Prospect Info: Steve Dangle: The Prospect Pyramid

[Nithoniniel]

Sorting in tiers solves one problem with how prospect rankings are done, but it's mostly about presentation. A worse problem is that much talk about prospects focus on potential, as in how good the player could conceivably become, which is the one measurement we know the least about, is the hardest to predict, and isn't very telling either. For all we know, Nielsen is the second coming of Shea Weber, but that doesn't capture his value as a prospect. Talking about projections or development spreads instead of potential is better, but rarely done.

 

[Leafsman]

I was watching a Steve Dangle video on prospects and I really like his way of 'ranking' prospects.

The jist of his argument is that rather than listing prospects 1-20, it makes more sense to rank prospects in tiers. Within the tiers, does it really matter who is ranked ahead of who? The prospects in each tier are so relatively close in potential that arguing about who is slightly ahead of another prospect is a waste of time.

Here is the video:



For those of you that don't wish to watch, here is how he filled in his pyramid:

TIER ONE: Auston Matthews

TIER TWO: Mitch Marner, William Nylander

TIER THREE: Connor Brown, Kasperi Kapanen, Andreas Johnson, Travis Dermott

TIER FOUR: Niktia Soshnikov, Brendan Leipsic, Kerby Rychel, Jeremy Bracco, Dmytro Timashov, Tobias Lindberg, Andrew Nielson, Carl Grundstrom, Zach Hyman

TIER FIVE: Frederik Gauthier, Rinat Valiev, Yegor Korshkov, Adam Brooks, Martins Dzierkals, JD Greenway, Viktor Loov, JJ Piccinich, Jesper Lindgren

TIER SIX: EVERYONE ELSE

I really like this system. The only change I'd make is having Yegor Korshkov in either Tier Three or Tier Four. I think he's going to be a very good surprise for us.

I like it! I think it is a great illustration showing the potential in our prospect pool.

I do enjoy reading numerical ratings but find them quite arbitrary once you start getting to the end of the top 10, especially after the top 10. We have a fairly substantial prospect pool at the moment which allows a more analytically justified ranking of the top 10. For weaker prospect pools though, or our previous prospect pools, the top 10 were more opinion than fact. I would say even ranking out of the top 5 was more opinion than anything.

This is a great system for ranking lower quality pools were you may have clear divides among your prospects' skillsets. Much like a draft where you can see skill dropping off at certain points.

I kind of look at this system like an internal draft. Who would you take in each round if you had
1x1st
2x2nds
3x3rds
4x4ths, etc, etc.

I also look at it as if each tier is indicative of the player's potential to impact the future club.

1st Tier - 95+% likely to have impact
2nd Tier - 90+% likely
3rd Tier - 75+%
4th Tier - 60% +

This criteria clearly separates Matthews from Marner and Nylander. I think Marner will have a huge impact for this team but I believe Matthews is far more likely to reach his potential.

When ranking prospects, you can not rank them according to how good they will be because it is an unknown. You also can't really rank them completely (you can to an extent) based on their current body of work because they span different leagues, different levels of hockey, different ages, different levels of pro experience, etc. You can really only rank them based on an educated projection on how likely they are in the future to not only just make the big club but have an impact on it.

 

[ACC1224]

Lol they're mad hes making money off being obsessed with the leafs while these guys spend all their time (mike) posting for free

Poor assumption.

 

[TorMapleJays]

It's true.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Poor assumption.

No, but I'm sure that more than one posters on this board wish they were being paid to talk about hockey.

 

[Eb]

Sorting in tiers solves one problem with how prospect rankings are done, but it's mostly about presentation. A worse problem is that much talk about prospects focus on potential, as in how good the player could conceivably become, which is the one measurement we know the least about, is the hardest to predict, and isn't very telling either. For all we know, Nielsen is the second coming of Shea Weber, but that doesn't capture his value as a prospect. Talking about projections or development spreads instead of potential is better, but rarely done.

Yup.

And Gauthier who has continued to show he'll be playing in the NHL in some capacity is still ranked in one of the lowest tiers.

 

[ACC1224]

No, but I'm sure that more than one posters on this board wish they were being paid to talk about hockey.

Wishes are for fairies. If you want to get paid make it happen.

 

[SnizzMitch]

Lol they're mad hes making money off being obsessed with the leafs while these guys spend all their time (mike) posting for free

Exact!

 

[Mr Hockey*]

Exact!

Yes, I am sure people are jealous of a guy making videos in his bedroom at his mom's house

 

[SnizzMitch]

Yes, I am sure people are jealous of a guy making videos in his bedroom at his mom's house

He's not even at his mom's house lol

 

[Purity*]

Yes, I am sure people are jealous of a guy making videos in his bedroom at his mom's house

He's got his own house and a pretty good job from what I hear.

No need to hate on Dangle I think he's a pretty funny guy.

 

[Mr Hockey*]

He's got his own house and a pretty good job from what I hear.

No need to hate on Dangle I think he's a pretty funny guy.

no need to hate on people bud

 

[Mr Hockey*]

He'is not even at his mom's house lol

You were assuming and making accusations, so I thought I would do the same

 

[Damisoph]

Can't watch his YT vids, they're cringeworthy.

