Pittsburgh Penguins Prospects Thread

[Jacob]

Can’t wait until Poulin looks meh in a 9 game call-up and folks give up on him.

 

[TySmith4Norris]

What are the chances Wilkes is in contention for a Calder Cup this year?

Roster sure looks stacked compared to the last several years, with only defensive depth and Lindberg's readiness as real question marks (and I am not concerned about Lindberg personally)

 

[Jacob]

It’s definitely the best group of prospects they’ve had in a while, with their typical handful of AHL vets. I’d guess Riikola & Ruhwedel are down if they’re not traded or claimed on waivers.

 

[66-30-33]

It’s definitely the best group of prospects they’ve had in a while, with their typical handful of AHL vets. I’d guess Riikola & Ruhwedel are down if they’re not traded or claimed on waivers.

Riikola downvotes this comment because he rather be making NHL money eating natchos over AHL money.

 

[Malkinstheman]

Riikola downvotes this comment because he rather be making NHL money eating natchos over AHL money.

He’s on a one way contract so he’s gonna make his 1 million no matter where he plays.

 

[66-30-33]

He’s on a one way contract so he’s gonna make his 1 million no matter where he plays.

Ah my bad. I downvote my own comment.

 

[Dangles78]

What are the chances Wilkes is in contention for a Calder Cup this year?

Roster sure looks stacked compared to the last several years, with only defensive depth and Lindberg's readiness as real question marks (and I am not concerned about Lindberg personally)

Does it though? In terms of competing for the Calder Cup, I'm not sure. They definitely have an exciting roster in terms of prospects but there's so many unknowns and they haven't signed may AHL vets yet. Plus, like you said, defense and goaltending looks like an issue going in. Get Riikola through waivers and that helps.

DOC-Chaput-Angello
Poulin-Bellerive-Puustinen
Gruden-Hallander-Legare
Devane-Almeida-Bjorkqivst
Robert-Houde-Olson

Joseph-Fedun
Lee-Reilly
Almari-Maniscalco

D'Orio
Lindgren

Meh...

 

[Jacob]

Generally AHL success has a lot to do with the veterans signed and whether or not the parent club has a lot of injuries or makes the playoffs, so it’s tough to get overly excited about the baby Pens for those reasons.

Bellerive - Simon* - O’Connor
Poulin - Chaput* - Legare
Bjorkqvist - Hallander - Puustinen
Gruden - Robert - Drozg
Almeida, Houde, Devane, Olson

Lee - Fedun*
Ruhwedel* - Reilly
Riikola* - Maniscalco
Almari, Sweezey

Lindberg / d’Orio / Nappier

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

Broz projected as the 3LW for the American WJC team by Pronman following the WJSS.

I suspect most of it will have to do with how he plays at Minnesota though. He and Knies (selected a pick earlier) will probably be fighting for minutes, both for the Gophers and for Team USA.

 

[steelcityassault]

Broz projected as the 3LW for the American WJC team by Pronman following the WJSS.

I suspect most of it will have to do with how he plays at Minnesota though. He and Knies (selected a pick earlier) will probably be fighting for minutes, both for the Gophers and for Team USA.

Think I saw WB/S coach JD Forrest is coaching him too..

 

[Randy Butternubs]

@Peat and whoever else is curious:

I attempted to make my own ranking system of prospects. They're rated on their potential and readiness (weighted 66/33). Potential is based on what I see as their ceiling and as their floor. The readiness is based on how they perform at the NHL, AHL, and all other leagues. Performance success at the NHL level is worth more than the AHL. And performance success at the AHL level is worth more than the other leagues.

This is still a work in progress, but here's how my calculations compare to my latest "feelings" list that's in the Prospect #1 Poll thread:

rank	feels	calcs	delta	[calcs rating]
1	poj	poj	-	54.83
2	poulin	poulin	-	54.28
3	doc	clang	clang +13	51.38
4	hallander	lindberg	lindberg +3	51.38
5	zoho	zoho	-	50.00
6	legare	doc	doc -3	49.50
7	lindberg	lee	lee +8	49.00
8	gruden	blomqvist	blomqvist +9	48.83
9	puustinen	puustinen	-	48.83
10	angello	broz	broz +2	48.83
11	bjorkqvist	bjorkqvist	-	40.56
12	broz	gruden	gruden -4	40.00
13	bellerive	reilly	reilly +1	40.00
14	reilly	angello	angello -4	40.00
15	lee	hallander	hallander -11	39.17
16	clang	legare	legare -10	36.17
17	blomqvist	bellerive	bellerive -4	36.00
18	maniscalco	maniscalco	-	32.89
19	dorio	dorio	-	32.56
20	svejk	svejk	-	30.63
21	drozg	drozg	-	28.22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Here's the list just based on how the calculations rank their potential (for comparison, McDavid coming out of Erie would be ranked at 9.40):

