Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 8.7.18)

[Edge]

Mittelstadt is generally seen as having the higher offensive ceiling, but I've never quite understood the mindset that he's an overwhelmingly superior prospect.

In my mind, he's a different NHL prospect than Andersson. But he's also not a kid I see going into the dirty areas, or being on the ice with a 3-2 lead and a minute left to go in the game.

The problem I've always had with the Andersson debates is that it's almost always based on Andersson's lower end upside versus everyone else's higher end upside.

 

[Harbour Dog]

That's the thing. There isn't a clear 1-for-1 ranking. It's ranked in tiers.

Tier 1: Hischier & Patrick
Tier 2: Pettersson, Glass, Heiskanen & Makar
Tier 3: Mittelstadt, Suzuki, Andersson, Tolvanen, Necas, Liljegren, Kostin
Tier 4: Tippett, Foote, Rasmussen, Brannstrom and a bunch more

Tolvanen was the most shocking drop on draft day, and Liljegren is another one I expected to go higher based on where he was ranked earlier. Him having mono saw him drop a bit further though.

I know it isn't the case for you, because you were high on Andersson pre-draft, but I think if most of us were being honest with ourselves, that third tier would of included only a few guys; and Andersson would of been on none of our radars at 7OA.

For me: Vilardi, Tippett, Liljegren and maybe Mittelstadt.

Andersson has outperformed (reasonable) expectations and worked his way into that third tier imo, but if we look at the pick through the lens of it being a pretty standard selection, then I think we're re-writing history.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Vilardi should be in that third group, but otherwise... exactly right.

When making these tiers from memory, you always leave out 1 player haha

 

[Edge]

I know it isn't the case for you, because you were high on Andersson pre-draft, but I think if most of us were being honest with ourselves, that third tier would of included only a few guys; and Andersson would of been on none of our radars at 7OA.

For me: Vilardi, Tippett, Liljegren and maybe Mittelstadt.

Andersson has outperformed (reasonable) expectations and worked his way into that third tier imo, but if we look at the pick through the lens of it being a pretty standard selection, then I think we're re-writing history.

I'd probably argue that just because this board doesn't see something coming, or have an understanding of who is out there, doesn't make it off the radar.

This kid was ranked third by CSB and was just outside the top 10 on some lists. Yet it's interesting how he is often viewed as a reach and yet we don't see those terms used with some of our other guys who are just as easily in the same classification.

Additionally, there's this tendency to downplay his ability and accomplishments --- despite it occurring in three professional men's leagues. Heck, even his WJC seems to be remembered more for the medal incident than the nearly goal per game pace at which he scored and the way he elevated the play of "superior" prospects.

Based on his performance last year, I'd argue that his production in the OHL would be at least comparable to Vilardi, and his production at the college level would be close to what Mittelstadt produced --- and that doesn't take into other areas of the game outside of offense.

 

[Tawnos]

I'd probably argue that just because this board doesn't see something coming, or have an understanding of who is out there, doesn't make it off the radar.

This kid was ranked third by CSB and was just outside the top 10 on some lists. Yet it's interesting how he is often viewed as a reach and yet we don't see those terms used with some of our other guys who are just as easily in the same classification.

Additionally, there's this tendency to downplay his ability and accomplishments --- despite it occurring in three professional men's leagues. Heck, even his WJC seems to be remembered more for the medal incident than the nearly goal per game pace at which he scored and the way he elevated the play of "superior" prospects.

Based on his performance last year, I'd argue that his production in the OHL would be at least comparable to Vilardi, and his production at the college level would be close to what Mittelstadt produced --- and that doesn't take into other areas of the game outside of offense.

I think there are a lot of people who view the top-10 as some kind of important dividing line, but these kinds of things really change from draft to draft. For example, this year I think it was 3-15 that are essentially the same tier of player, aside from Zadina falling. Other years you get more of a 3-6, 7-12 division, 12-20 division. etc, etc. Each year is different.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I know it isn't the case for you, because you were high on Andersson pre-draft, but I think if most of us were being honest with ourselves, that third tier would of included only a few guys; and Andersson would of been on none of our radars at 7OA.

For me: Vilardi, Tippett, Liljegren and maybe Mittelstadt.

Andersson has outperformed (reasonable) expectations and worked his way into that third tier imo, but if we look at the pick through the lens of it being a pretty standard selection, then I think we're re-writing history.

