HF Habs: Scouting Discussion Thread

[NotProkofievian]

how do you personally define hockey sense? everyone's got a different definition

I personally define it as ''impact.'' Is the player more or less than the sum of his parts. For example, is the player a bad skater, not a good puck handler, but constantly causing headaches for the opponent and putting up points? That guy has hockey IQ, whatever that is. Is a player extremely fast, strong, with crazy skills, but things just don't really happen for him or his linemates? That guy probably doesn't.

When you then get the suspicion, you can analyze specific plays he makes (or doesn't). Too many bad decisions and I'll say that he doesn't have it.

 

[HabsMD97]

I personally define it as ''impact.'' Is the player more or less than the sum of his parts. For example, is the player a bad skater, not a good puck handler, but constantly causing headaches for the opponent and putting up points? That guy has hockey IQ, whatever that is. Is a player extremely fast, strong, with crazy skills, but things just don't really happen for him or his linemates? That guy probably doesn't.

When you then get the suspicion, you can analyze specific plays he makes (or doesn't). Too many bad decisions and I'll say that he doesn't have it.

Interesting, hockey sense is such a tough element to evaluate and I think it's the main area that fools even scouts. Looking at the public scouting reports from 2013, one thing that stood out about Drouin's reports was how scouts raved about his hockey sense and that it probably was the best in his draft class. Obviously that wasn't the case.

To me it's about pace, breaking down the opposition's structure, covering mistakes on your own team, managing the game and adapting. How diversified is his game? Is he a one trick pony? Is his stick active/one the ice and in passing lanes? how well does he leverage his size (if he's big) and if he is small is he still able to get the puck and not lose it? Does he wait to get the puck or does he get it himself. How does he react when he loses the puck? When does he glide and when does he go full speed? Can he make plays while skating or does need to stop and think? When he has multiple options available to him, which one does he choose? when his team is leading 3-2 with 5 minutes left in the game, does he attempt a dangerous cross ice pass in the neutral or defensive zone? Does he try to do everything by himself and how well he utilizes his teammates? Does he recognize when his d goes in deep and he's the one who has to cover or does he just stay there. In the offensive zone, how active are you and how do you create offense, is it always the same way? are you predictable? How often and how are they nullified?

these are just the things I thought of on the top of my head, i'm sure there are other things as well, but mostly it's about how well you think the game to me. I like to look at how guys like Couturier, O'Rielly and Stone play. great players who don't have any standout skills. Couturier especially. How does a guy who is a below average skater play center and be one the best 2-way centers in the game. He isn't an exceptional passer or shooter yet he puts up a ton of points and defends guys who are exceptionally gifted offensively with twice the level of skating. Take away skating, shooting and passing and what you're left with is hockey sense. It's about efficiency, knowing where to be and When to be there. When you watch a player do you often find yourself saying he was just a second late I think thats a sign of bad hockey sense when that happens way too often (i found myself thinking this with Galchenyuk early on, now I realize it was a sign of hockey sense). Anyways, that's just how I personally define it and what I usually look for in players.

 

[Mrb1p]

Hockey IQ is just a less fancy word for spacial awareness. Its pretty easy to see who has it and who doesn't.

I'd add that there's also an element of hockey knowledge, which would be related to systems, tendencies and what one can and cannot do.

 

[Mrb1p]

Interesting, hockey sense is such a tough element to evaluate and I think it's the main area that fools even scouts. Looking at the public scouting reports from 2013, one thing that stood out about Drouin's reports was how scouts raved about his hockey sense and that it probably was the best in his draft class. Obviously that wasn't the case.

