Prospect Info: Ty Mueller: 105th Overall 2023 Draft (Nebraska-Omaha) - C

[MarkMM]

Really depends on what that means to Allvin. It might mean something else for someone else.

Do you take a guy that has a lot of speed but no IQ or hands?

Do you take a huge guy that has skating issues?

Do you take a 5'8 or 5'7 forward that scores a lot?

One thing I want the Canucks to do in the super late rounds is take an unknown from a non-hockey dominant hockey. I'm intrigued by a few picks this year like Antoine Keller from France and Vladimir Nikitin from Kazakhstan (who is coming to the BCHL this year).

I think the swing for the fences for most means someone with a high upside but low or non-existent floor; so someone who IF they make it would be a top six forward / top four defenceman / number one goalie, but if not, won't even be AHL depth, versus players like Danielson where he may not be very good but you're for sure in a worst case scenario getting an asset that can play.

See this a lot with forwards, someone small and skilled who needs to hit it as a scorer because if he can't then he's too slow / small / defensively irresponsible to be used on the bottom six in a checking or grinding role.

 

[Bubbles]

I think the swing for the fences for most means someone with a high upside but low or non-existent floor; so someone who IF they make it would be a top six forward / top four defenceman / number one goalie, but if not, won't even be AHL depth, versus players like Danielson where he may not be very good but you're for sure in a worst case scenario getting an asset that can play.

See this a lot with forwards, someone small and skilled who needs to hit it as a scorer because if he can't then he's too slow / small / defensively irresponsible to be used on the bottom six in a checking or grinding role.

I mean that describes pretty much any prospect after the 4th round. So Allvin saying "swinging for the fences" is meaningless because at the stage of the draft, every team is swinging for the fences.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

This goes quite opposite to Allvin last year banging the table saying he doesnt want to aim for prospects who have low upside and instead to swing for the fences. That's unfortunate. But this player's NCAA statline is not weak and I'm fine with the risk. But the drafting philosophy needs to be there.

I thought that quote from Allvin was regarding the first round pick which would make more sense. At some point in the draft you need to find your future bottom six forwards and bottom pairing and depth Dmen.

 

[MarkMM]

I mean that describes pretty much any prospect after the 4th round. So Allvin saying "swinging for the fences" is meaningless because at the stage of the draft, every team is swinging for the fences.

I took Allvin talking about swinging for the fences about going for high upside, but the Canucks did the opposite which has a lot of people upset.

Instead of swinging for the fences with guys with high upside and low floors, our 4th round picks onwards largely look like guys who have projectable floors with extremely low ceilings.

Swinging for the fences leads to a situation where in the rare chance the player hits we have a valuable, high end talent.

What the Canucks did in later rounds at this year's draft is pick players who in the rare chance they hit, will be a low-impact depth piece. There might be a strategy to it, making sure we have balance throughout the pipeline and maybe I'm over-estimating the ease to get depth pieces in the Trotz mould of using waivers and free agency for those kinds of players, but they are definitely different strategies.

 

[pitseleh]

This not a systematic analysis. It’s barely more than picking anecdotes.

It’s plausible this is a real strategy. But this isn’t evidence of it.

Came across a thesis that adds support for the overager strategy. Using public models it reviewed draft pick outcomes, and confirmed the usual suspects - the league undervalued players who produce, short players, players who are young for their draft years - but then found two other relationships, including that overagers were undervalued:

The final two variables represent new additions to the NHL draft literature. The first is that prospects who accumulate more penalty minutes have been less likely to become good NHL players than other prospects with lower penalty minutes. There is something about high penalty minute prospects, almost certainly their perceived toughness, that NHL teams have dramatically over valued during the draft process. The second is that players who have entered back into the draft process seem to outperform their draft cohort in the year they were selected.

More detail here: NHL Draft Biases - Chaces Version

 

[bossram]

Came across a thesis that adds support for the overager strategy. Using public models it reviewed draft pick outcomes, and confirmed the usual suspects - the league undervalued players who produce, short players, players who are young for their draft years - but then found two other relationships, including that overagers were undervalued:

The final two variables represent new additions to the NHL draft literature. The first is that prospects who accumulate more penalty minutes have been less likely to become good NHL players than other prospects with lower penalty minutes. There is something about high penalty minute prospects, almost certainly their perceived toughness, that NHL teams have dramatically over valued during the draft process. The second is that players who have entered back into the draft process seem to outperform their draft cohort in the year they were selected.

More detail here: NHL Draft Biases - Chaces Version

I read pretty much any scrap of content Chase puts out on Twitter, very interesting draft analysis. His more recent research found players that had the words, "safe", "leader", or "power forward" in their draft profiles underperformed their draft slots. "Passers" overperformed the most.

