Prospect Info: Logan Stanley: How has he progressed?

[Romang67]

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.”

Who ever said that data were in no way predictive? Most if not all fields of study rely in some way on data having repeating patterns.

 

[garret9]

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

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.

I don't think they lucked out, but I also still hold to my belief that given the quantitative AND qualitative data I've seen he was a great process pick.

That's just IMO. I have been wrong before but I don't think there's anyone making me eat crow haha.

 

[garret9]

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.”

Wait? What?

The whole reasoning some statistics exist is because Corsi predicted future success better than other markers of past success?

 

[Evil Little]

I don't think they lucked out, but I also still hold to my belief that given the quantitative AND qualitative data I've seen he was a great process pick.

That's just IMO. I have been wrong before but I don't think there's anyone making me eat crow haha.

What's a 'process pick'?

 

[garret9]

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.

^ this

 

[garret9]

What's a 'process pick'?

I disagree with the weighting of certain qualitative variables relative to others and relative to some quantitative variables.

 

[Neuf]

I disagree with the weighting of certain qualitative variables relative to others and relative to some quantitative variables.

Haven't found a model that properly weights the GudPro/60

 

[snowkiddin]

I disagree with the weighting of certain qualitative variables relative to others and relative to some quantitative variables.

This brings me back to high school math class

 

[Evil Little]

I disagree with the weighting of certain qualitative variables relative to others and relative to some quantitative variables.

Ah.

Was not a great process pick?

 

[Whileee]

I disagree with the weighting of certain qualitative variables relative to others and relative to some quantitative variables.

I doubt that NHL teams have any reliable methods to precisely categorize players based on qualitative assessments. But there is likely some value in making broad classifications on general characteristics that are necessary but not sufficient.

For example, it's obvious that development takes a lot of work and persistence, so you would want to have some confidence that a player has characteristics conducive to that. Also, hockey is a team sport so it makes sense to avoid players that have red flags regarding their attitudes, such as we've seen with some prospects / players recently. Coaches and teammates aren't going to support a player that's a jerk and/or a bad teammate. So, I can see NHL teams developing broad categories, sort of like:

A. Everybody raves about this prospect, he's shown a strong work ethic, works hard on his weaknesses, etc.
B. Seems to be a responsible player, but doesn't show consistent effort to improve.
C. Poison.

If you accurately select from Category A, then you might have better results as long as your organization gives players the time and opportunities to develop. Really skilled players in Category B can be very successful, but can go south if they are in a bad environment with poor leadership at formative stages. Category C - do not draft.

I think it's also important to emphasize how important opportunity is. Many players probably have equivalent potential, but there is a wide difference in opportunities with different organizations. That's not necessarily a flaw in an organization, but more related to the positional depth and status in terms of competitive window for a franchise.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I’m thinking ves has supplanted Stanley as biggest bust.

 

[mazmin]

I may be a few days early for the meeting, but I think the Jets should try Stanley on the second PP. Call me crazy, but what are some of his best skills: crisp hard passes, heavy shots on goal. Since the departure of Buff and now Laine, the big shot threat is gone.

#FreeTheCannon

 

[Tasteless Beaver]

His stretch pass ability seems to be pretty good - he sprung one of our forwards on a near-breakaway last night with a bullseye pass from over 100 feet. We fall victim to it occasionally, but I rarely see us complete one ourselves. I guess we're just used to defensemen that aren't puck movers after Buff left.

 

[Skidooboy]

Wait? What?

The whole reasoning some statistics exist is because Corsi predicted future success better than other markers of past success?

So then you know how many goals a player will score next season already .

cool how many goals will PLD score next game?

 

[Atoyot]

So then you know how many goals a player will score next season already .

cool how many goals will PLD score next game?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of analytics and what predictiveness is.

If I'm rolling a die, I can predict that 33% of the time I will roll above a 4. I can predict that 16.67% of the time I will roll a 2. That doesn't help me predict exactly what the next roll is going to be, just the likelihoods. That is predictiveness. I can predict that over 1000 rolls I'll get ~333 5s or 6s.