I think of it completely differently. To me it's about pace, breaking down the opposition's structure, covering mistakes on your own team, managing the game and adapting. How diversified is his game? Is he a one trick pony? Is his stick active/one the ice and in passing lanes? how well does he leverage his size (if he's big) and if he is small is he still able to get the puck and not lose it? Does he wait to get the puck or does he get it himself. How does he react when he loses the puck? When does he glide and when does he go full speed? Can he make plays while skating or does need to stop and think? When he has multiple options available to him, which one does he choose? when his team is leading 3-2 with 5 minutes left in the game, does he attempt a dangerous cross ice pass in the neutral or defensive zone? Does he try to do everything by himself and how well he utilizes his teammates? Does he recognize when his d goes in deep and he's the one who has to cover or does he just stay there. In the offensive zone, how active are you and how do you create offense, is it always the same way? are you predictable?

these are just the things I thought of on the top of my head, i'm sure there are other things as well, but mostly it's about how well you think the game to me. Suzuki to me is a perfect example of a high IQ player

Its too broad. A lot of those things relate to intensity, coachability, style of play.

Steve Stamkos is one of the smartest player on the ice and he rarely goes in corners to get a puck, he just knows he's much more of a threat if he sits in the slot ready for a shot. (Or at least he used to when he was the best goalscorer in the game.)
Going for dangerous plays @ 3-2 late in a game is also more of a style than an IQ thing.


In Drouins case, I think he has great spacial awareness. It was always obvious with how he used the skills he had. The problem is that he was lazy, moody and most importantly, not a student of the game. There's no reasons a guy as good as him should not be able to be a decent player, he clearly just hasn't made his homeworks and again, that was obvious from seeing him play since 2011.

 

[HabsMD97]

Its too broad. A lot of those things relate to intensity, coachability, style of play.

Steve Stamkos is one of the smartest player on the ice and he rarely goes in corners to get a puck, he just knows he's much more of a threat if he sits in the slot ready for a shot. (Or at least he used to when he was the best goalscorer in the game.)
Going for dangerous plays @ 3-2 late in a game is also more of a style than an IQ thing.


In Drouins case, I think he has great spacial awareness. It was always obvious with how he used the skills he had. The problem is that he was lazy, moody and most importantly, not a student of the game. There's no reasons a guy as good as him should not be able to be a decent player, he clearly just hasn't made his homeworks and again, that was obvious from seeing him play since 2011.

Stamkos does battle along the boards though and fights for pucks. He isn't just a one trick pony and sets up shot in the slot. Being able to free yourself and get open i would say classifies as hockey sense, but you have to be able to get the puck yourself as well. It's about diversity and adaptability. If you can't do that then you're too reliant on your linemates. Someone who's play and point production is hugely impacted by linemates is not someone who has great IQ. Guys like Crosby, McDavid, MacKinnon, Stone, Tavares will get their points regardless of who they play with because they don't create offense in just one way, relying on their linemates to bring an element they need to be successful. Of course they are going to put up more points playing with better linemates, but they still produce without great linemates. And to me game management is most definitely an IQ thing and not playing style. If you can't decide to do the safer play and slightly change your playing style with 5 minutes left in a game you're leading than you have low IQ. Being fixated on playing the same way all the time is and being unable to change is low IQ. It doesn't mean you have to dump the puck in, but you have to mitigating risk at certain points. And I don't know what you mean by coachability. Defensive and offensive structures break down constantly in a game, smart players adapt. When your teammate messes up or is out of position you have to adjust and think fast

 

[Mrb1p]

Stamkos does battle along the boards though and fights for pucks. He isn't just a one trick pony and sets up shot in the slot. Being able to free yourself and get open i would say classifies as hockey sense, but you have to be able to get the puck yourself as well. It's about diversity and adaptability. If you can't do that then you're too reliant on your linemates. Someone who's play and point production is hugely impacted by linemates is not someone who has great IQ. Guys like Crosby, McDavid, MacKinnon, Stone, Tavares will get their points regardless of who they play with because they don't create offense in just one way, relying on their linemates to bring an element they need to be successful. Of course they are going to put up more points playing with better linemates, but they still produce without great linemates. And to me game management is most definitely an IQ thing and not playing style. If you can't decide to do the safer play and slightly change your playing style with 5 minutes left in a game you're leading than you have low IQ. Being fixated on playing the same way all the time is and being unable to change is low IQ. It doesn't mean you have to dump the puck in, but you have to mitigating risk at certain points. And I don't know what you mean by coachability. Defensive and offensive structures break down constantly in a game, smart players adapt. When your teammate messes up or is out of position you have to adjust and think fast

I mean, every single person in history knows its not wise to go for a risky play in that 3-2 situation, its not a sign of IQ at all, its just common knowledge. Its too simple of a situation to pin that on IQ.

