Prospect Info: Logan Stanley - Part III

[Mortimer Snerd]

If public rankings have a player outside of the top 200 then how many GMs are going to reach and take them 6 rounds early? That is (potentially) risking your job on one player. Of course you might take them earlier than the 7th round.

I'm not sure how much attention they pay to the public rankings. But I don't think you would be likely to have a situation where a team's own list and the public lists disagree to that extent. Certainly not among the top 30 or so prospects. The gap might get wider in the later rounds. So team A takes a player in the 5th rd that team B would have taken in the 7th rd. If that player exceeds the performance of the avg. 2nd rounder, I think it is safe to say that team A is pleasantly surprised. Had they expected such performance, they would have taken the player earlier in the expectation that other teams also knew how good he would be. The same goes for the public lists. If they had known, they would have listed him higher.

The thing is that by the 5th rd they are pretty much just throwing darts. The hits are more luck than anything else.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

No but you can rank a player 37th. Still get 6 of your players before him and somehow he is still there in round 7. No one else will know that you had him ranked high and you cash in. Every fan thinks your lucky to get that player there instead of saying kudos for identifying that talent and ranking him within your top 40.

It doesn't matter that no one else knows you had him ranked at 37. They all had him ranked at 40 - at least as far as you know - and someone took him in the 2nd rd. They all don't know your list and you don't know theirs.

So here is the scenario, you have this player ranked at 37. Your turn is 45 and you find him still there. The next player on your list who is available is your 52nd ranked player. Do you leave 37 exposed to all the other teams so that you can grab 52, in the hope that 37 will still be there? You get 52 and before your next turn at 76 the team with pick 46 takes your 37. But you made damn sure you got 52! Showed them.

You start with a list of players in the order you rate them. As players are chosen, you scratch them off your list. When your turn comes, you take the highest rated one on your list who is still available. You don't count on being smarter than all the other teams combined.

 

[Daximus]

It doesn't matter that no one else knows you had him ranked at 37. They all had him ranked at 40 - at least as far as you know - and someone took him in the 2nd rd. They all don't know your list and you don't know theirs.

So here is the scenario, you have this player ranked at 37. Your turn is 45 and you find him still there. The next player on your list who is available is your 52nd ranked player. Do you leave 37 exposed to all the other teams so that you can grab 52, in the hope that 37 will still be there? You get 52 and before your next turn at 76 the team with pick 46 takes your 37. But you made damn sure you got 52! Showed them.

You start with a list of players in the order you rate them. As players are chosen, you scratch them off your list. When your turn comes, you take the highest rated one on your list who is still available. You don't count on being smarter than all the other teams combined.

But part of making your list is the ranking itself. You can rank a player at 37 that zero teams have in their top 100. It would be impossible to know as well unless you have all 31 teams lists. And that player could end up being an NHLer. But you'd never know as a GM, scout and definitely not as a fan if no one else liked him but your team. That should count for something. Instead we say it's lucky. When in fact you had that player ranked higher than potentially every other team and had the wherewithal to evaluate them well and pick them.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

But part of making your list is the ranking itself. You can rank a player at 37 that zero teams have in their top 100. It would be impossible to know as well unless you have all 31 teams lists. And that player could end up being an NHLer. But you'd never know as a GM, scout and definitely not as a fan if no one else liked him but your team. That should count for something. Instead we say it's lucky. When in fact you had that player ranked higher than potentially every other team and had the wherewithal to evaluate them well and pick them.

I'm not following you here Dax. Nobody knows anyone else's list. So everyone proceeds on the assumption that all the lists are fairly similar. How else could you possibly do it?

Even when you pick a player that everyone else has already passed on 1 or more times, you can't know that they would have passed on him again. Maybe every team would take him if they had your pick. You just don't know.

And it only takes 1 team out of the other 30 to rate him like you do. You rate a kid highly but have reason to guess that other teams managed, somehow, to miss spotting him. You may be more right than wrong in that assessment. But it only takes 1. That 1 doesn't even need to rate the kid as highly as you do. They may have him 15 spots lower than you do. But they draft 16 spots after you. You lose.