rank	name	p weight
1	poulin s	6.62
2	clang c	5.80
3	lindberg f	5.80
4	blomqvist j	5.80
5	puustinen v	5.80
6	broz t	5.80
7	lee c	4.60
8	joseph po	4.35
9	oconnor d	4.35
10	hallander p	4.35
11	bjorkqvist k	4.13
12	zohorna r	3.90
13	gruden j	3.90
14	reilly w	3.90
15	legare n	3.90
16	maniscalco j	3.53
17	drozg j	3.53
18	svejkovsky l	3.45
19	angello	3.00
20	bellerive j	3.00
21	dorio a	2.63

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And how the calculations rank their readiness (I think Lee is way too high):

rank	name	r weight
1	joseph po	7.75
2	zohorna r	7.20
3	oconnor d	6.15
4	angello	6.00
5	lee c	5.50
6	bellerive j	4.80
7	dorio a	4.50
8	gruden j	4.20
9	reilly w	4.20
10	bjorkqvist k	3.90
11	clang c	3.81
12	lindberg f	3.81
13	poulin s	3.05
14	blomqvist j	3.05
15	puustinen v	3.05
16	broz t	3.05
17	hallander p	3.05
18	legare n	3.05
19	maniscalco j	2.80
20	svejkovsky l	2.29
21	drozg j	1.40

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Like I said, still a work in progress. There's clearly issues, mostly with how I'm calculating the readiness. The numbers I assigned players for ceiling, floor, performance success, and the weights were purely empirical and I'd like to change that somehow.

 

[Peat]

Too Long Didn't Read


...


Okay, seriously, wow, ton of effort. What numbers were you using for this?

My first thoughts are that Hallander's and Legare's ceilings (particularly Legare's) look pretty low, and there's definitely a weakness with how it's assigning NHL readiness in terms of being a depth AHLer vs being a star junior player/being a strong player in foreign men's leagues. I think in particular the read where being a 19 year old D2 Swedish player is better than being a 21 year old D1 Swedish player, even if the 19 year old went mental, doesn't look right.

 

[eXile3]

Someone compared Legare to Ouellet. From what I've seen of him (very limited admittedly) and his scouting report it kind of fits.

I feel Hallander and Poulin project as bottom 6 players. I'm more excited about Puustinen to be honest. I love an undersized under dog.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

I'm about 60+ pages behind on the Salary Cap Threads, but saw that @Empoleon8771 and @Goalie_Bob were in disagreement about how elite Filip Lindberg actually is. Which is a valid question, especially since Lindberg's goalie partner (Matt Murray) also had some crazy good college stats.

Out of curiosity, I found their game logs (via collegehockeyinc [good website btw]) and compiled statistical tables for the seasons they played together. In addition to the stats from that site, I calculated "Quality Starts" and "Really Bad Starts" as per how Hockey Reference does it on their player comparison tool.

Alas:

18/19	starts	gp	wins	so	ga	sv	gaa	sv%	qs	qs%	rbs	rbs%
murray m	27	27	20	1	54	612	2.114	0.919	21	0.778	3	0.111
lindberg f	14	17	11	4	25	356	1.597	0.934	13	0.765	1	0.059
Δmm - fl	13	10	9	-3	29	256	0.517	-0.015	8	0.013	2	0.052

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

19/20	starts	gp	wins	so	ga	sv	gaa	sv%	qs	qs%	rbs	rbs%
murray m	17	20	13	3	34	385	1.864	0.919	14	0.824	2	0.118
lindberg f	17	18	8	2	30	379	1.908	0.927	13	0.722	2	0.111
Δmm - fl	0	2	5	1	4	6	-0.043	-0.008	1	0.101	0	0.007

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

20/21	starts	gp	wins	so	ga	sv	gaa	sv%	qs	qs%	rbs	rbs%
murray m	14	14	10	3	28	308	1.975	0.917	9	0.643	2	0.143
lindberg f	15	15	10	5	19	357	1.241	0.949	13	0.867	2	0.133
Δmm - fl	-1	-1	0	-2	9	-49	0.734	-0.033	-4	-0.224	0	0.010

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

When looking at their numbers, yes, they seem similar. But if you convert the deltas to percentages (in whatever way you want to do that), then Lindberg's stats become even more impressive. Yes, Lindberg looks to have been worse than Murray in 19/20, but his ridiculous save percentage may indicate that his team let him down. Do note that Murray is a year older.

