Prospect Info: Phantoms (AHL), Reading Royals (ECHL), NCAA, Jrs., Int'l, etc. (mid-year edition)

[Magua]

Philippe Myers receiving a 25 vote was my favorite

Same guy voting Jesper Pettersson at 23 only makes this better

 

[Roo Mad Bro]

Same guy voting Jesper Pettersson at 23 only makes this better

Did not believe you. Just checked. What the ****. Pettersson is a non prospect. I'd be shocked if he cracked the Phantoms roster for any stretch this year.

 

[Curufinwe]

Same guy voting Jesper Pettersson at 23 only makes this better

 

[Magua]

Did not believe you. Just checked. What the ****. Pettersson is a non prospect. I'd be shocked if he cracked the Phantoms roster for any stretch this year.

Treat it as comedy and you won't be disappointed.

So, we have Vorobyov, Marody, Allison, Sandstrom, Friedman all in the 30-23 range. I already know Mark Alt is ranked higher than them based on a comment from the author. 3 of the panel (of 10) didn't even think Friedman was T25, 5 for Sandstrom, and 4 for Allison. Like I said, you just know Weal will be up there too

 

[HighOFFHockey]

Can somebody post a Pronman list from like 5 years ago so the people who are defending them can see how badly they turn out.

Oh please! that would reduce all of this noise. I don't want to **** on him too much, but wow that list was just a head scratcher. The Provorov stuff was not sarcasm, he's just not a very good judge of skill. We've seen this every season. He's biased and doesn't watch enough of other teams to speak to them directly.

Even if you ignore the 100 prospects and just look at his Flyers rankings isolated to the 6 he mentioned...If he posted that on these boards he would be torn apart for being an amateur. Sanheim below Lindbolm? Cmon now...He also said Sanheim had one of the better offensive season for a Dman...okay well how about his PPG being at a record pace...forgot to mention that one didn't ya?

he just doesn't know enough, he's an amateur with an ESPN title. I'm okay with people not agreeing with me, but his list was practically trolling.


Remember his thoughts on Ghost? Yeah he was a real Guru with that one...who cares about his opinion, they're less informed than ours.

 

[Stizzle]

It looks like the BSH rankings are shaping up to be a pretty big disaster. Just another reminder that pretty much no one pays attention to this **** outside a bunch of guys that post here. 99% of opinions otherwise are just noise.

 

[Curufinwe]

People defend Pronman by saying at least he's he consistent in placing a premium on speed and skill and isn't too worried about size, but then he didn't have Ghost as a top 100 prospect last year and had Hagg above him on his list of top 10 Flyers prospects.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=109805277

 

[Magua]

People defend Pronman by saying at least he's he consistent in placing a premium on speed and skill and isn't too worried about size, but then he didn't have Ghost as a top 100 prospect last year and had Hagg above him on his list of top 10 Flyers prospects.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=109805277

Ghost is no Samuel Girard

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

In the voting in the polls section, HF had those 2 at #6 and #16. That is reasonable. To have Sanheim in the 70's is not.

Right... he should have consulted the HF forum polls beforehand. How shortsighted

The thing people should realize is that rankings like HF's represent the aggregate, not some sort of consensus. If someone's personal list resembles something like that, it tells me their knowledge of prospects is derivative and not credible. Take a draft list of any professional scout, and you'll find much more variance than Pronman.

It gets boring reading the same, slightly altered lists and "evaluations" regurgitated over and over again. I may not personally agree with Pronman all the time, but I admire his willingness to go against the grain and get annoyed when people try to invalidate and shame sports writers who are willing to share actual opinions.

Can somebody post a Pronman list from like 5 years ago so the people who are defending them can see how badly they turn out.

http://bluesteam.hockey/ranking-the-rankers-conclusion/
It looks at draft rankings, not affiliated prospect rankings, but still.

EDIT: Haha! Should have actually read the article first. Pronman's performance was pretty bad. Still, I wouldn't expect him to outperform aggregates.