No matter how you slice it, you are gambling that you are smarter than all the other teams. Incredibly arrogant gamble.

If what you want is to be able to pat yourself on the back for picking a Niku in the 7th, go ahead. You were the first team to rate him that highly. Some other teams may have rated him where you did but they haven't had their turn in that rd yet.

But if you knew at the draft that Niku was going to turn out like he has why did you not take him ahead of Appleton, Spacek, Foley and Harkins? Why would you have risked leaving him available to everybody else while you were busy drafting lesser prospects? It would only have taken 1 team to grab him with a 6th rd pick on a hunch. They would be risking nothing but a 6th. And you took that risk for what gain?

The only way it could possibly make sense is if you knew with certainty that no other team was going to take him. And that you could never know.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

When we were doing our list in Junior we probably had a list of 350 kids on it with another 100 that were from everyone's list that there was no consensus on. My area was Manitoba so for instance I would send in a list of 150 Manitoba kids, I would also send in lists of players of that caught my eye in limited viewings. We would then meet put together a list that we agreed on and then we would have the side board of kids that each of us thought should be on that list.

 

[Daximus]

I'm not following you here Dax. Nobody knows anyone else's list. So everyone proceeds on the assumption that all the lists are fairly similar. How else could you possibly do it?

Even when you pick a player that everyone else has already passed on 1 or more times, you can't know that they would have passed on him again. Maybe every team would take him if they had your pick. You just don't know.

And it only takes 1 team out of the other 30 to rate him like you do. You rate a kid highly but have reason to guess that other teams managed, somehow, to miss spotting him. You may be more right than wrong in that assessment. But it only takes 1. That 1 doesn't even need to rate the kid as highly as you do. They may have him 15 spots lower than you do. But they draft 16 spots after you. You lose.

No matter how you slice it, you are gambling that you are smarter than all the other teams. Incredibly arrogant gamble.

If what you want is to be able to pat yourself on the back for picking a Niku in the 7th, go ahead. You were the first team to rate him that highly. Some other teams may have rated him where you did but they haven't had their turn in that rd yet.

But if you knew at the draft that Niku was going to turn out like he has why did you not take him ahead of Appleton, Spacek, Foley and Harkins? Why would you have risked leaving him available to everybody else while you were busy drafting lesser prospects? It would only have taken 1 team to grab him with a 6th rd pick on a hunch. They would be risking nothing but a 6th. And you took that risk for what gain?

The only way it could possibly make sense is if you knew with certainty that no other team was going to take him. And that you could never know.

What I'm saying is Niku could have just as easily been in the Jets top 20-40 as he could have been in the Jets 75-100. We have no way of knowing. So outsider swill say its a lucky pick but all that had to happen was the Jets got 6 of their guys before him and he managed to last until round #7, while still being rated in their top 40. No one will ever give them credit for assessing a player that high because no one knows how high they actually had him. They will say it's pure luck that he was there and just happened to be the next guy on their list. The truth is no one knows if he was rated 21, 37, 56 or 100. All that we know is he was the next guy on their list when that pick came up.

 

[Daximus]

When we were doing our list in Junior we probably had a list of 350 kids on it with another 100 that were from everyone's list that there was no consensus on. My area was Manitoba so for instance I would send in a list of 150 Manitoba kids, I would also send in lists of players of that caught my eye in limited viewings. We would then meet put together a list that we agreed on and then we would have the side board of kids that each of us thought should be on that list.

From everything I can gather most NHL teams put together a list of anywhere from 75-120 for their draft board but some individual scouts go higher. The size of the lists are usually indicative of the # of picks a team has heading into the draft. A lot of lists tend to differ heavily after anywhere from pick 10-15, sometimes as soon as pick #3 and by the late 1st round many teams lists are so completely different that it's unlikely a lot of teams would ever have a kid ranked at the same spot. I've seen a few draft boards, like the Canucks from 2010 for instance. Team lists differ so heavily from consensus opinion that you might as well throw consensus lists out the window come draft day.