While I did have Andersson higher than others, most likely due to the fact that I focus more on European prospects due to where I live, I was not alone and it was not that much of a stretch to project Lias Andersson in the lower part of the top-10.

 

[Edge]

I think there are a lot of people who view the top-10 as some kind of important dividing line, but these kinds of things really change from draft to draft. For example, this year I think it was 3-15 that are essentially the same tier of player, aside from Zadina falling. Other years you get more of a 3-6, 7-12 division, 12-20 division. etc, etc. Each year is different.

I find that even if I play devil's advocate and exclude Andersson from the third tier at the time of the draft, I would still have a harder time overlooking what he accomplished in his D-1 season. Even if I thought Vilardi and Mittelstadt were the superior players on the draft day 2017, I'd still be hard pressed to identify them as guys who are still better beyond a shadow of a doubt --- especially Vilardi.

We seem to forget that there were another 5 teams that also passed on him after us. So it's not like the Rangers were the only outlier when it came to evaluating him.

I just think there's still a weird double standard when it comes to Andersson that doesn't exist with any other prospect.

If this kid's name was Ryan Horvat, and he scored at a 116 point pace in the OHL, almost no one would be hedging their bets on this pick.

Almost. No. One.

Just like almost no one is talking about Vilardi's skating.

Just like almost no one is talking about the lack of other non-playmaking abilities possessed by Mittelstadt.

Maybe Andersson does only score 15 goals and 45 points as an NHL player. Maybe his low end upside is what comes to fruition.

But then let's also look at Gabe Vilardi being in that 15 goal/45 point range, or whether Mittelstadt is next coming of Andrew Cassels.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I think there are a lot of people who view the top-10 as some kind of important dividing line, but these kinds of things really change from draft to draft. For example, this year I think it was 3-15 that are essentially the same tier of player, aside from Zadina falling. Other years you get more of a 3-6, 7-12 division, 12-20 division. etc, etc. Each year is different.

True. After posting my 2017 tiers already, it looks nothing like this year, which was more like this:

Tier 1: Dahlin
Tier 2: Svechnikov & Zadina, Tkachuk, Hughes
Tier 3: Wahlstrom, Dobson, Bouchard, Boqvist, Kravtsov, Kotkaniemi
Tier 4: Kaut, Alexeyev, Hayton, Kupari, Farabee, Smith, Denisenko

It's not an exact ranking spot for spot. There's no such thing as a true consensus when it comes to pick 5 or 6, pick 8 or 9 etc. Within a tier, you see players move up or down and then there's the occasional rise or drop. Hayton and Kotkaniemi were obvious risers which pushed down the entire tier 3.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I'd probably argue that just because this board doesn't see something coming, or have an understanding of who is out there, doesn't make it off the radar.

This kid was ranked third by CSB and was just outside the top 10 on some lists. Yet it's interesting how he is often viewed as a reach and yet we don't see those terms used with some of our other guys who are just as easily in the same classification.

Additionally, there's this tendency to downplay his ability and accomplishments --- despite it occurring in three professional men's leagues. Heck, even his WJC seems to be remembered more for the medal incident than the nearly goal per game pace at which he scored and the way he elevated the play of "superior" prospects.

Based on his performance last year, I'd argue that his production in the OHL would be at least comparable to Vilardi, and his production at the college level would be close to what Mittelstadt produced --- and that doesn't take into other areas of the game outside of offense.

I ran numbers on 12 (ish) professional rankings of him a few months after he was drafted. If I remember correctly, his highest ranking was 11th, his lowest was 25th (ISS), his median was somewhere around 14.5, and his average was around 15.

I completely understand that "reach" is a subjective term and that people evaluate it differently, and for some reason seem to get very riled up when others use it, but I look at those numbers as well as the conversations we all had on here leading up the draft, and my personal conclusion is that we went off the board to take Lias.

I'm not even saying that it was a bad pick. I like Lias a lot and he has certainly silenced most of his critics, but this was nowhere near a standard pick.

If he turns into the next ROR, that should be considered a huge feather in the cap of our scouting staff, not just shrugged off as an inevitability of picking at 7OA.

 

[Edge]

I ran numbers on 12 (ish) professional rankings of him a few months after he was drafted. If I remember correctly, his highest ranking was 11th, his lowest was 25th (ISS), his median was somewhere around 14.5, and his average was around 15.