 

[HabsMD97]

I mean, every single person in history knows its not wise to go for a risky play in that 3-2 situation, its not a sign of IQ at all, its just common knowledge. Its too simple of a situation to pin that on IQ.

Well i've seen it happen on a few occasions especially with junior players. I'm not saying it's the main thing I look for, just one of the many small things that I thing add up long term.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Its too broad. A lot of those things relate to intensity, coachability, style of play.

Steve Stamkos is one of the smartest player on the ice and he rarely goes in corners to get a puck, he just knows he's much more of a threat if he sits in the slot ready for a shot. (Or at least he used to when he was the best goalscorer in the game.)
Going for dangerous plays @ 3-2 late in a game is also more of a style than an IQ thing.


In Drouins case, I think he has great spacial awareness. It was always obvious with how he used the skills he had. The problem is that he was lazy, moody and most importantly, not a student of the game. There's no reasons a guy as good as him should not be able to be a decent player, he clearly just hasn't made his homeworks and again, that was obvious from seeing him play since 2011.

I don't know if it's too broad. But when I was reading @HabsMD97 's post I was thinking that these are all details that you can look for that may tell you that the prospect has hockey sense. Prospects don't have to have all of them, they can have some of them, and they don't all have to show all of these in order to have hockey sense. For example, some people whiffed on Caufield's hockey sense because he was essentially just getting into lanes most of the game. Gustafsson had hockey sense to me because, despite his god awful skating he was always on the puck, and rarely late. This was at the SHL level too. In terms of offence, he got what he could, when he could.

 

[Mrb1p]

I don't know if it's too broad. But when I was reading @HabsMD97 's post I was thinking that these are all details that you can look for that may tell you that the prospect has hockey sense. Prospects don't have to have all of them, they can have some of them, and they don't all have to show all of these in order to have hockey sense. For example, some people whiffed on Caufield's hockey sense because he was essentially just getting into lanes most of the game. Gustafsson had hockey sense to me because, despite his god awful skating he was always on the puck, and rarely late. This was at the SHL level too. In terms of offence, he got what he could, when he could.

I think it's more useful to have more ... skill categories, for a lack of a better word than just grouping everything into a general term like "hockey IQ". With hockey IQ you can describe both a supremely talented player and a smart system player similarly, I don't agree with it. What would differentiate a guy like Gretzky and Messier on the IQ chart ? Both should be considered 10/10 but Gretzky was weaker defensively and Messier was much weaker offensively.

Its too lazy IMO, lets describe a 2000 points skill evaluation of hockey IQ instead

 

[NotProkofievian]

I think it's more useful to have more ... skill categories, for a lack of a better word than just grouping everything into a general term like "hockey IQ". With hockey IQ you can describe both a supremely talented player and a smart system player similarly, I don't agree with it. What would differentiate a guy like Gretzky and Messier on the IQ chart ? Both should be considered 10/10 but Gretzky was weaker defensively and Messier was much weaker offensively.

Its too lazy IMO, lets describe a 2000 points skill evaluation of hockey IQ instead

Yeah, this is why I don't like the compartmentalized approach. It's not that a guy has hockey IQ because he gets sticks in lanes and pucks deep. This is why I argue that the first thing is always impact: there are so many ways to skin a cat, but the important thing is that it gets skinned. Once you kinda get a read on a player, then you can really zoom in on the details.

You can also do this the other way.

And of course, from a statistical point of view, most players don't really have it, and most players aren't exactly morons. You're really just looking for outliers.

 

[SOLR]

Just saying, but Ryan's development seemed to have been going really well until he entered our organization.

Or the college path is wildly overvalued (it is). I don't believe in the US development system at all (particularly the national dev team - should keep their prospects in a stronger USHL). I think it's rotten to the core. Sure some US players succeed, but there's been this very significant delta between draft positions of US/Can players taking the college route and their NHL success.