In hockey, analytics attempts to look at the variables in a game and say "given these variables, team x has a y% chance of winning". Not "team x is going to win". So what good is that? Well, if you have team x playing a game that has them winning 70% of the time then over 1000 games you can expect them to win 700 games. Even then if you play a game where you're 70% likely to win you're still going to lose almost 1 out of every 3 games.

The questions you are asking are looking for answers that analytics have never claimed to provide.

 

[JetsUK]

I’m thinking ves has supplanted Stanley as biggest bust.

?

On what basis? Or do you mean as an HFJets narrative?

He's a 21 year-old Finnish power forward, picked towards the end of an average first round. I think he's doing exactly what is being asked of him by the coaching staff and developing well. Last night (first periods especially) was a good example of the value and upside he has. IMO he's following the Stanley first NHL games template:

1) Not screwing up dramatically (see infamous Niku goal-against)
2) Safe, smart hockey, generally consistent
3) Tentative flashes of upside (puck possession, board play, low-risk playmaking)
4) Playing with greater confidence (passing, volume shooting)
5) Value0adding regular (points, making plays consistently, helping to drive a line or pattern, overall plus player)

PoMo is all about trusting his young players, especially if they're not highly-touted future stars. You're not staying in the lineup by making 3 great plays and blatantly missing an assignment for a goal against. You're sticking by playing the PoMo plan and doing what's asked of you until you're on a longer leash. That's what Harkins did last year, what KVes is doing, and what Stanley has done. IMO.

 

[snowkiddin]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and what predictiveness is.

If I'm rolling a die, I can predict that 33% of the time I will roll above a 4. I can predict that 16.67% of the time I will roll a 2. That doesn't help me predict exactly what the next roll is going to be, just the likelihoods. That is predictiveness. I can predict that over 1000 rolls I'll get ~333 5s or 6s.

I feel like when you’re dealing with hockey players and not something that is pure chance that more variables should be taken into consideration.

 

[Adam da bomb]

?

On what basis? Or do you mean as an HFJets narrative?

He's a 21 year-old Finnish power forward, picked towards the end of an average first round. I think he's doing exactly what is being asked of him by the coaching staff and developing well. Last night (first periods especially) was a good example of the value and upside he has. IMO he's following the Stanley first NHL games template:

1) Not screwing up dramatically (see infamous Niku goal-against)
2) Safe, smart hockey, generally consistent
3) Tentative flashes of upside (puck possession, board play, low-risk playmaking)
4) Playing with greater confidence (passing, volume shooting)
5) Value0adding regular (points, making plays consistently, helping to drive a line or pattern, overall plus player)

PoMo is all about trusting his young players, especially if they're not highly-touted future stars. You're not staying in the lineup my making 3 great plays and blatantly missing an assignment for a goal against. You're sticking by playing the PoMo plan and doing what's asked of you until you're on a longer leash. That's what Harkins did last year, what KVes is doing, and what Stanley has done. IMO.

With HFJets we always need one of our 1st rounders to be our bust and whipping boy. For a long time that was Stanley. Stanley in my mind has shown more to this point. So if someone needs to be a bust Ves hasn't exactly kicked the door down by putting up lots of points.
Also Harkins wasn't a 1st rounder so using a pick on him seems like less of a gamble and harder for him to have busted.

 

[DannyGallivan]

?

On what basis? Or do you mean as an HFJets narrative?

He's a 21 year-old Finnish power forward, picked towards the end of an average first round. I think he's doing exactly what is being asked of him by the coaching staff and developing well. Last night (first periods especially) was a good example of the value and upside he has. IMO he's following the Stanley first NHL games template:

1) Not screwing up dramatically (see infamous Niku goal-against)
2) Safe, smart hockey, generally consistent
3) Tentative flashes of upside (puck possession, board play, low-risk playmaking)
4) Playing with greater confidence (passing, volume shooting)
5) Value0adding regular (points, making plays consistently, helping to drive a line or pattern, overall plus player)

PoMo is all about trusting his young players, especially if they're not highly-touted future stars. You're not staying in the lineup my making 3 great plays and blatantly missing an assignment for a goal against. You're sticking by playing the PoMo plan and doing what's asked of you until you're on a longer leash. That's what Harkins did last year, what KVes is doing, and what Stanley has done. IMO.