I completely understand that "reach" is a subjective term and that people evaluate it differently, and for some reason seem to get very riled up when others use it, but I look at those numbers as well as the conversations we all had on here leading up the draft, and my personal conclusion is that we went off the board to take Lias.

I'm not even saying that it was a bad pick. I like Lias a lot and he has certainly silenced most of his critics, but this was nowhere near a standard pick.

If he turns into the next ROR, that should be considered a huge feather in the cap of our scouting staff, not just shrugged off as an inevitability of picking at 7OA.

I just wonder why no one mentions it as frequently when it comes to Kravtsov, who you could probably make similar claims about. Or Chytil for that matter.

Personally, I'm hesitant to classify anyone who was ranked as the third European prospect by CSB, and who was mentioned as high as 11th, as an off the board pick.

I think the more likely scenario is that this board didn't see it coming. Heck, we didn't even know we'd be picking 7th until the morning of the draft. As such, this board didn't really spend a ton of time analyzing and reanalyzing and over-analyzing potential targets like they did in 2018.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I ran numbers on 12 (ish) professional rankings of him a few months after he was drafted. If I remember correctly, his highest ranking was 11th, his lowest was 25th (ISS), his median was somewhere around 14.5, and his average was around 15.

I completely understand that "reach" is a subjective term and that people evaluate it differently, and for some reason seem to get very riled up when others use it, but I look at those numbers as well as the conversations we all had on here leading up the draft, and my personal conclusion is that we went off the board to take Lias.

I'm not even saying that it was a bad pick. I like Lias a lot and he has certainly silenced most of his critics, but this was nowhere near a standard pick.

If he turns into the next ROR, that should be considered a huge feather in the cap of our scouting staff, not just shrugged off as an inevitability of picking at 7OA.

I think a lot of the problems come from the negative connotation with the word ‘reach’ and also people subconciously viewing publications prospect rankings as more scientific than opinion (and not always well informed opinion or without bias)

 

[Harbour Dog]

I just wonder why no one mentions it as frequently when it comes to Kravtsov, who you could probably make similar claims about. Or Chytil for that matter.

Personally, I'm hesitant to classify anyone who was ranked as the third European prospect by CSB, and who was mentioned as high as 11th, as an off the board pick.

I think the more likely scenario is that this board didn't see it coming. Heck, we didn't even know we'd be picking 7th until the morning of the draft. As such, this board didn't really spend a ton of time analyzing and reanalyzing and over-analyzing potential targets like they did in 2018.

I think Kravtsov was on most of our lists around that spot or a couple picks later; I only remember seeing one poster really upset about not taking Wahlstrom.

There is definitely a strong case for Chytil. The fact that he almost immediately started trending towards 'boom' probably stifled that conversation before it picked up any steam.

And really, FWIW, Lias has been trending toward his ceiling more than his floor. If I was able to trade him for one of the three guys I was hoping for at the time; I wouldn't.

Your last point is an excellent one. If we had suddenly been picking at 9th this year, perhaps the Kravtsov pick would of been met with more demonstrative reactions also.

 

[Harbour Dog]

I think a lot of the problems come from the negative connotation with the word ‘reach’ and also people subconciously viewing publications prospect rankings as more scientific than opinion (and not always well informed opinion or without bias)

The bolded is very true, yeah. When I use it, it's more intended as a synonym for "off the board" or "riser", but "reach" does certainly come across as more of a knock on the player. I'd also say that taking PLD over Puljujarvi was "off the board", and that was like a one pick difference with a great result so far. Just semantics.

I think Edge's point about us suddenly picking at 7OA is a solid one. Personally, I barely followed the top end of the draft because we weren't picking there. What threw me at the time was that I did have a strong familiarity with Lias, because I was hoping he would drop to us at 21; so when we nabbed him at 7, I was taken aback.

In retrospect, I'm not sure if I judged Lias too harshly, but I think I held Vilardi, Tippett, and Liljegren in a little too high of regard.

I do stand by Lias being an off the board pick, but that doesn't make it wrong. Our scouts took their guy, and I defer to them.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

The bolded is very true, yeah. When I use it, it's more intended as a synonym for "off the board" or "riser", but "reach" does certainly come across as more of a knock on the player. I'd also say that taking PLD over Puljujarvi was "off the board", and that was like a one pick difference with a great result so far. Just semantics.