Year after the year, it always seems like Swedish-Fin-Can players are better developed before they arrive in each organization. Kudos to the Swedes in particular, they are consistently doing a bit better than their draft rank (I'm talking about the median here).

What was best for Jack Hughes was 1-2 more years of CHL...

When it comes to our system, at least since Bouchard is there, we've seen some progress in most players, but also tend to overhype our drafting abilities.

I think you guys are giving up him way too soon on Ryan. He needs a few years of AHL, that's the kind of player he is.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Or the college path is wildly overvalued (it is). I don't believe in the US development system at all (particularly the national dev team - should keep their prospects in a stronger USHL). I think it's rotten to the core. Sure some US players succeed, but there's been this very significant delta between draft positions of US/Can players taking the college route and their NHL success.

Year after the year, it always seems like Swedish-Fin-Can players are better developed before they arrive in each organization. Kudos to the Swedes in particular, they are consistently doing a bit better than their draft rank (I'm talking about the median here).

What was best for Jack Hughes was 1-2 more years of CHL...

When it comes to our system, at least since Bouchard is there, we've seen some progress in most players, but also tend to overhype our drafting abilities.

I think you guys are giving up him way too soon on Ryan. He needs a few years of AHL, that's the kind of player he is.

I don't really see how you lump the Canadian system in with the Swedish and Finnish systems, but isolate the American systems, when in reality the American system is far more similar to the european systems. Fewer games, older competition, more focus on individual skills development.

I also doubt the bolded, you got some sweet sauce, boss?

 

[SOLR]

I don't really see how you lump the Canadian system in with the Swedish and Finnish systems, but isolate the American systems, when in reality the American system is far more similar to the european systems. Fewer games, older competition, more focus on individual skills development.

I also doubt the bolded, you got some sweet sauce, boss?

1) It's not. The university system is much weaker vs. the European pro leagues (difference 1). It's weaker in coaching, older players, leaders. etc.
2) The national development team makes the USHL much worse, and the development of their player stops by creating a non-competitive situation (difference 2).
3) Europeans have a lot of wisdom concerning the development of mastery, that it is done by progressive exposure to things you can't overcome. The American Millenial is not, in general, facing this progressive exposure (difference 3: society). Where the CHL succeeds here, it's at being an old-style internment structure, that creates a focus towards mastery of some kind (not perfect and the model has some flaws).

Bolded: I have some data, but it's in other kinds of data analysis stuff on a private website - don't think I can extract in this case. Look at the draft vs. the redraft just in the first rounds (its much worse after...).

 

[NotProkofievian]

1) It's not. The university system is much weaker vs. the European pro leagues (difference 1). It's weaker in coaching, older players, leaders. etc.

So is the CHL, and moreso. The NCAA is closer to the european pro leagues than the CHL.

2) The national development team makes the USHL much worse, and the development of their player stops by creating a non-competitive situation (difference 2).

Not really. The NCAA makes the USHL worse because all of the top players immediately graduate to it. Meanwhile the actual USNTDP is well ahead of the game in terms of individual skills development. It should be a national embarrassment with the amount of top canadian prospects that are deficient in some basic skill.

3) Europeans have a lot of wisdom concerning the development of mastery, that it is done by progressive exposure to things you can't overcome. The American Millenial is not, in general, facing this progressive exposure (difference 3: society). Where the CHL succeeds here, it's at being an old-style internment structure, that creates a focus towards mastery of some kind (not perfect and the model has some flaws).

It absolutely does not. It throws all its eggs against the wall and keeps the ones that don't break. Worse still, if progressive exposure is so important, the CHL is emphatically the worst possible route because of the CHL-NHL agreement. Canada has the least amount of control over its own talent.

Bolded: I have some data, but it's in other kinds of data analysis stuff on a private website - don't think I can extract in this case. Look at the draft vs. the redraft just in the first rounds (its much worse after...).

Not persuasive.

 

[SOLR]

So is the CHL, and moreso. The NCAA is closer to the european pro leagues than the CHL.