 

[Striiker]

Right... he should have consulted the HF forum polls beforehand. How shortsighted

The thing people should realize is that rankings like HF's represent the aggregate, not some sort of consensus. If someone's personal list resembles something like that, it tells me their knowledge of prospects is derivative and not credible. Take a draft list of any professional scout, and you'll find much more variance than Pronman.

It gets boring reading the same, slightly altered lists and "evaluations" regurgitated over and over again. I may not personally agree with Pronman all the time, but I admire his and get annoyed when people try to invalidate and shame sports writers who are willing to share actual opinions.

http://bluesteam.hockey/ranking-the-rankers-conclusion/
It looks at draft rankings, not affiliated prospect rankings, but still.

The bold is absolute nonsense.

You get tired of reading the same/similar lists all the time?

So what you're really saying that uniqueness is more important than accuracy.

The reason many lists are similar is because some prospects are simply better than others and if 10 people (who know what they're looking at) can all recognize the superior players then their lists will obviously look similar, even if there's a few small changes.

If you ask 10 people who's a better goalie, Price or Leighton, and 9 of the people asked say Price but 1 says Leighton, then that isn't a refreshing change and "willingness to go against the grain", that's a person who doesn't know what they're talking about.

One person going completely away from the average list doesn't make them a rebellious hero... it makes them an unreliable source. And I'm not talking about having a difference of opinion on close prospects, like when people argue Provorov or Sanheim, I'm talking about ridiculous opinions like Ghost not being in the top 100 and Hagg being one of our best.

I really hope you're just being stubborn and actually do understand this, because if you really don't then I don't think you understand what prospect rankings are for. It's not like ranking favorite jerseys where it's all opinion, there's actually right and wrong answers here.

 

[Rebels57]

Pronman sucks.

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

The bold is absolute nonsense.

You get tired of reading the same/similar lists all the time?

So what you're really saying that uniqueness is more important than accuracy.

The reason many lists are similar is because some prospects are simply better than others and if 10 people (who know what they're looking at) can all recognize the superior players then their lists will obviously look similar, even if there's a few small changes.

If you ask 10 people who's a better goalie, Price or Leighton, and 9 of the people asked say Price but 1 says Leighton, then that isn't a refreshing change and "willingness to go against the grain", that's a person who doesn't know what they're talking about.

One person going completely away from the average list doesn't make them a rebellious hero... it makes them an unreliable source. And I'm not talking about having a difference of opinion on close prospects, like when people argue Provorov or Sanheim, I'm talking about ridiculous opinions like Ghost not being in the top 100 and Hagg being one of our best.

I really hope you're just being stubborn and actually do understand this, because if you really don't then I don't think you understand what prospect rankings are for. It's not like ranking favorite jerseys where it's all opinion, there's actually right and wrong answers here.

Scouting and evaluating prospects is completely different than comparing established NHL players. That's why you have so much variance. Highly touted prospects bust, and others seemingly come out of nowhere and surprise everyone.

And yes, unique lists have more value to me than one closely resembling the "aggregate." If someone tries to pass that off as their unfiltered opinion, you know they're full of it. My grandmother could read a bunch of hockey bloggers and analysts with out watching any one of them play, and at the end of the day, the list she'd come up with might be more "accurate" than Pronman's. Now... instead of my grandmother, imagine a legion of hack sports writers repeating this ad nauseam, reading each other's work thinking they are becoming more knowledgable, but they're all just eating each other's **** in a giant human centipede ouroboros as they try to corral curious hockey fans along for the ride, just so their awful blog gets a few more "hits." And people wonder why hockey blogging is in such an awful state.

 

[Random Forest]

Scouting and evaluating prospects is completely different than comparing established NHL players. That's why you have so much variance. Highly touted prospects bust, and others seemingly come out of nowhere and surprise everyone.

And yes, unique lists have more value to me than one closely resembling the "aggregate." If someone tries to pass that off as their unfiltered opinion, you know they're full of it. My grandmother could read a bunch of hockey bloggers and analysts with out watching any one of them play, and at the end of the day, the list she'd come up with might be more "accurate" than Pronman's. Now... instead of my grandmother, imagine a legion of hack sports writers repeating this ad nauseam, reading each other's work thinking they are becoming more knowledgable, but they're all just eating each other's **** in a giant human centipede ouroboros as they try to corral curious hockey fans along for the ride, just so their awful blog gets a few more "hits." And people wonder why hockey blogging is in such an awful state.