I think Edge's point about us suddenly picking at 7OA is a solid one. Personally, I barely followed the top end of the draft because we weren't picking there. What threw me at the time was that I did have a strong familiarity with Lias, because I was hoping he would drop to us at 21; so when we nabbed him at 7, I was taken aback.

In retrospect, I'm not sure if I judged Lias too harshly, but I think I held Vilardi, Tippett, and Liljegren in a little too high of regard.

I do stand by Lias being an off the board pick, but that doesn't make it wrong. Our scouts took their guy, and I defer to them.

I definitely don’t disagree with any of that, I certainly wouldn’t say Lias was my first choice at that spot, but when Glass got picked I’d be lying if I said I was sitting there with a guy on my mind that would’ve been a slam dunk at 7, I was sitting there going “I guess reach for Brannstrom then?”

I was also just thinking how as a fan base, the higher the draft pick, the more hyper focused on 1-2-3 players we seem to get and that thinking in terms of tiers is probably better off for initial reactions and subsequent debates, but like with the word ‘reach’, a single digit number looks much better compared to a single digit number than compared to a two digit number in terms of pick number vs rank number even though the players in question could be the same level of player

 

[bobbop]

I do not see enough of draft age players before the draft to consider myself a scout but by now I’ve seen enough of Villardi to have pretty serious concerns about his skating. I had the same concerns about Dylan Strome once I got to see him play ( I couldn’t believe he was rather third best player in the draft) Both may still have good careers but I’m taking the house against them being top line centers.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I do not see enough of draft age players before the draft to consider myself a scout but by now I’ve seen enough of Villardi to have pretty serious concerns about his skating. I had the same concerns about Dylan Strome once I got to see him play ( I couldn’t believe he was rather third best player in the draft) Both may still have good careers but I’m taking the house against them being top line centers.

Those concerns were around before they were drafted as well. The skating is usually a good indicator, unless they excel elsewhere that makes up for it. In the case of Lias, his vision and ability to read the game makes up for not being the fastest skater on the team.

 

[doomscroll]

Mittelstadt is generally seen as having the higher offensive ceiling, but I've never quite understood the mindset that he's an overwhelmingly superior prospect.

In my mind, he's a different NHL prospect than Andersson. But he's also not a kid I see going into the dirty areas, or being on the ice with a 3-2 lead and a minute left to go in the game.

The problem I've always had with the Andersson debates is that it's almost always based on Andersson's lower end upside versus everyone else's higher end upside.

I don’t understand why Andersson should have a hard-cap in his potential compared to Mittelstadt when there is no telling how Mittelstadt would have produced in the various professional setting that Andersson did, and vice-versa. If Andersson went the NCAA route and was a nearly PPG player against weaker competition than in the SHL or AHL, would he suddenly be a better prospect?

 

[Edge]

I don’t understand why Andersson should have a hard-cap in his potential compared to Mittelstadt when there is no telling how Mittelstadt would have produced in the various professional setting that Andersson did, and vice-versa. If Andersson went the NCAA route and was a nearly PPG player against weaker competition than in the SHL or AHL, would he suddenly be a better prospect?

I don't think he'd be a better prospect, but I do think he'd be more a popular prospect.

For as far as technology has come, there is definitely still a gap when evaluating European kids --- especially when they compete in men's leagues.

 

[GAGLine]

Mittlestadt is flashy. Lias is not. Some people will always gravitate toward the more "skilled" player, despite comparable production.

Regarding off the board picks, how many were there this past draft? Come draft day, many believed that Montreal would take Kotkaniemi at 3, but a couple weeks before the draft, he wasn't expected to go that high. Did anyone have Hayton going 5th, Zadina dropping to 6th, or Dellandrea 13th? A lot of people liked Kaut, but how many thought he would go as early as 16?

The bottom line is that off the board doesn't really mean much in most cases. If you compare the different scouting lists, most of the players have a fairly wide variance. I'm sure if we could compare each team's list, we'd see even more variance.

 

[Levitate]

I don't think I totally agree with people who are like "skating can be improved!" It's really not likely that you get a bad skater and turn them into a great skater. Andersson is a solid skater (though possibly underrated with some of his edgework), with refinement he could be a good skater but not one that stands out in that respect. A bad skater can probably be made into a passable skater but I dno't think it's ever something you just overlook with "oh but they can be taught better"

Mainly saying this because of the Villardi comments but also as I said about Andersson...he's not going to ever be a burner, or a guy who dominates with his skating no matter how hard he tries, but he can probably improve on what is now.