I'm talking about the 16,17,18 years old age group particularly in all my points here. What I'm saying is that draft-eligible US players often look much better than they are given the US structures to sell them in their draft year. The draft year exposure of US players is by far, far, far, far their weakness. No one else has this problem.

Not really. The NCAA makes the USHL worse because all of the top players immediately graduate to it. Meanwhile the actual USNTDP is well ahead of the game in terms of individual skills development. It should be a national embarrassment with the amount of top canadian prospects that are deficient in some basic skill.

It might be ahead of the game, but it doesn't prepare players for real games and it hasn't increased WJC gold medals at all (far from it). The increased success of US at the WJC is linked mainly with the player base growth.
I think if the USNTDP would stop to exist, players returned to the USHL-NCAA, these players would be better served.

It absolutely does not. It throws all its eggs against the wall and keeps the ones that don't break. Worse still, if progressive exposure is so important, the CHL is emphatically the worst possible route because of the CHL-NHL agreement. Canada has the least amount of control over its own talent.

"It throws all its eggs against the wall and keeps the ones that don't break"
Might not like it, but that's how it works for everything. I've been in the best in the world at a few things in my life, it's always like that.
Europeans are doing much better in numbers, this is undeniable (number of kids who start hockey vs. number of top prospects, Europe is 2-3x more efficient).

I've been critical of the CHL for the season reason...Canadian hockey survives on numbers and on the CHL being not bad for 16, 17, 18 years old. It's not great for most 19-20 years old. I've been a big fan of pushing the CHL system further. Ie. not allowing 19-20 years to pro hockey at all. I think if we kept all the players it would be much better in the long run, and it would make Midget hockey stronger as well. In fact, I'll go further than that, I think the CHL and USHL should form a 2 division system together. That would improve hockey the most, with players faced with the best competitions when they are 19-20.

Not persuasive.

Haha fair enough.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I'm talking about the 16,17,18 years old age group particularly in all my points here. What I'm saying is that draft-eligible US players often look much better than they are given the US structures to sell them in their draft year. The draft year exposure of US players is by far, far, far, far their weakness. No one else has this problem.

I'm actually not sure what the claim is here.

It might be ahead of the game, but it doesn't prepare players for real games and it hasn't increased WJC gold medals at all (far from it). The increased success of US at the WJC is linked mainly with the player base growth.
I think if the USNTDP would stop to exist, players returned to the USHL-NCAA, these players would be better served.

The only WJC 20 medals the US has ever won have been during the existence of the USNTDP. You'll also note that the frequency of gold medals being won has gone from never, basically, to 3 times in the last decade. During this time they have been the top U18 team by a wide margin. This is simply not supported by the facts.

"It throws all its eggs against the wall and keeps the ones that don't break"
Might not like it, but that's how it works for everything. I've been in the best in the world at a few things in my life, it's always like that.
Europeans are doing much better in numbers, this is undeniable (number of kids who start hockey vs. number of top prospects, Europe is 2-3x more efficient).

Huh?

I've been critical of the CHL for the season reason...Canadian hockey survives on numbers and on the CHL being not bad for 16, 17, 18 years old. It's not great for most 19-20 years old. I've been a big fan of pushing the CHL system further. Ie. not allowing 19-20 years to pro hockey at all. I think if we kept all the players it would be much better in the long run, and it would make Midget hockey stronger as well. In fact, I'll go further than that, I think the CHL and USHL should form a 2 division system together. That would improve hockey the most, with players faced with the best competitions when they are 19-20.

That's sort of what I don't get. At numerous times during our discussions of prospects, you've suggested that being in the CHL is a problem (Byfield and Schneider, for example). But it's somehow superior to the american system? I mean, obviously Schneider would be better served going up against NCAA competition than CHL competition, wouldn't you agree? And I doubt Schneider would have the individual skills issues that we've discussed previously if he went through the USNTDP.

 

[salbutera]

Or the college path is wildly overvalued (it is). I don't believe in the US development system at all (particularly the national dev team - should keep their prospects in a stronger USHL). I think it's rotten to the core. Sure some US players succeed, but there's been this very significant delta between draft positions of US/Can players taking the college route and their NHL success.