Do you think Pronman actually scouts all the players he ranks? Do you think anyone does? Not even actual scouts do that.

Pronman relies on the same heuristics and shortcuts that you describe here. He just has different (ie, strange) taste in which skills he prefers over others. But "ranking" players is an exercise in aggregating the research of others. The best opinions are the ones that encompass the most sources and the most reliable sources. That's what most of us do as fans... it's what Bob McKenzie does in his list. Just because Pronman has ESPN as his platform does not make him any more credible than a particularly knowledgable fan who's done his homework.

 

[Tripod]

It's not wrong because I disagree with it, I disagree with it because it's wrong.

But fine, think whatever you want. If you want to be foolish enough to treat that list as if it's anything other than used toilet paper then that's up to you. Have fun being misinformed.

The bolded is really all that needs to be said.

 

[Striiker]

Scouting and evaluating prospects is completely different than comparing established NHL players. That's why you have so much variance. Highly touted prospects bust, and others seemingly come out of nowhere and surprise everyone.

And yes, unique lists have more value to me than one closely resembling the "aggregate." If someone tries to pass that off as their unfiltered opinion, you know they're full of it. My grandmother could read a bunch of hockey bloggers and analysts with out watching any one of them play, and at the end of the day, the list she'd come up with might be more "accurate" than Pronman's. Now... instead of my grandmother, imagine a legion of hack sports writers repeating this ad nauseam, reading each other's work thinking they are becoming more knowledgable, but they're all just eating each other's **** in a giant human centipede ouroboros as they try to corral curious hockey fans along for the ride, just so their awful blog gets a few more "hits." And people wonder why hockey blogging is in such an awful state.

And that's a problem.

By this logic I could give you a prospect ranking that's literally last years draft order, but in reverse, and it'd be more valuable than Bob McKenzies ranking since it would be super different from anyone elses. It would be a pile of nonsense dog ****, but you're saying that's better simply because it's different.

Being different isnt better than being right.

Do you think Pronman actually scouts all the players he ranks? Do you think anyone does? Not even actual scouts do that.

Pronman relies on the same heuristics and shortcuts that you describe here. He just has different (ie, strange) taste in which skills he prefers over others. But "ranking" players is an exercise in aggregating the research of others. The best opinions are the ones that encompass the most sources and the most reliable sources. That's what most of us do as fans... it's what Bob McKenzie does in his list. Just because Pronman has ESPN as his platform does not make him any more credible than a particularly knowledgable fan who's done his homework.

Don't forget that his three most important things to look at when making rankings. Height (or more accurately, how short they are), how recently they were drafted (most recent drafts always get favorable treatment for some reason), and their WJC performances (because that short sample is everything).

The bolded is really all that needs to be said.

If I were smart I'd just leave it there but I seem to have a need to waste my own time.

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

Do you think Pronman actually scouts all the players he ranks? Do you think anyone does? Not even actual scouts do that.

Pronman relies on the same heuristics and shortcuts that you describe here. He just has different (ie, strange) taste in which skills he prefers over others. But "ranking" players is an exercise in aggregating the research of others. The best opinions are the ones that encompass the most sources and the most reliable sources. That's what most of us do as fans... it's what Bob McKenzie does in his list. Just because Pronman has ESPN as his platform does not make him any more credible than a particularly knowledgable fan who's done his homework.

Pronman obviously can't watch everyone one of these players play on an equal and consistent basis (nobody can), and maybe that's why he seems to weight the WJC more heavily. Nevertheless, I guarantee he's more credible than anyone here. The problem with most fans who "do their homework" is just what I'm talking about: their hockey knowledge is largely derivative.

And that's a problem.

By this logic I could give you a prospect ranking that's literally last years draft order, but in reverse, and it'd be more valuable than Bob McKenzies ranking since it would be super different from anyone elses. It would be a pile of nonsense dog ****, but you're saying that's better simply because it's different.

Being different isnt better than being right.

Being honest is better than being right. That's what you're missing.