Perhaps "bust" is a strong word, since it really depends on expectations. Perhaps the Jets success at the draft table made expectations unreasonably high for "V".

The thing is, playing conservative benefits a defenseman a lot more than a forward. Unless one's role is a shut-down penalty killing kinda guy, a forward needs to produce or show signs that he will produce.

Guys like Vesalainen (like Petan before him) will be buried on the fourth line until Maurice decides to give him a prime opportunity with solid line-mates. That happened yesterday fore "V", and it has happened on occasion in the past. The thing is, he's reaching the end of this tether as far as making some noise in this league. Appleton took hold of his opportunity. Harkins did the same last year.

My gut tells me that Vesalainen's time to be a regular is running out, especially with Perfetti and Harkins in the on-deck circle. He hustled more in yesterday's game than I think I've seen in the past, but he seems out of place there. Maybe it'll take him more seasoning, who knows.

 

[Atoyot]

I feel like when you’re dealing with hockey players and not something that is pure chance that more variables should be taken into consideration.

There was a further edit to my post, but yes, of course. That was to provide a basic easily understandable example of what predictiveness is, it's not to say "x event will 100% happen", it says "x event has a y% chance of happening given the variables present".

 

[Al Camino]

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.

I can see that they had Laine in had and thought they would swing for the fences with the extra first rounder.

 

[buggs]

Perhaps "bust" is a strong word, since it really depends on expectations. Perhaps the Jets success at the draft table made expectations unreasonably high for "V".

The thing is, playing conservative benefits a defenseman a lot more than a forward. Unless one's role is a shut-down penalty killing kinda guy, a forward needs to produce or show signs that he will produce.

Guys like Vesalainen (like Petan before him) will be buried on the fourth line until Maurice decides to give him a prime opportunity with solid line-mates. That happened yesterday fore "V", and it has happened on occasion in the past. The thing is, he's reaching the end of this tether as far as making some noise in this league. Appleton took hold of his opportunity. Harkins did the same last year.

My gut tells me that Vesalainen's time to be a regular is running out, especially with Perfetti and Harkins in the on-deck circle. He hustled more in yesterday's game than I think I've seen in the past, but he seems out of place there. Maybe it'll take him more seasoning, who knows.

I disagree. The TNSE approach to Vesa has been nothing but patience. They've spent a season on the Moose reworking his game to be North American in orientation. They acknowledged pretty openly that his game needed a sort of functional rebuild. I think your comparison to Harkins is actually appropriate, but not with respect to the intent you lend to it. Harkins in my mind is exactly what they are trying to achieve with Vesa, only in a bigger body. Harkins is a 2015 and is only now ready to take the next step. His regular playing time likely comes at the expense of not re-signing someone like Perreault. Vesa is getting a shot only now in the NHL and even then it is substantially limited. Even if the Jets were to send Vesa down to the Moose for the remainder of the year I wouldn't take that as a sign that his time has run out, rather than the Jets don't see a regular fit for him in this year's roster so more and better development could be beneficial with the Moose, Covid notwithstanding. What I do expect is he bounces between taxi and regular squad, getting limited games and minutes for a taste at the bigs and to evaluate progress this year.

I think Vesa's ultimate role comes as playing third line wing on a Lowry-like line. Big body, hard to play against, defensively responsible (in time). Perfetti on the other hand has a much higher ceiling, and really, from draft onwards, has always been much more highly regarded than Vesa. While Vesa was a first rounder, he was quite late (24) and as such, a project of sorts, much like Roslovic who had a similar draft spot. But I don't recall anyone hyping Vesa to the extent that we see with Perfetti. I don't even view them as competing for the same role. Perfetti, if all works out, is likely a possession driving winger that would benefit Scheifele, PLD getting someone else assuming he (PLD) signs an extension. Assuming Perfetti doesn't become a center at the NHL level that is, something we were all drooling about prior to the PLD acquisition. With confidence and time Vesa might ultimately become a mini-Wheeler but I think that's somewhat improbable and perhaps delusional on my part, so for the time being I'll stick with my prediction from the start of this paragraph.