Disclaimer: I've not seen either of these players play a game.




@Peat I'll get around to answer your question(s) and comments to my post above.

 

[Glamor Toad]

This team could use some mango salsa

 

[ChaosAgent]

I'm about 60+ pages behind on the Salary Cap Threads, but saw that @Empoleon8771 and @Goalie_Bob were in disagreement about how elite Filip Lindberg actually is. Which is a valid question, especially since Lindberg's goalie partner (Matt Murray) also had some crazy good college stats.

Out of curiosity, I found their game logs (via collegehockeyinc [good website btw]) and compiled statistical tables for the seasons they played together. In addition to the stats from that site, I calculated "Quality Starts" and "Really Bad Starts" as per how Hockey Reference does it on their player comparison tool.

Alas:

18/19	starts	gp	wins	so	ga	sv	gaa	sv%	qs	qs%	rbs	rbs%
murray m	27	27	20	1	54	612	2.114	0.919	21	0.778	3	0.111
lindberg f	14	17	11	4	25	356	1.597	0.934	13	0.765	1	0.059
Δmm - fl	13	10	9	-3	29	256	0.517	-0.015	8	0.013	2	0.052

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

19/20	starts	gp	wins	so	ga	sv	gaa	sv%	qs	qs%	rbs	rbs%
murray m	17	20	13	3	34	385	1.864	0.919	14	0.824	2	0.118
lindberg f	17	18	8	2	30	379	1.908	0.927	13	0.722	2	0.111
Δmm - fl	0	2	5	1	4	6	-0.043	-0.008	1	0.101	0	0.007

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

20/21	starts	gp	wins	so	ga	sv	gaa	sv%	qs	qs%	rbs	rbs%
murray m	14	14	10	3	28	308	1.975	0.917	9	0.643	2	0.143
lindberg f	15	15	10	5	19	357	1.241	0.949	13	0.867	2	0.133
Δmm - fl	-1	-1	0	-2	9	-49	0.734	-0.033	-4	-0.224	0	0.010

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

When looking at their numbers, yes, they seem similar. But if you convert the deltas to percentages (in whatever way you want to do that), then Lindberg's stats become even more impressive. Yes, Lindberg looks to have been worse than Murray in 19/20, but his ridiculous save percentage may indicate that his team let him down. Do note that Murray is a year older.

Disclaimer: I've not seen either of these players play a game.




@Peat I'll get around to answer your question(s) and comments to my post above.

Great point about percentages. A 3.3% difference in sv percentage doesn't seem overly impressive at face value.

But then take the inverse of that: Opponents score on 8.3% of shots against Murray. Opponents score on 5.1% of shots against Lindberg.

Take that over 50 games at 30 shots/game. That's a difference of 48 goals. Crazy stuff.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Too Long Didn't Read
...
Okay, seriously, wow, ton of effort. What numbers were you using for this?
My first thoughts are that Hollander’s and Legare's ceilings (particularly Legare's) look pretty low, and there's definitely a weakness with how it's assigning NHL readiness in terms of being a depth AHLer vs being a star junior player/being a strong player in foreign men's leagues. I think in particular the read where being a 19 year old D2 Swedish player is better than being a 21 year old D1 Swedish player, even if the 19 year old went mental, doesn't look right.

Alrighty, here we go...


For potential, I gave players a ceiling and a floor rating (weighted 67/33). These were based on how I see their talent level/how they're placed in the lineup. It also depended on if I saw them being a line driver/star or were just a complimentary player.

Talent level/lineup placement went: Generational, Top, Middle, Bottom, Extra, Minor. Generational gets a 10.0 rating and Minor a 1.0 -- everything else was equally spaced out on their ratings. These talent ratings were then de-rated by 25% if I only saw them being a complimentary player.

To improve this, I'd like to add another talent level of "Elite" and modify those ratings accordingly. I also need/want to add better descriptors on player types. Such as: Offense Only, Defensive Specialist, Two Way, Grinder, and whatever else. Then give these appropriate de-ratings.

