Prospect Info: Penguins Prospect Rating #1

[Empoleon8771]

One argument is that every step of the way, Blomqvist has been ahead of him comparatively.

D-3 - Blomqvist is in Finland's U18 league rather than the U16, and has a .912 save% in 35 games.
D-2 - Blomqvist is splitting time between U18 and U20, with a .935 in U18 and .938 in U20. Incidentally, I think Finland's clubs have two teams at most age group levels, with the Akatemia being the lesser, and Lindberg was in the Akatemia, so he's still a step behind.
D-1 - Blomqvist is playing in the U20 league, where he has .931 in 38 games, and also makes his Liiga debut.
D+1 (so up to 17-18) - Blomqvist is mainly in the Mestis, where he has a .907 in 16 games, which is 5th among goalies playing 10 or more games (only a few played 20). He also won both his Liiga starts with a .914.

D+1 Blomqvist is a more experienced, higher performing goalie than D+1 Lindberg. Development is a tricky curve but the idea that Blomqvist has a higher ceiling doesn't seem outrageous.

I also think the fact that Lindberg was lagging behind the development curve of a top goalie prospect every step of the way poses a question as to whether he simply had a massive step forward around D+1/D+2, or whether the lighter schedule is making him look better than he is.

Yeah this is all good things to point out. I wasn't aware that Blomqvist's .907 in the Mestis was as strong as it was. Or maybe that just means the goalies in the Mestis aren't that good

From the looks of it to me, the Penguins have 3 very good goalie prospects regardless of how you want to debate where they belong.

 

[Andy99]

Emp stated how we're going about defining "prospects" in these rankings threads (Calder eligible). How people determine where these prospects rank is a different story and is what the threads are for. Some people only consider their ceiling. Others consider their ceiling and floor. And then others consider how soon they're likely to make the jump to the NHL.



Yep, see what I wrote above. I see those three goalies as having similar upside, but find Lindberg "closer" to the NHL. Which is why I have him ranked higher.

yeah, I’m not big on the NHL floor measurement because no one, and I mean no one on here, can say any of these guys will have a NHL career, even guys like Angello who have played a few games because the sample size is too small…for that reason, I see no way that a floor matters (plus who cares if they make it but they’re Nick Spaling)…I’m looking for guys with “potential” to be a solid NHL player and imo they should be ranked by who has the best potential to be the best player at their positions

 

[ChaosAgent]

yeah, I’m not big on the NHL floor measurement because no one, and I mean no one on here, can say any of these guys will have a NHL career, even guys like Angello who have played a few games because the sample size is too small…for that reason, I see no way that a floor matters (plus who cares if they make it but they’re Nick Spaling)…I’m looking for guys with “potential” to be a solid NHL player and imo they should be ranked by who has the best potential to be the best player at their positions

I think "floor" is so badly misunderstood and poorly defined. This cuts across sports.

To me what it represents is "what is the likelihood that a guy puts together a productive, useful NHL career." That is floor. Ceiling is the absolute best player they can be.

So we can say that Angello has a higher floor as some sort of 4th line dude, but Legare has a higher ceiling because he retains a potential Top 6 outcome down the line whereas it's basically impossible to see Angello as a potential Top 6er.

 

[dogthateats]

I think we always do these at the wrong time of the offseason. Once camp/rookie/prospect camp happens, people’s opinions change. Not sure if that is saying much that a short camp changes people’s opinion of our prospects so much.

 

[eXile3]

That's interesting considering they need more centers coming up.

Right but he's been playing wing and I don't think they want to "square peg into a round hole" him that early in his career.

 

[Ugene Magic]

I think "floor" is so badly misunderstood and poorly defined. This cuts across sports.

To me what it represents is "what is the likelihood that a guy puts together a productive, useful NHL career." That is floor. Ceiling is the absolute best player they can be.

So we can say that Angello has a higher floor as some sort of 4th line dude, but Legare has a higher ceiling because he retains a potential Top 6 outcome down the line whereas it's basically impossible to see Angello as a potential Top 6er.

