Prospect Info: Marlies/Prospects- Early Off Season time

[SeaOfBlue]

Not surprising that all of the guys have plus IQ, since that is what Dubas values more than anything... As he should.

 

[biotk]

Not surprising that all of the guys have plus IQ, since that is what Dubas values more than anything... As he should.

They don't really all have a plus IQ - just Robertson and Sandin. A score of 60 IQ, which is what the rest of them have, means that Pronman puts them in the top 3rd of pros - not the top 3rd of NHL players. A 60 could best be described as the standard hockey IQ that the vast majority of NHL players have.

For instance Pronman gave 84 ratings for young D (any D under the age of 23, the odd prospect 23 or older if they haven't played many NHL games) among the 31 teams who he felt were at least legit NHL D (that legit category basically means probable full-time #5/6 - possible #4). His IQ rankings go from 20 - 80.

IQ ranking of the 84D in the categories from "Special player" (Dahlin) to "Legit NHL player"

20 - none
25 - none
30 - none
35 - none
40 - none
45 - none
50 - none
55 - six players (7%)
60 - 63 players (75%)
65 - 13 players (15%)
70 - 2 players (2%)
75 - none
80 - none

(the 2 Ds in that "70" category were Fox and Merkley)

 

[cookie]

Interesting look at the defenders by Pronman. Could part of their sub par physicality be due to them playing against AHL and NHL competition even their counterparts would be facing off against physically less developed juniors players? Liljegren can freeze pucks and control incoming forecheck by taking his fair share of punishment whereas Sandin has had instances of making open-ice hits even in the NHL level.

 

[biotk]

Interesting look at the defenders by Pronman. Could part of their sub par physicality be due to them playing against AHL and NHL competition even their counterparts would be facing off against physically less developed juniors players?

I would say that it is because they are clearly sub-par physically - and most players being rated here are either in the NHL, AHL, pro overseas or college.

 

[Mickey Marner]

They don't really all have a plus IQ - just Robertson and Sandin. A score of 60 IQ, which is what the rest of them have, means that Pronman puts them in the top 3rd of pros - not the top 3rd of NHL players. A 60 could best be described as the standard hockey IQ that the vast majority of NHL players have.

For instance Pronman gave 84 ratings for young D (any D under the age of 23, the odd prospect 23 or older if they haven't played many NHL games) among the 31 teams who he felt were at least legit NHL D (that legit category basically means probable full-time #5/6 - possible #4). His IQ rankings go from 20 - 80.

IQ ranking of the 84D in the categories from "Special player" (Dahlin) to "Legit NHL player"

20 - none
25 - none
30 - none
35 - none
40 - none
45 - none
50 - none
55 - six players (7%)
60 - 63 players (75%)
65 - 13 players (15%)
70 - 2 players (2%)
75 - none
80 - none

(the 2 Ds in that "70" category were Fox and Merkley)

Not much of a bell curve.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Pronman putting NYR #1 without Lafreniere is a pretty dubious stance.

 

[biotk]

Not much of a bell curve.

No, but keep in mind that these same ratings were developed to rate pre-draft prospects - many of whom will never play a game of pro-hockey. So you will see players with low IQ there. But guys who will be full-time NHLers should be the best of the best. Even though the scale is 20 - 80, 40 is fringe pro (ie probably not good enough to be a regular in the ECHL). A 20 is probably your low-end recreational player.

Unlike categories like physicality where you can still thrive without it if you have the skills (Quinn Hughes, for instance, is a 30), for IQ Pronman feels that it is so essential that you really can't make it to be an NHL regular is you are below around 55.

I am not saying that I agree with his scale - as I can't think of a player forward or D who has scored above 70 on the IQ (maybe McDavid?).

 

[Mickey Marner]

No, but keep in mind that these same ratings were developed to rate pre-draft prospects - many of whom will never play a game of pro-hockey. So you will see players with low IQ there. But guys who will be full-time NHLers should be the best of the best. Even though the scale is 20 - 80, 40 is fringe pro (ie probably not good enough to be a regular in the ECHL). A 20 is probably your low-end recreational player.

Unlike categories like physicality where you can still thrive without it if you have the skills (Quinn Hughes, for instance, is a 30), for IQ Pronman feels that it is so essential that you really can't make it to be an NHL regular is you are below around 55.

I am not saying that I agree with his scale - as I can't think of a player forward or D who has scored above 70 on the IQ (maybe McDavid?).

Yeah, I understand the ratings mostly consist of top-5 prospects in a team's system, but I still think the spread is too narrow. It seems like he's trying to please everyone.

I also think his analysis of IQ is primarily focused on what a player does with the puck on their stick, even though they play 95% of the game without it.

 

[FreeBird]

Here is the overview of Pronman's piece. I will just identify the grades as plus or whatever since it's a paid subscription

1. Matthews
Skating and physicality as above average, pucks skills are better then plus. IQ is a plus. Shot is generational which is not surprising. He is the total package. Combining size with skating, fantastic puck skills and arguably the best mid range shot in the league. Started playing more physically as well.