In order to check how my ratings looked, I put McDavid in this Spreadsheet and how I felt about him coming out of the OHL. I gave him a ceiling of "Generational Star" and a floor of "Top Star". This equated to an overall potential rating of 9.4.

For comparison sake, I have Poulin as "Top Star" and "Bottom Complimentary" (oh my god I just realized how this sounds...) for a rating of 6.62 (aka 70.4% of McDavid). Using McDavid's scoring pace for his first two seasons, my Spreadsheet has Poulin maxing out at 67 points in his first 82 NHL games. Which I'd absolutely take.

Talent levels can change the more I learn about a player and the more that player progresses. And, obviously, the points rate is only applicable for forwards.


Readiness values NHL and AHL competition and success more than all other leagues (weighted 40/33/27). And it’s based on their most recent season (past seasons contribute to how I see their ceiling/floor). Originally, competition level was a binary rating, but there’s issues with that which will be talked about later.

Success was then ranked as: Outstanding, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Disappointing. Outstanding would not be de-rated (aka given a 1.0) and Disappointing would be de-rated by 80% (aka given a 0.20). The ratings were equally spaced out by intervals of 20 percent. Clearly, this is quite subjective.

But what about players who only played in Junior a la Poulin? Doesn’t that cause issues because he’s missing out on 73% (NHL 40 + AHL 33) of the Readiness rating? Yes, it does. Which is why I halve their competition level and success rating for every level higher that they did not play.

In Poulin’s case, I ranked him “Above Average” at the Junior level which equates to a 1 x 0.80. This means he gets a 0.50 x 0.40 for the AHL and a 0.25 x 0.20 for the NHL. Given the weighting above, this gives Poulin an overall Readiness of just over 3 out of 10.

And players like POJ who graduated beyond Juniors? These players then get a 1 x 1.00 for whatever level they graduated from. I considered POJ to have performed Above Average in the AHL (1 x 0.80) and Average at the NHL (1 x 0.60). This puts his Readiness just below an 8.

Overall Potential was weighted 67% and Readiness only 33%.


As you mentioned, my Sheet’s got issues. Specifically, with Readiness. My Spreadsheet currently has their age inputted and I can incorporate that somehow. As in, how close is the player to being “fully cooked” for the position they play. I’d also like to do more of an Equivalent NHL Points look at things.

Great point about percentages. A 3.3% difference in sv percentage doesn't seem overly impressive at face value.
But then take the inverse of that: Opponents score on 8.3% of shots against Murray. Opponents score on 5.1% of shots against Lindberg.
Take that over 50 games at 30 shots/game. That's a difference of 48 goals. Crazy stuff.

That’s not how I was looking at it, but good point! I was struggling to come up with a percentage calculation that showed that Lindberg was significantly better than Murray. For some reason I was doing the “Percent Error” calculation while using Murray as the Theoretical. No clue why. Brain must’ve been cooked.

 

[Solution]

Alrighty, here we go...


For potential, I gave players a ceiling and a floor rating (weighted 67/33). These were based on how I see their talent level/how they're placed in the lineup. It also depended on if I saw them being a line driver/star or were just a complimentary player.

Talent level/lineup placement went: Generational, Top, Middle, Bottom, Extra, Minor. Generational gets a 10.0 rating and Minor a 1.0 -- everything else was equally spaced out on their ratings. These talent ratings were then de-rated by 25% if I only saw them being a complimentary player.

To improve this, I'd like to add another talent level of "Elite" and modify those ratings accordingly. I also need/want to add better descriptors on player types. Such as: Offense Only, Defensive Specialist, Two Way, Grinder, and whatever else. Then give these appropriate de-ratings.

In order to check how my ratings looked, I put McDavid in this Spreadsheet and how I felt about him coming out of the OHL. I gave him a ceiling of "Generational Star" and a floor of "Top Star". This equated to an overall potential rating of 9.4.

For comparison sake, I have Poulin as "Top Star" and "Bottom Complimentary" (oh my god I just realized how this sounds...) for a rating of 6.62 (aka 70.4% of McDavid). Using McDavid's scoring pace for his first two seasons, my Spreadsheet has Poulin maxing out at 67 points in his first 82 NHL games. Which I'd absolutely take.

Talent levels can change the more I learn about a player and the more that player progresses. And, obviously, the points rate is only applicable for forwards.


Readiness values NHL and AHL competition and success more than all other leagues (weighted 40/33/27). And it’s based on their most recent season (past seasons contribute to how I see their ceiling/floor). Originally, competition level was a binary rating, but there’s issues with that which will be talked about later.