 

[slozo]

A question for people ranking our prospects:

Do you rank by player
a) future peak potential ?
b) current value/worth ?

I have a feeling most people use a combination of the two, perhaps more heavily weighted on future potential. But looking at some lists (like the one with Hyman at tier 4), I think some people are using 100% future potential.

It's the probable cause for many of the larger differences in these lists. Soshnikov is another player who is often put much lower than I would put him, based on current value.

 

[Silent Knight]

For those of you that don't wish to watch, here is how he filled in his pyramid:

TIER ONE: Auston Matthews
...
TIER SIX: EVERYONE ELSE

I really like this system. The only change I'd make is having Yegor Korshkov in either Tier Three or Tier Four. I think he's going to be a very good surprise for us.

Thanks. I refuse to watch that guy. Beyond annoying, blatantly obnoxious. As a Leaf fan I cringe that this guy gets so much airtime around here. I know I'm not alone in my dislike for this individual, but I'm sure all the kiddies will be out in full force to tell me how awful I am for not liking his obnoxious rants. He's a leaf fan... good for him, beyond that I would not want to be around him for more than a few minutes. Have at me, I don't care.

 

[Silent Knight]

Can't watch his YT vids, they're cringeworthy.

Indeed.

 

[GardinerTheForward]

Lol they're mad hes making money off being obsessed with the leafs while these guys spend all their time (mike) posting for free

No I just do not find his broadcasts even okay. He yells constantly at the camera and I just think he's unknowledgable.

 

[Mr Hockey*]

No I just do not find his broadcasts even okay. He yells constantly at the camera and I just think he's unknowledgable.

I seen him on a podcast, he was ok and acted normal and just talked. It was watchable

 

[Silent Knight]

No I just do not find his broadcasts even okay. He yells constantly at the camera and I just think he's unknowledgable.

You're exactly right, this is sort of his shtick in a way, he thinks by being completely obnoxious and acting like a chicken with his head cut off that will attract more viewers and in some cases that's true (if your intelligence is far below average or are a teenager maybe so) but most people with an education past grade 8 really can't handle more than a few minutes of his immature buffoonery.

Lol they're mad hes making money off being obsessed with the leafs while these guys spend all their time (mike) posting for free

No one is mad that he may be making a few nickels off his obnoxious videos, many people on YouTube make money off their videos centering on a long line of different topics. If we want to go down that road and try and prop attention starved Steve up for making a few nickels with his videos, let's put it in perspective. Donald Trump makes more money in an hour than Steve Glynn will make in his lifetime. See, we can play that game too? Oh and this is NOT meant to be about politics AT ALL, it's about showing you how foolish it is to try and say people don't like him because he made a few nickels. Just a simple example of how little Steve Glynn's importance is in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Canada4Gold]

A question for people ranking our prospects:

Do you rank by player
a) future peak potential ?
b) current value/worth ?

I have a feeling most people use a combination of the two, perhaps more heavily weighted on future potential. But looking at some lists (like the one with Hyman at tier 4), I think some people are using 100% future potential.

It's the probable cause for many of the larger differences in these lists. Soshnikov is another player who is often put much lower than I would put him, based on current value.

I rank based on what I view their average "mean" value to be.

I don't do calculations in my head or anything but just as an example with fairly random numbers, value being linear, so someone who's 80 would be worth twice a 40 guy...

10% chance Andreas Johnson becomes a 80 value player, 30% chance he becomes a 50 value player, 40% chance he becomes a 30 value player, 10% chance he becomes a 15 value player, 15% chance he becomes a 0 value player.

His mean value is (0.1x80)+(0.3x50)+(0.4x30)+(0.1x15)+(0.1x0) = 36.5 value

Now obviously there wouldn't be all these discrete possibilities if you were going to use real data to determine average value and go about all the math everytime, this is just an example. If we were actually going to do that in real life you'd have a graph of potential and you'd use definite integrals to find the area under the curve to determine mean value.

The average Andreas Johnson value of 100000 simulations of his development is a 36.5 value player. Then compare this idea of how my theoretical idea of how the average Andreas Johnson turns out to how the average other guys all turn out.

Of course like I said this is all theoretical. I don't actually do calculations, it's just a feel of how I go about it. A prospect who has boom potential gets credit for the high end value he could end up being, but with a low percentage to reach it, he doesn't get a lot of credit. Meanwhile a lower end player like a Hyman doesn't get much if any high end credit, but he has much less potential for a 0 value player.

I mean it's all just weighing high potential v. a likelyhood to reach it/high floor, but this is just how I try to go about it in my head minus all the actual numbers

 

[Leafsman]

You're exactly right, this is sort of his shtick in a way, he thinks by being completely obnoxious and acting like a chicken with his head cut off that will attract more viewers and in some cases that's true (if your intelligence is far below average or are a teenager maybe so) but most people with an education past grade 8 really can't handle more than a few minutes of his immature buffoonery.