 

[pucka lucka]

no, because you're beating a dead horse over and ****ing over and ****ing over again.
instead, give me and others some insight on his development. tell me: how have his last 10 games been? areas you've seen improve? areas that need improvement?
yep. i thought so.

Nobody owes you any insight. wtf man

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

What I'm saying is Niku could have just as easily been in the Jets top 20-40 as he could have been in the Jets 75-100. We have no way of knowing. So outsider swill say its a lucky pick but all that had to happen was the Jets got 6 of their guys before him and he managed to last until round #7, while still being rated in their top 40. No one will ever give them credit for assessing a player that high because no one knows how high they actually had him. They will say it's pure luck that he was there and just happened to be the next guy on their list. The truth is no one knows if he was rated 37, 56 or 100. All that we know is he was the next guy on their list when that pick came up.

OK, I see what you are saying. Theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely. It would require the Jets list to have very little in common with the lists of any other teams. It also means that the Jets rated Harkins, Foley, Spacek and Appleton ahead of Niku. We can know that. But in theory, the Jets list could have read:
Connor
guy
guy
guy
Roslovic
guy
guy
guy
Harkins
guy
guy
guy
Foley
guy
guy
guy
Spacek
guy
guy
guy
Appleton
guy
guy
guy
Niku
guy
guy
Gennaro
Jack Sadek
Evan Smith
Ryan Bednard
some other guy
Connor 1st OA, Roslo 5th, Harkins 9th, Foley 13th, Spacek 17th, Apples 21st, Niku 25th, Gennaro 28th.
Or .... add 16 to each of those numbers, since we started at 17.

But then that would agree with what I've been saying all along. They take the players in the order they have them on their list.

 

[HannuJ]

Nobody owes you any insight. wtf man

wtf man?
alrighty

 

[garret9]

do they just post "see you were wrong" without any summary of his development, or lack thereof?
and is the "you" you specifically?

i mean, i can't be the only poster here who looks forward to intelligent analyses of players, games, etc. Talking about draft day (perceived) mistakes is no longer analysis. It's low-hanging fruit.

so i look forward to you and others providing more first-hand reports of his play on the Moose. it's what I've come to expect from quality posters such as yourself.

When I was working more public I did do such things on Jets Nation (and here), like tracking his scoring rates relative to expectations for his growth.

 

[heilongjetsfan]

But part of making your list is the ranking itself. You can rank a player at 37 that zero teams have in their top 100. It would be impossible to know as well unless you have all 31 teams lists. And that player could end up being an NHLer. But you'd never know as a GM, scout and definitely not as a fan if no one else liked him but your team. That should count for something. Instead we say it's lucky. When in fact you had that player ranked higher than potentially every other team and had the wherewithal to evaluate them well and pick them.

I think to an extent you could have clues as to how interested other teams are in certain players, though. If there's a kid you like playing in some backwater and you've been to see him, you might have a level of awareness as to who else has been there and how often. If they're saying "wow, a real life NHL scout?" Then maybe your 37th best player is the 100th most likely to be picked, in which case, you could probably skip a round and not be too worried about it.

I don't know how often that sort of thing actually happens, but it seems plausible to me.

 

[Clayonator]

Sens fan here guys. For obvious reasons can you give me an update on his development?

 

[Winnipeg Jets]

Sens fan here guys. For obvious reasons can you give me an update on his development?

Hello! I would start by reading this thread in its entirety.

 

[Clayonator]

Hello! I would start by reading this thread in its entirety.

......this may take a while

 

[jgimp]

......this may take a while

And still won’t give you a clear idea of how he is developing

 

[Clayonator]

How close of a comparable is he to Nicolas Hague?

 

[ps241]

Sens fan here guys. For obvious reasons can you give me an update on his development?

He is a polarizing prospect here.