 

[Rebels57]

The worst part about Pronman is all of the attention, both good and bad, given to him here at hfboards.

 

[Striiker]

Being honest is better than being right. That's what you're missing.

I never said anything about being honest or dishonest. You're the one randomly assuming that similar lists must be copied, not that they're seeing the same things.

Well Pronmans list is honest as hell, that's for sure. That list isn't copied from any credible source so if honesty is all that matters then you're set. Unfortunately it's also worthless because his honesty is showing that he honestly has no clue what he's watching. He's not being berated for having a different list, he's being berated for having a list that lacks logic and knowledge.

For example, a list that leaves Morin off can be rationalized by saying "well maybe this writer just doesn't like the chances of that kind of player. They are fairly risky". But Pronman, someone known for being extremely favorable towards small and skilled players, says Ghost isn't a top 100 prospect last year. It makes no sense. And even when you only look at his rankings of Flyers prospects against each other, they're a joke.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

Because I'm too lazy to look it up, does anyone have an idea of guys in our system that are presently captains or assistant captains on their junior team (or college, international, or pro team)?

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Because I'm too lazy to look it up, does anyone have an idea of guys in our system that are presently captains or assistant captains on their junior team (or college, international, or pro team)?

Dove-McFalls is the only returning letter wearer right now. He wore an "A" last year. Konecny wore the "C" in Ottawa but didn't wear anything when moving on to Sarnia to close out the year.

Konecny, Twarynski, Marody, Myers, Friedman, & Laberge might be good candidates to wear some this year. Provorov too if for whatever reason he didn't make the Flyers.

 

[Tripod]

Not that it means much, but in the voting on prospect goalies, Philly ended up with 4 of the top 26 prospects. Our depth in goal is sooooo improved.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Because I'm too lazy to look it up, does anyone have an idea of guys in our system that are presently captains or assistant captains on their junior team (or college, international, or pro team)?

LOD hit on the guys presently. It's not common that 17 and 18 year olds wear letters. Sanheim, Morin, and Gostisbehere were all assistant captains at one point. Willcox was one of four captains at Cornell this past season. Bardreau was an assistant captain at Cornell and the US U20 and U18 teams. Martel was an assistant captain his last year in Junior. Aube-Kubel wore a letter off and on. Laczynski wore a letter with the Chicago Steel this year. Kase has worn a letter in a number of international events including the 'C' at the U18s. Fazleev wore an 'A' in the U18s. Hagg was an assistant captain in a couple international tournaments for Sweden. Goulbourne wore a letter off an on with Kelowna. Leier was captain his last year in Portland.

 

[Stizzle]

Right... he should have consulted the HF forum polls beforehand. How shortsighted

The thing people should realize is that rankings like HF's represent the aggregate, not some sort of consensus. If someone's personal list resembles something like that, it tells me their knowledge of prospects is derivative and not credible. Take a draft list of any professional scout, and you'll find much more variance than Pronman.

It gets boring reading the same, slightly altered lists and "evaluations" regurgitated over and over again. I may not personally agree with Pronman all the time, but I admire his willingness to go against the grain and get annoyed when people try to invalidate and shame sports writers who are willing to share actual opinions.
http://bluesteam.hockey/ranking-the-rankers-conclusion/
It looks at draft rankings, not affiliated prospect rankings, but still.

EDIT: Haha! Should have actually read the article first. Pronman's performance was pretty bad. Still, I wouldn't expect him to outperform aggregates.

This time last year he didn't rank David Kase in his top prospect list. Yet just months earlier he had Kase rated as a 1st rounder on his final draft rankings. I recall a whole bunch of guys he had listed after Kase made the top prospect list. Where was his "willingness to go against the grain" at then?

 

[Curufinwe]

The Phantoms added center Corban Knight on an AHL contract.

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=38063

So there's a guy with size who's also good at faceoffs.

http://puckbase.com/player/corban-knight

 

[Magua]

The Phantoms added center Corban Knight on an AHL contract.

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=38063

So there's a guy with size who's also good at faceoffs.

http://puckbase.com/player/corban-knight

If he went to the University of North Dakota it'd be even better