No one is mad that he may be making a few nickels off his obnoxious videos, many people on YouTube make money off their videos centering on a long line of different topics. If we want to go down that road and try and prop attention starved Steve up for making a few nickels with his videos, let's put it in perspective. Donald Trump makes more money in an hour than Steve Glynn will make in his lifetime. See, we can play that game too? Oh and this is NOT meant to be about politics AT ALL, it's about showing you how foolish it is to try and say people don't like him because he made a few nickels. Just a simple example of how little Steve Glynn's importance is in the grand scheme of things.

Sometimes I read through these threads and forget that this is a hockey discussion board.

The vast VAST majority of people on here completely ignore the post and attack the poster. Or ignore the topic and attack the author. The OP even went as far as to summarize the video for those who did not want to watch, yet people still ignore the topic to cast a few pot-shots at a guy who proposed a very valid ranking system.

Whatever your feelings on Steve Dangle, it has zero impact on the ranking system he proposed and whether or not there is any merit to it.

Insulting people who enjoy Steve Dangle, suggesting a lack of intelligence or maturity shows both a lack of intelligence and maturity.

 

[Leafsman]

A question for people ranking our prospects:

Do you rank by player
a) future peak potential ?
b) current value/worth ?

I have a feeling most people use a combination of the two, perhaps more heavily weighted on future potential. But looking at some lists (like the one with Hyman at tier 4), I think some people are using 100% future potential.

It's the probable cause for many of the larger differences in these lists. Soshnikov is another player who is often put much lower than I would put him, based on current value.

I generally rank a prospect by their potential to make the team and be impactful to the team.

I find Kapanen gets a lot of love and is ranked higher than I believe he should be, while I agree with you that Sosh and Hyman get ranked a little lower than they should be.

That doesn't mean that I believe either will be better than the other. I feel that Sosh has a much higher probability of making at least the bottom six than Kapanen has of making the top 6. I also believe that if Sosh acheived 100% of his potential could play top 6 (and if he acheived lesser potential could still fit in bottom six), while if Kapanen does not acheive a large portion of his potential he could not play a bottom six and will likely be traded or moved.

Rankings should take into account organizational depths at future position and organizational need. I rank Dermott very high because we do not have very many D prospects. This means Dermott is very valuable and has a very high level of potential to succeed.

I find Gauthier is another victim. His skill is not overly valued by fans which generally hurts him in rankings. However, I feel he has alot of potential to succeed because the competition is lesser for his role and he still has a lot of time to develop. Is a guy with less flashy skill who will likely make the team less valuable than a guy with much flashier skills who has a much more competition and is less likely to make the team.

 

[Hoverhand]

You're exactly right, this is sort of his shtick in a way, he thinks by being completely obnoxious and acting like a chicken with his head cut off that will attract more viewers and in some cases that's true (if your intelligence is far below average or are a teenager maybe so) but most people with an education past grade 8 really can't handle more than a few minutes of his immature buffoonery.


No one is mad that he may be making a few nickels off his obnoxious videos, many people on YouTube make money off their videos centering on a long line of different topics. If we want to go down that road and try and prop attention starved Steve up for making a few nickels with his videos, let's put it in perspective. Donald Trump makes more money in an hour than Steve Glynn will make in his lifetime. See, we can play that game too? Oh and this is NOT meant to be about politics AT ALL, it's about showing you how foolish it is to try and say people don't like him because he made a few nickels. Just a simple example of how little Steve Glynn's importance is in the grand scheme of things.

I can assure you Sportsnet pays more than "Nickels"

 

[thewave]

I didn't like the video because Steve starts of saying how much he hates making top prospects lists.

Then the presentation was garbage.

Steve Dangle is the best but that was terrible. I know you don't like doing lists but make the video enjoyable to watch.

As for my rebuttal to his list...

1. Auston Matthews
   ------------------
   
2. Mitchell Marner
3. William Nylander
   ------------------
4. Travis Dermott
5. Kasperi Kapanen
6. Rinat Valiev
7. Yegor Korshkov
8. Andrew Nielsen
9. Carl Grundstrom
10. Nikita Soshnikov
11. Connor Carrick
12. Joseph Woll
13. Martins Dzierkals
14. Connor Brown
15. Andreas Johnson
16. Jeremy Bracco
17. Dmytro Timashov
    ------------------
18. Zach Hyman
19. Frederik Gauthier
20. Kerby Rychel
21. JD Greenway
22. Antoine Bibeau
23. Tobias Lindberg
24. Brendan Leipsic
25. Josh Leivo
26. Adam Brooks
27. Jesper Lindgren
28. Garret Sparks
    ------------------
29. Justin Holl
30. Viktor Loov
31. Kasimir Kaskisuo
32. Dominic Toninato
33. Jack Walker
34. Trevor Moore
35. Keaton Middleton
36. Dakota Joshua
37. Pierre Engvall
38. Vladimir Bobylev
39. Nikolai Chebykin
40. Nikita Korostelev
41. Stephen Desrocher
42. Nicolas Mattinen

I don't understand what he was trying to do. Was he trying to create a ranking list that is less prone to debate? Why was he yelling so frequently?