Success was then ranked as: Outstanding, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Disappointing. Outstanding would not be de-rated (aka given a 1.0) and Disappointing would be de-rated by 80% (aka given a 0.20). The ratings were equally spaced out by intervals of 20 percent. Clearly, this is quite subjective.

But what about players who only played in Junior a la Poulin? Doesn’t that cause issues because he’s missing out on 73% (NHL 40 + AHL 33) of the Readiness rating? Yes, it does. Which is why I halve their competition level and success rating for every level higher that they did not play.

In Poulin’s case, I ranked him “Above Average” at the Junior level which equates to a 1 x 0.80. This means he gets a 0.50 x 0.40 for the AHL and a 0.25 x 0.20 for the NHL. Given the weighting above, this gives Poulin an overall Readiness of just over 3 out of 10.

And players like POJ who graduated beyond Juniors? These players then get a 1 x 1.00 for whatever level they graduated from. I considered POJ to have performed Above Average in the AHL (1 x 0.80) and Average at the NHL (1 x 0.60). This puts his Readiness just below an 8.

Overall Potential was weighted 67% and Readiness only 33%.


As you mentioned, my Sheet’s got issues. Specifically, with Readiness. My Spreadsheet currently has their age inputted and I can incorporate that somehow. As in, how close is the player to being “fully cooked” for the position they play. I’d also like to do more of an Equivalent NHL Points look at things.




That’s not how I was looking at it, but good point! I was struggling to come up with a percentage calculation that showed that Lindberg was significantly better than Murray. For some reason I was doing the “Percent Error” calculation while using Murray as the Theoretical. No clue why. Brain must’ve been cooked.

Dude with as much math as you did here, no wonder your brain is cooked. Good for you.

 

[eXile3]

Can’t wait until Poulin looks meh in a 9 game call-up and folks give up on him.

I personally don't think he'll be anything more than a fringe NHLer. Not without adding an extra step to his skating.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Alright, I worked on updating my spreadsheet by changing weights and de-rating factors. I've still got a few issues to work on (taking age and leagues played into consideration), but wanted to share the sheet's info on players who have "graduated". Those players are McDavid, Rust, Guentzel, Lafferty, and Angello. All of these players receive a 10/10 on my readiness ranking.

Their ceiling and floor potentials are based on how I saw them once I considered them graduated. In Rust's and Guentzel's instances I may be misremembering how I saw their potentials since these are a few years back. I never saw McDavid being less than a generational player after his first 20 or so games. And this helps, since that then makes him a 10/10 on both potential and readiness giving an overall rating of 100.

Anyway:

player	cp weight	fp weight	p weight	max p/82	r weight	overall
angello a	3.11	1.94	2.82	23.05	10.00	52.13
guentzel j	7.00	6.61	6.90	56.43	10.00	79.35
mcdavid c	10.00	10.00	10.00	90.83	10.00	100.00
rust b	4.58	3.33	4.27	34.91	10.00	61.81
lafferty s	2.89	1.81	2.62	21.40	10.00	50.79

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

CP = ceiling potential; FP = floor potential; p = overall potential; Max P/82 = predicted maximum amount of points scored in their first 82 regular season games

Clearly, players can continue to improve after they graduate to the NHL (Rust and Guentzel). Others just may not do that.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

@Peat Yesterday I worked on incorporating leagues played in and their age. First of all, I had previously mistakenly thought Hallander was still in the Allsvenskan and not the SHL. Not that my previous version of the sheet would have accounted for this.

Here's the current "readiness" rankings versus the one I posted on the 4th:

rank	player	current r weight	previous r weight	previous rank	delta
1	zohorna r	7.23	7.20	2	1
2	joseph po	7.13	7.75	1	-1
3	hallander p	6.77	3.05	17	14
4	dorio a	6.32	4.50	7	3
5	puustinen v	6.02	3.05	15	10
6	oconnor d	6.01	6.15	3	-3
7	gruden j	5.63	4.20	8	1
8	bellerive j	5.57	4.80	6	-2
9	reilly w	5.50	4.20	9	0
10	lee c	5.47	5.50	5	-5
11	bjorkqvist k	5.46	3.90	10	-1
12	clang c	5.12	3.81	11	-1
13	lindberg f	5.03	3.81	12	-1
14	almari n	4.91	unrated	unrated	n/a
15	blomqvist j	4.76	3.05	14	-1
16	drozg j	4.08	1.40	21	5
17	maniscalco j	4.08	2.80	19	2
18	almeida j	4.08	unrated	unrated	n/a
19	poulin s	3.17	3.05	13	-6
20	legare n	3.16	3.05	18	-2
21	broz t	2.42	3.05	16	-5
22	svejkovsky l	2.40	2.29	20	-2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm still working on the sheet since it currently has Poulin ranked 8th overall. And that just doesn't seem right.

