pairing guy. Not a good comp but probably the more reasonable best case scenario.
8) Marc Staal - Slightly shorter. Better scoring all years but D+2 but went straight to NHL. Analytics suggest maybe should have been out of the NHL many years ago.
9) Nick Schultz - Another iffy comp but in that list. He actually performed the best in his D year but the worst in his D+1 of all these comps.

Then there's a few players who went on to score a lot after their D+1 year, likely suggesting the previous year was usage or oiSh% related:
10) Vlasic - My personal best case scenario but highly unlikely and not a great comp.
11) Letang - LOL not a comp
12) Phaneuf - Not really a comp

So you can see the range of players that performed like Stanley statistically and play like Stanley and also made the NHL are quite small. There is a much larger list but they never touched the ice.

Stanley will be Stanley. He won't be any of those players. But that shows why some were low on him on his draft day. Yes, he could end up a top4 at his prime like Coburn, but he might also end up a guy who is a career 3rd line skilled player like Foster or Fistric.

I think Oleksiak is another decent comparable for Stanley.

 

[Teemusalami204]

If Stanley starts smashing guys and putting up the dukes next time it’s needed and keeps his simple game he will be very valuable.

 

[Adam da bomb]

Positive Stanley post:

FYI here is the best public model for short samples for adjusting for sheltering (IMO still gives too much credit to those sheltered but not bad):

That's a negative number but that's relative to average, not relative to replacement level.

So based on this, Garret would say Stanley has been hurting offense more than he's helping defense but this is pretty decent for a rookie. Could have #4 upside with this at his prime.

Haha did you just refer to yourself third person?

 

[GumbyCan2]

I'm cheering for Stanley - hesitantly - but man, how our standards have fallen... seems so long ago we were debating whether Myers should be our 3rd D and complaining about Ben Chiarot...

Now we're stoked that Stanley hangs in there during games...

Stanley & Forbort freaking awesome replacements, to last years debacle D!
How low have the Yeah standards fallen, eh?

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Searching back on posts to what was being said about Stanley pre draft. This was back in May 2016 Perception was so low.....

I was using actual scout quotes to defend Stanley because he could skate and pass, and if you watched him you knew there was much more than just size at his disposal. And I was not on board drafting him at 22, but that was without knowing other teams would draft him prior to 36. I was ok with moving up after knowing that.

From what I've read, puck handling is definitely not one of his strengths

He has been asked to carry the puck more, and he has shown an ability to do so:


What scouts are saying:

Other than his size, scouts were intrigued by his development from last year to this, noting a greater ability to carry the puck and make passes up the ice to his teammates. The result of that increased possession ability was only two even-strength primary assists all season long, though he now forces other teams to respect the fact that he can effect a breakout, whereas last year there was a good chance that checking him in a one-on-one situation would result in a turnover.

Or skating.

For a big man, he skates well

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING
CSS Director of Scouting Dan Marr: “He’s mobile and very tough to beat one-on-one. He has a good understanding of his position, has a good stick-to-puck technique utilizing his reach, and plays with authority. He’s very composed under forecheck pressure and is able to make that good first pass out of the zone.”
Future Considerations: “Stanley is a towering and lengthy rearguard whose bread and butter is blocking shots and angling off his man. Overall, for a big man, he really has improved his skating, but still needs to control his feet a little more and be quicker yet… The physically imposing defender has the ability to jump up and drop his shoulder to deliver a perfectly timed, devastating check in open ice. Stanley will drop the gloves and stand up for his team.”
ISS Scout P. Myre: “Dimensional size. Very good skater for his size. Very active offensively, he will join the rush and activate from the point. Has shown improvement this season in decision making with and without the puck.”

 

[TS Quint]

He wasn't likely to be a good pick. What's your point?
Say you're gambling and you have two options, one has a 40% chance of winning and the other has a 60% chance. You can bet on the 40% and win pretty often, but it would never be the correct choice and over time if you keep choosing it you will lose more than you'll win. Over time the most you can possibly win is by choosing the 60% option over and over again.
He wasn't likely to be good, he has outperformed the expectations so far. Everybody who said he wasn't likely to be this good is wrong and happy about it. Doesn't change the fact that if you draft players with a 20% of making it continuously over players that have a 30% chance of making it you're going to have worse results over time. Doesn't change the fact that the best results you can have is by choosing the players most likely to make it, even though sometimes the 20% player will make it and the 30% won't.

Again, can't imagine a scenario where Garret would say that being bigger is a bad thing. Maybe he said that players over a certain height statistically have a lower chance of making it because of how often they get drafted solely because of their size despite not having much else going for them and you misunderstood? I could see that being a reality. But no, not that size is a negative attribute.

You can start to read and find out what my point is. I can’t help what you are able to understand.

Maybe Garret doesn’t need your help explaining what he thinks. He does a good job on his own. Clearly as we see he does use height as one of his qualifiers in one of his replies to me. But I’m glad to hear you agree with me. Go tell him about it.

 

[TS Quint]

Close but not quite...

I did say he's not likely a good pick, and I still stand by it.