2. Robertson
Average skating, more then plus IQ, well below average physicality, plus puck skills and a plus plus shot.

One of the best OHL players. Can score from all areas and can go through defences easily with his stick handling skills. Also works really hard to get pucks back despite his size. Great edge work but speed is a question. Sees him as a top 6 player.

3. Sandin
Average skating, above average puck skills, below average physicality, and more then plus IQ.

Smarts and creativity are what make up his puck moving. He finds areas to get the puck in. Patient while holding the puck inside the blueline and shows great poise. He is alright defensively because of his IQ and is willing to engage in battles.


Has questions if his mobility and size will stop him from playing tough matchups at the top level.

4. Liljegren
Above average skating, plus puck skills, below average physicality, plus IQ.

Solid puckmover. Poised and patient in making plays out of the zone. Skilled who can take players one on one. Solid skater known more for edgework then speed. Huge gains defensively who shuts down plays.
Has questions how much offense he will produce at the next level, but wouldn't be surprised if he takes off with the flashes he has shown.

5. Abramov
Average skating, plus puck skills, below average physicality, plus IQ and plus plus shot

One of the better forwards in the QMJHL. High end vision which helps create many chances. Could beat defenders with his hands but is pass first. His shot was the most impressive he has seen from him before, as he scored goals that could beat NHL goalies.
He's small with average skating so those will be obstacles, but believes the skill and compete level will get through that.

6. Hallander
Average skating, above average puck skills, average physicality, plus IQ.

Not a jump out of you seat player, but is really smart with a strong compete level. Plays really well in the tough areas of the ice and wins battles. Nice passer and makes good plays around the net. The skill might not be enough to produce strong numbers at the top level, but he has had good production over the years.

7. Abruzzese
Above average skating, plus puck skills, well below average physicality, plus IQ

A top forward in college hockey. Very high skill. Sees all openings in the O zone, and patience and creativity helps him make difficult plays. He thinks pass first, but when he attacks, he has the hands to get by defenders. He's small and while agile and elusive, his speed is a question. Really competitive though and doesn't get pushed around.

Not going over honourable mentions.

My thoughts. Agree for the most part but think he undervalues Sandin a bit and overvalues a couple of the tools of Lilly. The plus plus shot for Abramov is too high but his shot is certainly good.
Also Hallander is exactly the prospect we needed in the pool.

 

[FreeBird]

that a boy you came through AGAIN

 

[biotk]

Yeah, I understand the ratings mostly consist of top-5 prospects in a team's system, but I still think the spread is too narrow. It seems like he's trying to please everyone.

I also think his analysis of IQ is primarily focused on what a player does with the puck on their stick, even though they play 95% of the game without it.

I agree with both criticisms. At the same time we are talking about several hundred prospects, so the task is crazy to begin with. I mainly look to see what over-all Tiers he puts players in and who that compares them with (and keeping in mind that this is just Pronman's position). So for instance D drafted in 2018:

Dahlin (1 OA) Special
Hughes (7 OA) Elite
Boqvist (8 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Bouchard (10 OA) Very good
Dobson (12 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Ty Smith (17 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Merkley (21 OA) Very good
Miller (22 OA) Legit
Johansson (24 OA) NHL potential
Bernard-Docker (26 OA) - Legit
Beaudin (27 OA) NHL potential
Lundkvist (28 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Sandin (29 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Alexyev (31 OA) Legit
Sameulsson (32 OA) Legit
McIssac (36 OA) Legit
Woo (37 OA) Legit
Romanov (38 OA) High-end

Pronman doesn't think that Bouchard, Miller, Johansson, and Beaudin are living up to their draft position. While Pronman thinks that Sandin has exceeded his draft position (out of the 12 D drafted ahead of him, 2 are considered far better, 4 are on par, 6 below), Romanov has been the real standout (compared to draft position - 17 D drafted before him, Pronman considers only Dahlin and Hughes to have higher potential).

For comparison among not so big NHL D who were drafted in 2016 and have played 100+ games: Pronman has Girard in the high end tier, Hronek in the high end/very good bubble and Mete in the very good tier.

 

[Mickey Marner]

I agree with both criticisms. At the same time we are talking about several hundred prospects, so the task is crazy to begin with. I mainly look to see what over-all Tiers he puts players in and who that compares them with (and keeping in mind that this is just Pronman's position). So for instance D drafted in 2018:

Dahlin (1 OA) Special
Hughes (7 OA) Elite
Boqvist (8 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Bouchard (10 OA) Very good
Dobson (12 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Ty Smith (17 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Merkley (21 OA) Very good
Miller (22 OA) Legit
Johansson (24 OA) NHL potential
Bernard-Docker (26 OA) - Legit
Beaudin (27 OA) NHL potential
Lundkvist (28 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Sandin (29 OA) High-end/very good bubble
Alexyev (31 OA) Legit
Sameulsson (32 OA) Legit
McIssac (36 OA) Legit
Woo (37 OA) Legit
Romanov (38 OA) High-end

Pronman doesn't think that Bouchard, Miller, Johansson, and Beaudin are living up to their draft position. While Pronman thinks that Sandin has exceeded his draft position (out of the 12 D drafted ahead of him, 2 are considered far better, 4 are on par, 6 below), Romanov has been the real standout (compared to draft position - 17 D drafted before him, Pronman considers only Dahlin and Hughes to have higher potential).