 

[bobbop]

Those concerns were around before they were drafted as well. The skating is usually a good indicator, unless they excel elsewhere that makes up for it. In the case of Lias, his vision and ability to read the game makes up for not being the fastest skater on the team.

I don’t see Lias at the same skating level as these guys.

 

[doomscroll]

I don’t see Lias at the same skating level as these guys.

I think that exceptional skating can turn a great player into an exceptionally great player, and a middling player into an exceptional middling player. Hagelin is an example of a generally smart player who is phenomenally fast, but lacks the playmaking and finishing ability that would take him over the top. Andersson, on the other hand, is a smart player who has playmaking and finishing skills, so he can accomodate for his ostensible lack of top-end speed with shifty footing and the capacity to move a play forward.

 

[Mac n Gs]

I don’t see Lias at the same skating level as these guys.

Are you saying he’s a worse or better skater than Strome and Villardi?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

"Off the board" in any sport's draft usually means off of the consensus, which in the NHL's case would mean a combination of CSB and media rankings. This is because team draft boards are confidential, so there's nothing else to go by.

There's no rule that dictates the cutoff. It's really just a collective sense of surprise with a pick that's made except by those doing the picking (obviously).

The problem with CSB is that they don't consolidate rankings. To me, it's both helpful and misinformative. Helpful for being a guide but misinformative because it doesn't give you an idea of the overall picture -- the No. 3 forward in Europe could be the 25th-best prospect overall, and the No. 1 goalie could be the 55th, etc. It all varies by year depending on the strength of the respective pools. As was the case in 2014 with Pastrnak -- 5th in Europe but drafted 25th overall because the NA pool was pretty good.

Shestyorkin was 7th among EUR goalies, went 14th overall among goalies drafted in 2014. Halverson was 6th in NA but was the 5th overall goalie taken. It seems like they went off the board with Halverson, who when you factor in Europe was expected to be the what, 8th or 10th goalie taken? That puts him somewhere in the 3rd or 4th round, which to many would be considered "off the board" or "overdrafted".

In 2015, Gropp was rated 71st among NA skaters. Drafted at 41st -- Off-the-board pick by a good round or two.
In 2016, Day was rated 59th among NA skaters. Drafted at 81st -- Went almost exactly were I expected him (had him 79th), as did others.
In 2017, Andersson was rated 3rd among EUR skaters. Drafted at 7th, I had him 15th from a preseason ranking of 10th. This was a gut feeling "off-the-board" pick only because many viewed several others as better in the skill dept. Chytil was rated 11th among Euro skaters and went where he was expected to go.
In 2018, Kravtsov was rated 3rd among Euro skaters and the only surprise was passing on Wahlstrom. I even said on MSG that Kravtsov was a top-10 talent a month before the draft, but ranked him 17th because I was partial to the defenders like Smith, Sandin, Wilde, Dobson and Bouchard -- all of whom were picked after Kravtsov. The depth of the 2018 first round made 15th or 16th be a lot higher in a weaker draft.

I still hate the Andersson pick, but it looks like the Rangers' plan was to get a character/leader type to fill a significant void, and build around that player with skill and speed, almost like a Toews/Chicago situation. So in a way, I have to applaud the Rangers for appearing to have a coherent team-building strategy, but it goes back to the need vs BPA argument we had in 2010 with McIlrath (a pick I fully supported). Clark and Sather, and Mike Barnett before them, are obsessed with size, and it you look at their combined drafting record, the first skater they pick is either big or physical.

2018-Kravtsov (size), Miller (physical/size)
2017-Andersson (physical), Chytil (size)
2016-Day (size)
2015-Gropp (size)
2014-Iverson (size, physical)
2013-Tambellini (size), Buchnevich (size)
2012-Skjei (size)
2011-Miller (size/physical)
2010-McIlrath (size/physical)
2009-Kreider (size/physical)

The question I have is whether or not it will be sustainable as the league shifts towards appeasing the smaller, quicker, fancier players. Do they pass on Jack Hughes for Dylan Cozens or Peyton Krebs? Wouldn't shock me at all.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Vilardi's an awkward, gangly skater that makes him look slower. His agility and footwork in tight spaces is Tavares-like, as is Strome, meaning they can stickhandle and elude rather than explode past an opponent. Both make up for average straight-line speed with elite playmaking and vision.