Speaking personally he was a guy I didn’t want us to draft. That being said he was always going to be a 4 or 5 year project type anyways. He has taken steps in each of his seasons and he has exceeded my expectations this season in the AHL.

Hard working kid who needs to keep improving his footwork. I believe he will be on the Jets bottom pair by 20-21 at the latest.

 

[Jets2point0]

Always curious when I see the Logan Stanley thread bumped. Not the update I was hoping for

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Always curious when I see the Logan Stanley thread bumped. Not the update I was hoping for

Yep - if we want to discuss draft rankings/draft strategies, it's probably best to have general conversations like that in a different thread. Anyone is welcome to create a 2019 draft thread to kick things off, if they want.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Dear Mods,
I just received the following notification:

Your post in the thread Logan Stanley - Part III was deleted. Reason: Sorry guys: this is hijacking the thread. Please take general discussions about draft/rankings to the prospects thread, if you don't mind. Thanks.

Twice in fact.

I have no way of knowing what post it was or what was in it. Therefore, I have no way of knowing why it was deleted. The reason given doesn't help when there is no context.

We need a better system here. Attach the offending post to the notification. Something. This is just frustrating and annoying. I'm told I've done something wrong but I have no idea what it was and no way to find out.

Edit: In catching up on this thread, I think I remember the conversation. with posts deleted it is hard to go back through the evolution of the topic to see how it got to where it did. I think it had a legitimate connection to the thread topic but I can't say for certain.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Always curious when I see the Logan Stanley thread bumped. Not the update I was hoping for

What were you hoping for?

The latest eyes on updates here say he is continuing to progress well but has a long way to go.
Where you hoping he is not progressing well?

 

[Jets2point0]

What were you hoping for?

The latest eyes on updates here say he is continuing to progress well but has a long way to go.
Where you hoping he is not progressing well?

No, don’t know why you’d assume I’m wishing poor progress on one of our prospects. It’s trade deadline weekend and thought there may have been news or rumours surrounding Logan as part of a larger package. Not that I’m hopeful he’s traded, but trade news is exciting regardless

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

No, don’t know why you’d assume I’m wishing poor progress on one of our prospects. It’s trade deadline weekend and thought there may have been news or rumours surrounding Logan as part of a larger package. Not that I’m hopeful he’s traded, but trade news is exciting regardless

Didn't assume you did. Asked if you did. Should have used for clarity.

The way the trade proposals have been bouncing around here anything could happen. Stanley seemed to from being a key part in the trade to having no place in it at all.

JMO, but I see him as should have significant value to rebuilding Sens. They don't have much on D, either in the NHL or in their system. He should be more valuable to them than to us, which makes him ideal as a trade piece.

 

[HannuJ]

How close of a comparable is he to Nicolas Hague?

the Stanley summary:
he's a project. He's big. He has some O skill. Skating's his biggest knock (as are d-zone gaps) but that apparently's taken big strides (pun intended) this season.
he's a 2nd pairing d-man with the Moose, a team that's been thinner on D this season (Niku's been up and down, Poolman was out with a concussion, Green's always out). he's been given responsibilities with the team and isn't sheltered all that much.

with Poolman with the Moose, i'd suggest that, in his 1st pro year, Stanley's the Moose's 3rd best D.

he's not ready for prime time and might get NHL action as a call-up next year. Schilling, Poolman and Nogier are probably ahead of him on the depth chart

i have more hope for him than others. hope that, by next season, he's featured as a 1st line d-man with the Moose and given good special teams time. body size says that he should be a good PKer and it would be nice to see his PP time and responsibilities increase as well.

he's on pace for a 15-20 point season. not awful. Schilling's arguably the best D on the Moose and he currently has 17 points. he's also 30 years old and has 10 nhl games' worth of experience.

Stanley's 3rd on the team for D scoring. using +/- as the only "advanced" stat, he's on par with the rest of the current D other than Schilling.

eh. for a 20 year old playing on a non-playoff AHL team and whose goalie's been putting up good #s lately, i'm not disappointed in where he's at. next year's the true marker of how he's developing.