 

[ChaosAgent]

@Peat Yesterday I worked on incorporating leagues played in and their age. First of all, I had previously mistakenly thought Hallander was still in the Allsvenskan and not the SHL. Not that my previous version of the sheet would have accounted for this.

Here's the current "readiness" rankings versus the one I posted on the 4th:

rank	player	current r weight	previous r weight	previous rank	delta
1	zohorna r	7.23	7.20	2	1
2	joseph po	7.13	7.75	1	-1
3	hallander p	6.77	3.05	17	14
4	dorio a	6.32	4.50	7	3
5	puustinen v	6.02	3.05	15	10
6	oconnor d	6.01	6.15	3	-3
7	gruden j	5.63	4.20	8	1
8	bellerive j	5.57	4.80	6	-2
9	reilly w	5.50	4.20	9	0
10	lee c	5.47	5.50	5	-5
11	bjorkqvist k	5.46	3.90	10	-1
12	clang c	5.12	3.81	11	-1
13	lindberg f	5.03	3.81	12	-1
14	almari n	4.91	unrated	unrated	n/a
15	blomqvist j	4.76	3.05	14	-1
16	drozg j	4.08	1.40	21	5
17	maniscalco j	4.08	2.80	19	2
18	almeida j	4.08	unrated	unrated	n/a
19	poulin s	3.17	3.05	13	-6
20	legare n	3.16	3.05	18	-2
21	broz t	2.42	3.05	16	-5
22	svejkovsky l	2.40	2.29	20	-2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm still working on the sheet since it currently has Poulin ranked 8th overall. And that just doesn't seem right.

As a suggestion to maybe enhance your sheet, have you considered adding draft position into your ceiling calculations? It clearly reflects what *someone* thought was that person's ceiling at the time they were 18 years old. It is an empirical data point and it may solve your Poulin conundrum (though I think we overrate Poulin as a prospect on this board generally).

 

[Randy Butternubs]

As a suggestion to maybe enhance your sheet, have you considered adding draft position into your ceiling calculations? It clearly reflects what *someone* thought was that person's ceiling at the time they were 18 years old. It is an empirical data point and it may solve your Poulin conundrum (though I think we overrate Poulin as a prospect on this board generally).

Thanks, I had previously considered that but forgot about it. Seems that my weights and de-ratings are coming around as the rankings are lining up better to what I expected. Draft position is weighted one-eighth of the prospects overall ranking, potential as five-eighths, and readiness the remaining quarter.

If the player went undrafted, they were considered to be a seventh rounder. A player's ceiling potential was worth three times as much as their floor.

Readiness calculations had the biggest change. No longer does playing at the NHL have the biggest weight. And no longer does playing in North America give you an advantage as I found point-equivalencies thanks to the internet. There are three playing levels the players are graded on: NHL, Minors (or equivalent), and Juniors (or equivalent). A player is considered graduated from a level and get that level's full weight once they've played around 20 games in the next highest level.

With that said, here are the current rankings:

player	rank
joseph po	1
poulin s	2
hallander p	3
clang c	4
blomqvist j	5
lindberg f	6
zohorna r	7
oconnor d	8
bjorkqvist k	9
broz t	10
puustinen v	11
lee c	12
gruden j	13
reilly w	14
dorio a	15
almeida j	16
maniscalco j	17
legare n	18
svejkovsky l	19
bellerive j	20
drozg j	21
almari n	22

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

edit: lol, of course after I post this I notice that I had some info wrong on something... brb. edit 2: ok, got it.

 

[Gumbercules]

QMJHL pre-season has started up. Regular season doesn't start until Oct 1, so I have no ide why they stat this early. Isaac Belliveau playing his first game this evening. No points thus far, but I suspect they are using him sparingly.

Gatineau also playing the women goaltender they have at camp tonight. She stopped 19/20 in her first appearance. Gatineau has both their goalies returning from last season, so I suspect she is a long shot to make their team, but a good showing could open a door for her somewhere else.

 

[dogthateats]