Year after the year, it always seems like Swedish-Fin-Can players are better developed before they arrive in each organization. Kudos to the Swedes in particular, they are consistently doing a bit better than their draft rank (I'm talking about the median here).

What was best for Jack Hughes was 1-2 more years of CHL...

When it comes to our system, at least since Bouchard is there, we've seen some progress in most players, but also tend to overhype our drafting abilities.

I think you guys are giving up him way too soon on Ryan. He needs a few years of AHL, that's the kind of player he is.

Woah! The US development program (USHL & NCAA) are second only to OHL over the last 20-years in being the NHL pipeline for players - and the significant gap between the two back in 2003 has been closing over the last 17-years.

OHL and US programs are in a league of their own followed by Swedes, Finns, Russians. WHL has been meh for some time now and QMJHL sucks donkey dong being the worst development league and has for ages...always behind the development curve - albeit hopefully the Dom Dom & Jo Jo’s are a sign there’s positive growth in teachers which will only increase over the coming years.

NCAA is very beneficial for the smaller skilled player who needs off ice time to grow / get stronger, not to mention the contract benefit to NHL orgs. If Louis Leblanc has stayed a full 4-years at Harvard followed by a couple of years in AHL might’ve actually been a useful bottom-6 player

For the last time Poehling was drafted with a ceiling of elite bottom 2C. Not everyone has the same linear development curve - one Pacioretty comes to mind...different strokes for different folks.

 

[SOLR]

Woah! The US development program (USHL & NCAA) are second only to OHL over the last 20-years in being the NHL pipeline for players - and the significant gap between the two back in 2003 has been closing over the last 17-years.

OHL and US programs are in a league of their own followed by Swedes, Finns, Russians. WHL has been meh for some time now and QMJHL sucks donkey dong being the worst development league and has for ages...always behind the development curve - albeit hopefully the Dom Dom & Jo Jo’s are a sign there’s positive growth in teachers which will only increase over the coming years.

Your attribution is wrong. What closes these gaps is the number of participants (over everything else).

Compare the efficiency, number of players entering the system ====> NHLer produced, the Swede-Fins are leading easily.

The US system is still by far, the worse.

The fact that some compare the top of the funnel tells me everything I need to know about how much you've thought about this problem...

 

[SOLR]

That's sort of what I don't get. At numerous times during our discussions of prospects, you've suggested that being in the CHL is a problem (Byfield and Schneider, for example). But it's somehow superior to the american system? I mean, obviously Schneider would be better served going up against NCAA competition than CHL competition, wouldn't you agree? And I doubt Schneider would have the individual skills issues that we've discussed previously if he went through the USNTDP.

Here is the thing, I'm pointing to zone of strengths/weaknesses of each system and you can always find specific examples of players X that doesn't fit. I'm not talking specifically in this discussion, I'm talking about the mean.

The CHL is superior for draft year progression, the American system is better for 20 years old progression. Byfield would not be served well in either. He would be better served to go in the AHL.

"And I doubt Schneider would have the individual skills issues that we've discussed previously if he went through the USNTDP"

Or he would get to float for a year without much competition. The proof that the USNTDP improve skills is very weak.

"The only WJC 20 medals the US has ever won have been during the existence of the USNTDP. You'll also note that the frequency of gold medals being won has gone from never, basically, to 3 times in the last decade. During this time they have been the top U18 team by a wide margin. This is simply not supported by the facts."

What facts? You don't want to look at the player base growth apparently? That's the only correlation imo, not the USNTDP.

 

[salbutera]

Your attribution is wrong. What closes these gaps is the number of participants (over everything else).

Compare the efficiency, number of players entering the system ====> NHLer produced, the Swede-Fins are leading easily.

The US system is still by far, the worse.

The fact that some compare the top of the funnel tells me everything I need to know about how much you've thought about this problem...

What has closed the gap to be blunt is $$$. Big time $$$.