You are making it too confusing. Stop comparing one player to another.

Example: Angello's floor is a NHL 4th liner (low ceiling - tweener 3rd liner) high ceiling is an everyday 3rd liner.

You are just confusing things comparing him to a player with an obvious higher floor/low ceiling/high ceiling. That other players floor could be Angello's ceiling. Just keep it to the individual.

There's nothing confusing more than comparing them to another and having a comedy act of "Who's on first, what's on 2nd, I don't know who's on 3rd."

 

[ChaosAgent]

You are making it too confusing. Stop comparing one player to another.

Example: Angello's floor is a NHL 4th liner (low ceiling - tweener 3rd liner) high ceiling is an everyday 3rd liner.

You are just confusing things comparing him to a player with an obvious higher floor/low ceiling/high ceiling. That other players floor could be Angello's ceiling. Just keep it to the individual.

There's nothing confusing more than comparing them to another and having a comedy act of "Who's on first, what's on 2nd, I don't know who's on 3rd."

There are a lot of outcomes where Angello isn't even an NHL player in 2 years.

If you want to at least add a level of numbers to the edumacated guesses it's just:

*A: Likelihood of star (e.g., Guentzel)
*B: Likelihood of average player (e.g., Petts, McCann)
*C: Likelihood of plugger (e.g., ZAR, Ruhwedel)
*D: Likelihood of bust

Plus some sort of value weighting - for example - A is worth 6, B is worth 3, C is worth 1.

It's all spitballing but I think it's the sort of heuristic people use when evaluating. What @Andy99 said above, I think, is that he mostly entirely weighs outcomes A and B in prospect evaluation. So I guy like Angello does nothing for him.

Just for fun, here's 3 guys ran through my BS machine above:

	POJ	Poulin	Zohorna
Star	5%	10%	5%
Average	50%	30%	40%
Plugger	25%	20%	25%
Total Points	2.05	1.7	1.55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Andy99]

There are a lot of outcomes where Angello isn't even an NHL player in 2 years.

If you want to at least add a level of numbers to the edumacated guesses it's just:

*A: Likelihood of star (e.g., Guentzel)
*B: Likelihood of average player (e.g., Petts, McCann)
*C: Likelihood of plugger (e.g., ZAR, Ruhwedel)
*D: Likelihood of bust

Plus some sort of value weighting - for example - A is worth 6, B is worth 3, C is worth 1.

It's all spitballing but I think it's the sort of heuristic people use when evaluating. What @Andy99 said above, I think, is that he mostly entirely weighs outcomes A and B in prospect evaluation. So I guy like Angello does nothing for him.

Just for fun, here's 3 guys ran through my BS machine above:

	POJ	Poulin	Zohorna
Star	5%	10%	5%
Average	50%	30%	40%
Plugger	25%	20%	25%
Total Points	2.05	1.7	1.55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

yeah, for me it’s more like I don’t weight the difference between likelihood of bust and likelihood of becoming the next Craig Adams…lol…to me those are too close together and too close to call, and not really worth differentiating…I definitely would weight a higher chance at star potential probably more than any single factor in my ranking and would place a prospect higher because of it…like I probably have Legare and Puustinen higher on my ranking than many others because they have a chance to be special with their shot and offensive creativity, even though I recognize they might have a higher chance of never making the NHL at all compared to someone like Angello…

 

[HandshakeLine]

yeah, for me it’s more like I don’t weight the difference between likelihood of bust and likelihood of becoming the next Craig Adams…lol…to me those are too close together and too close to call, and not really worth differentiating…I definitely would weight a higher chance at star potential probably more than any single factor in my ranking and would place a prospect higher because of it…like I probably have Legare and Puustinen higher on my ranking than many others because they have a chance to be special with their shot and offensive creativity, even though I recognize they might have a higher chance of never making the NHL at all compared to someone like Angello…

Here's the weird thing about Craig Adams-- he actually outscored ZAR. And Gaudreau. Numerous times, even!