Appleton too was a 2015 draft. Holding Vesa to the same standard would give him at least another year to take hold of his opportunity. Fully acknowledging the massive difference in draft position between Appleton and Vesa.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I disagree. The TNSE approach to Vesa has been nothing but patience. They've spent a season on the Moose reworking his game to be North American in orientation. They acknowledged pretty openly that his game needed a sort of functional rebuild. I think your comparison to Harkins is actually appropriate, but not with respect to the intent you lend to it. Harkins in my mind is exactly what they are trying to achieve with Vesa, only in a bigger body. Harkins is a 2015 and is only now ready to take the next step. His regular playing time likely comes at the expense of not re-signing someone like Perreault. Vesa is getting a shot only now in the NHL and even then it is substantially limited. Even if the Jets were to send Vesa down to the Moose for the remainder of the year I wouldn't take that as a sign that his time has run out, rather than the Jets don't see a regular fit for him in this year's roster so more and better development could be beneficial with the Moose, Covid notwithstanding. What I do expect is he bounces between taxi and regular squad, getting limited games and minutes for a taste at the bigs and to evaluate progress this year.

I think Vesa's ultimate role comes as playing third line wing on a Lowry-like line. Big body, hard to play against, defensively responsible (in time). Perfetti on the other hand has a much higher ceiling, and really, from draft onwards, has always been much more highly regarded than Vesa. While Vesa was a first rounder, he was quite late (24) and as such, a project of sorts, much like Roslovic who had a similar draft spot. But I don't recall anyone hyping Vesa to the extent that we see with Perfetti. I don't even view them as competing for the same role. Perfetti, if all works out, is likely a possession driving winger that would benefit Scheifele, PLD getting someone else assuming he (PLD) signs an extension. Assuming Perfetti doesn't become a center at the NHL level that is, something we were all drooling about prior to the PLD acquisition. With confidence and time Vesa might ultimately become a mini-Wheeler but I think that's somewhat improbable and perhaps delusional on my part, so for the time being I'll stick with my prediction from the start of this paragraph.

Appleton too was a 2015 draft. Holding Vesa to the same standard would give him at least another year to take hold of his opportunity. Fully acknowledging the massive difference in draft position between Appleton and Vesa.

I was hoping for a Josh Anderson an apple with offensive chops who doesn’t just shoot at goalie. Also Ves is just 3 picks after Heinola in his respective year.

 

[Ducky10]

Ves and Stanley have played a grand total of 21 NHL games between them. Labelling either of them a bust or success is absurd. Both players look like they could have a future role imo, but plenty remains to be seen.

 

[JetsUK]

I was hoping for a Josh Anderson an apple with offensive chops who doesn’t just shoot at goalie. Also Ves is just 3 picks after Heinola in his respective year.

Well, by the end of his D+4 season, Anderson had played all of 18 games and scored a whopping 5 NHL points, and he didn’t start out in Finland, and spend a year learning the NA game.

Sure, maybe KVes sucks, and never scores another NHL goal. Or maybe he continues to develop within the system and becomes a bigger Harkins with a wicked shot, or a faster and sturdier Armia-lite who can finish on a breakaway, or an Appleton who can play the halfwall on the PP and chip in 10/20 or better in a given year while being punishingly tough to play against. Don’t we want one of those guys? Or is not being Barzal or Heinola or Josh Anderson enough to call him a bust?

Until last year Harkins was being called a bust. Ehlers was a playoff no-show and. Copp was a 3rd-liner and Stanley was booking his economy ticket on the last train to Bustville - all these guys were those things until they weren’t. I don’t like seeing retread vets paid to be mediocre on the Jets but I always, always want to see our prospects succeed because it keeps the team viable and it keeps hope alive.