Some of the best coaches / trainers /management staff from the OHL, WHL and QMJHL have been lured into the US system, be it prep schools, USHL or NCAA programs - which obviously takes time to develop before witnessing the fruits of the labor, which started to manifest itself over the past 3-5 years.

If the trend continues, the US system will leapfrog even the OHL - Im a huge David Branch fan, he’s probably one of the biggest out of the box thinkers in the game but even he’s limited when big US$ come into play.

I live near one of those elite prep programs (Avon Old Farms) and watch quite a few games with my kids. It’s incredible the # of CHL staff they’ve brought aboard, and they all will tell you it’s hard for any junior program in Canada to match their compensation let alone the state of art setups & facilities they are presented upon request

 

[montreal]

I can't say I follow the draft that much but years back I had some very interesting conversations with the head scout of ISS and he was saying that the US was going to become a powerhouse in hockey because of how it had just been starting to spread to non hockey states due to Gretz in LA, those kids that would then start playing more and over years it would get bigger. Other non states like AZ, FL, etc..

Personally I think the NCAA is good for some and not for others.

 

[SOLR]

What has closed the gap to be blunt is $$$. Big time $$$.

Some of the best coaches / trainers /management staff from the OHL, WHL and QMJHL have been lured into the US system, be it prep schools, USHL or NCAA programs - which obviously takes time to develop before witnessing the fruits of the labor, which started to manifest itself over the past 3-5 years.

If the trend continues, the US system will leapfrog even the OHL - Im a huge David Branch fan, he’s probably one of the biggest out of the box thinkers in the game but even he’s limited when big US$ come into play.

I live near one of those elite prep programs (Avon Old Farms) and watch quite a few games with my kids. It’s incredible the # of CHL staff they’ve brought aboard, and they all will tell you it’s hard for any junior program in Canada to match their compensation let alone the state of art setups & facilities they are presented upon request

Money? are you for real? Money is zero percent of the equation.

Number of participants: what else than people moves money?

 

[salbutera]

Money? are you for real? Money is zero percent of the equation.

Number of participants: what else than people moves money?

There isn’t that many more rinks or kids playing in the US - it’s always been and still remains a regional game (Northeast and Minny). In fact the amount of kids playing in the Northeast has dropped significantly, lots of youth programs are shutting down, but there is makeup coming from some non-traditional markets - California, Phoenix area, Dallas-Fort Worth area primarily. There isn’t that much of an overall gain of any.

However, given the expense associated with the game, there’s a disproportionate number of children of former NHL & AHLers who’ve taken up the game at high levels. Combine that factor with the training those kids get from the best of the best in new state of the art facilities & methodologies developed using investment $.....creating the perfect storm of ramp up.

Are there more kids playing hockey in US now vs 25 years ago? On a % basis, I’d say yes slightly more but it’s not an order of magnitude different - which of of I correctly understood was the crux of your stance.

Now if only the game can get traction in the inner cities & rural US thus luring some of the high end athletes away from other sports...the US will dominate the game.

 

[SOLR]

There isn’t that many more rinks or kids playing in the US - it’s always been and still remains a regional game (Northeast and Minny). In fact the amount of kids playing in the Northeast has dropped significantly, lots of youth programs are shutting down, but there is makeup coming from some non-traditional markets - California, Phoenix area, Dallas-Fort Worth area primarily. There isn’t that much of an overall gain of any.

However, given the expense associated with the game, there’s a disproportionate number of children of former NHL & AHLers who’ve taken up the game at high levels. Combine that factor with the training those kids get from the best of the best in new state of the art facilities & methodologies developed using investment $.....creating the perfect storm of ramp up.

Are there more kids playing hockey in US now vs 25 years ago? On a % basis, I’d say yes slightly more but it’s not an order of magnitude different - which of of I correctly understood was the crux of your stance.

Now if only the game can get traction in the inner cities & rural US thus luring some of the high end athletes away from other sports...the US will dominate the game.

30% is certainly more than 0%

Past 7-8 years alone:
Hockey in the United States: A Growing Game

Look at the chart:
U.S. hockey growth showing up on NHL rosters