Stanley's just seldom beat the odds and be a + NHLer. Out of all the tall guys who performed the way he did in his draft and draft+1 season if he's what he looks like right now (a #5/6 guy with maybe #4 upside) he already is an exceptional player relative to how players like Stanley tend to do.

I never said his height gave him a lower chance of being a good prospect. That's just weird.

Since you brought it up, I'm no expert in that area but maybe if he was shorter with the same everything else he'd be less awkward and more agile. Maybe he'd be better than but that's not my field lol.

I never made a comment on your ability to choose prospects. I just don’t think the height criteria makes a lot of sense is all. But because OVERALL you do a lot of good things with the numbers and stats I think some of your smaller off hand criteria that you throw out there gets more traction with many of your followers than it should.

I think a tall kid like that falls outside many of the normal stat watching. It’s hard to be that young and that big and expect him to have the same quickness and coordination as the average player. And to rely on the extremely small sample size of players his height to predict how he should perform going forward must come to a much wider variation than you would get from the average player.

Just because I disagree that on your thought on height doesn’t mean I disagree with everything you say.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

Height is a rough one but how many players over 6'5 get drafted and play in the NHL? It has to be a small number. You can say the same thing about guys under 5'9. It is harder to look at them across the board and come up with some kind of analysis based on the smaller number of players. The guys that do make it both short and tall tend to be outliers. Was it stacked against Stanley to make it much less make an impact? Likely. But he is here now so I think he might actually trend up in his development for us

 

[Atoyot]

You can start to read and find out what my point is. I can’t help what you are able to understand.

Maybe Garret doesn’t need your help explaining what he thinks. He does a good job on his own. Clearly as we see he does use height as one of his qualifiers in one of his replies to me. But I’m glad to hear you agree with me. Go tell him about it.

I didn't say anything about what Garret thinks. I presented a hypothetical situation that you could have misinterpreted as him saying that size is a negative attribute, which was and is still incorrect. To take a page out of your book:

"Reading is hard for some people."
"I can't help what you are able to understand."

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that your post may have been deleted because of the way you made your point rather than the point itself. It was an educated guess based on the fact that you like to say stuff like that.

 

[TS Quint]

I didn't say anything about what Garret thinks. I presented a hypothetical situation that you could have misinterpreted as him saying that size is a negative attribute, which was and is still incorrect. To take a page out of your book:

"Reading is hard for some people."
"I can't help what you are able to understand."

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that your post may have been deleted because of the way you made your point rather than the point itself. It was an educated guess based on the fact that you like to say stuff like that.

You are still wrong. Your hypothetical situation is also wrong.

 

[scelaton]

Only modern junior guys who did were (bolded are probably best comps):
1) Mark Fistric - Shorter but not small, physical depth guy. Meh comp but not terrible.
2) Shea Weber - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
3) Tyler Myers - We know what happened to him. Not a good qualitative comp IMO.
4) Kurtis Foster - Might actually be a good comp for Stanley for low end as a regular NHLer.
6) Braydon Coburn - Might actually be a good comp for Stanely for high end as a regular NHLer.
7) Travis Hamonic - Shorter but not small, physical, former top pairing guy. Not a good comp but probably the more reasonable best case scenario.
8) Marc Staal - Slightly shorter. Better scoring all years but D+2 but went straight to NHL. Analytics suggest maybe should have been out of the NHL many years ago.

I like the Coburn comparison and made it myself earlier on.

Very optimistically, one could fantasize him morphing into the second coming of Braydon Coburn, another big defenseman that the Thrashers drafted high, but gave up on too early.

Full disclosure-- I was in the group that was initially dismayed at the choice, based on available analytics. Recognizing that current analytics are still rudimentary, they still contain a wealth of information...but even sophisticated tools only give probabilities.

Having said all that, I don't think that the Jets' scouts just lucked out. It is reassuring that there are people out there whose years of experience and eyes still have great value. Kudos to them, especially if Stanley actually grows into a Coburn-level D.

This is not an either/or situation. Great scouting and great analytics can co-exist.

 

[Whileee]

If I were to critique the Jets' scouting, it would be less about picking Stanley and more about missing out on DeBrincat and Girard, as examples.

But I'm also cognizant that every draft pick beyond the early part of the 1st round is a longshot to make an impact at the NHL level, so I can understand the idea of taking a swing on a player with unusual characteristics, whether that be a huge player like Stanley or a small player like Petan. If it's a matter of probabilities of being a top-4 D or top-6 forward of 8% vs 15% based on junior production, age and size, I can see the rationale for betting on huge and good character. If Stanley turns out to be a unicorn, I'm not sure it's because of the brilliance of the Jets scouts, but it is more a function of his dedication and perhaps the Jets' development process. A player like Chiarot could easily have ended up as an after-thought in the NHL if the Jets weren't patient and gave him opportunities to succeed and develop.

 

[Skidooboy]

Advanced stat crowd
“Stats aren’t predictive they can only demonstrate what has happened in a bias free manor”

also Fancy stats guys
“Here’s why these stats predict Logan Stanley will be a poor pick.”