For comparison among not so big NHL D who were drafted in 2016 and have played 100+ games: Pronman has Girard in the high end tier, Hronek in the high end/very good bubble and Mete in the very good tier.

His overall tiers do pass the smell test, even if the sum of their parts are a bit wonky. It's difficult in general to stop oneself from working backwards from a conclusion. I imagine there are times where he rates one prospect better than another overall, but their compartmentalized skills favour the weaker prospect -beacause you can only reduce so much to a number- so he bumps up the skill rating of his preferred prospect.

 

[biotk]

His overall tiers do pass the smell test, even if the sum of their parts are a bit wonky. It's difficult in general to stop oneself from working backwards from a conclusion. I imagine there are times where he rates one prospect better than another overall, but their compartmentalized skills favour the weaker prospect -beacause you can only reduce so much to a number- so he bumps up the skill rating of his preferred prospect.

I believe (if I remember correctly from a couple years ago) that he places players in tiers without taking into regards their skill ratings. The skill ratings can only measure part of a player's overall ability, and some things he considers far more important than others (ie hockey sense is the most important, then skating, then puck skills, then physical game - but even then it would depend on the position and playing style).


The best example is probably Merkley who if you were going by skills assessment alone would probably be in the elite category, but isn't. He isn't in the elite/high end bubble either, or the high end tier, or the high end/very good bubble. Instead he is the very good category. Mostly, I assume, because of attitude and poor defensive play.

 

[meefer]

Yeah, I understand the ratings mostly consist of top-5 prospects in a team's system, but I still think the spread is too narrow. It seems like he's trying to please everyone.

I also think his analysis of IQ is primarily focused on what a player does with the puck on their stick, even though they play 95% of the game without it.

Can't comment on how he views IQ, but your point is spot on.

 

[Morgs]

I get its cool to hate on Liljegren these days, but Button

 

[kk87]

I get its cool to hate on Liljegren these days, but Button

He also suggests we consider Grieg at 15... I like Grieg a lot but he's a guy I'm hoping falls to us at 44. Some questionable takes in that writeup, to say the least

 

[TheGoldenJet]

I get its cool to hate on Liljegren these days, but Button

Any list with Liljegren out of the top 3 is a joke.

 

[stickty111]

Moral of the story, Button's prospect evaluations are a joke.

 

[Brobust]

I find it strange that Nick A gets more mention on that TSN thing than Abramov, who scored like 40 points more than the 2nd highest point getter on his team.

 

[justashadowof]

I find it strange that Nick A gets more mention on that TSN thing than Abramov, who scored like 40 points more than the 2nd highest point getter on his team.

Nick Abrussezze had the best NCAA freshman year by a Leafs' draft pick in decades. Abrussezze's PPG was higher at a higher level of hockey. Abramov had his great season in the weakest of the 3 CHL leagues. They're both positive picks but Abrussezze's season was historically exceptional hence why it's more noteworthy.

 

[Brobust]

Nick Abrussezze had the best NCAA freshman year by a Leafs' draft pick in decades. Abrussezze's PPG was higher at a higher level of hockey. Abramov had his great season in the weakest of the 3 CHL leagues. They're both positive picks but Abrussezze's season was historically exceptional hence why it's more noteworthy.

Seems very impressive until you realize he was a 20 year old rookie. Last year would have counted as his D+3 season if he were drafted as an 18 year old.

Also, what makes Abramov's season impressive is that he seemed to be a one man show on his team.

 

[LeafChief]

Seems very impressive until you realize he was a 20 year old rookie. Last year would have counted as his D+3 season if he were drafted as an 18 year old.

Also, what makes Abramov's season impressive is that he seemed to be a one man show on his team.

Abramov had 76 points. The next highest scorer on his team had 41.

 

[stickty111]

Some thoughts on Hallander's play today.

 

[Green Snow Storm]

Seems very impressive until you realize he was a 20 year old rookie. Last year would have counted as his D+3 season if he were drafted as an 18 year old.

Also, what makes Abramov's season impressive is that he seemed to be a one man show on his team.

It's still what I would say classifies as very impressive since he had a great season in the NCAA for a player of any status, he was 1st in ppg for U21 players, 3rd in the whole NCAA. Very impressive, he has a very real chance to become a middle six center in the NHL.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

It's still what I would say classifies as very impressive since he had a great season in the NCAA for a player of any status, he was 1st in ppg for U21 players, 3rd in the whole NCAA. Very impressive, he has a very real chance to become a middle six center in the NHL.

I think it is more likely he ends up as a winger, which is where he was playing at Harvard.

However, with Jack Drury gone, Harvard may move him to center so who knows.

If he does that, he could end up as a better Alex Kerfoot.