Yeah, so I think would conclude now that OAs outperform their draft slots. But there is a different question of weighting/tradeoffs teams would have to ask. I think OAs are more likely to "make" the NHL, but because there's been more development, there is less variance and less likely a long tail outcome in their distribution of possibilities. In other words, more likely to make the NHL but less likely to be a higher-end player.

Is it better to draft a guy with a ~15% chance of being a AAAA-type or 4th liner, or a player with a 1% chance of being a middle-six or above player?

Ty Mueller is trending as a guy who would be a college free agent signing, which usually equates to a B or C-level prospect and someone who would have been worth using a draft pick on anyway. So upon further reflection, I actually don't mind this one.

 

[MS]

I took Allvin talking about swinging for the fences about going for high upside, but the Canucks did the opposite which has a lot of people upset.

Instead of swinging for the fences with guys with high upside and low floors, our 4th round picks onwards largely look like guys who have projectable floors with extremely low ceilings.

Swinging for the fences leads to a situation where in the rare chance the player hits we have a valuable, high end talent.

What the Canucks did in later rounds at this year's draft is pick players who in the rare chance they hit, will be a low-impact depth piece. There might be a strategy to it, making sure we have balance throughout the pipeline and maybe I'm over-estimating the ease to get depth pieces in the Trotz mould of using waivers and free agency for those kinds of players, but they are definitely different strategies.

I think the notion of 'swinging for the fences with every pick' is kind of something that doesn't and can't really happen in reality. 15 years ago maybe, but smallish high-producing players go so much earlier than they used to.

If you look at what every team did in the 5th or 6th round, the vast majority of picks are just guys with one skill that you're hoping can play up. Lowish-producing forwards who can really skate. Big forwards with tools. 6'5 defensive defenders. Goalie projects.

And what does 'swinging for the fences' mean? In the eyes of a lot of people here it means taking some 5'8 guy who put up huge numbers somewhere, but in the eyes of others picks like Alriksson and Celebrini who have excellent size/skating packages likely represent higher upsides than little forwards who can maybe be middle-6 wingers.

Mueller is a funny one because he actually has really solid production for a 19 y/o NCAA player ... but people hate it because he's an overage.

 

[TomWillander1RD]

I think the notion of 'swinging for the fences with every pick' is kind of something that doesn't and can't really happen in reality. 15 years ago maybe, but smallish high-producing players go so much earlier than they used to.

If you look at what every team did in the 5th or 6th round, the vast majority of picks are just guys with one skill that you're hoping can play up. Lowish-producing forwards who can really skate. Big forwards with tools. 6'5 defensive defenders. Goalie projects.

And what does 'swinging for the fences' mean? In the eyes of a lot of people here it means taking some 5'8 guy who put up huge numbers somewhere, but in the eyes of others picks like Alriksson and Celebrini who have excellent size/skating packages likely represent higher upsides than little forwards who can maybe be middle-6 wingers.

Mueller is a funny one because he actually has really solid production for a 19 y/o NCAA player ... but people hate it because he's an overage.

In my understanding, "swinging for the fences" refers to targeting players who possess exceptional skills but may have fallen in their draft position due to certain circumstances. This approach may result in the selection of smaller-sized players, as lack of physical stature is often a common reason for players to drop in rankings. An extreme example of this would be Johnny Gadreau.

While I have no objections to selecting players like Alriksson and Celebrini, who demonstrate promising skill sets considering their draft positions, my main concern lies in the historical tendency of the Canucks to choose players who failed to showcase outstanding abilities even at the Development Camp level and were subsequently forgotten by the following year. Regardless of the strategy employed, it is the lack of notable talent in past selections that frustrates me.

 

[Jersey Fan 12]

Leading scorer for UN-O through ten games with five goals and five assists.

Think the people hammering the choice last summer may not appreciate the nature of the NCHC.

Playing against 23-25 year olds on a middle of the pack team in a league that has some of the top teams in college hockey, Mueller is more than holding his own.

 

[Yultron]

Mueller is turning heads for sure and if he can I ish the season at a point per game player or even more than that .

I believe we have found a diamond in the rough and a player who could project as a 3rd line centre upside potentially down the road and I am very much opening up to this pick

 

[ChilliBilly]

Mueller is turning heads for sure and if he can I ish the season at a point per game player or even more than that .

I believe we have found a diamond in the rough and a player who could project as a 3rd line centre upside potentially down the road and I am very much opening up to this pick

you know its interesting. After draft day malaise, the general consensus seems to be that virtually every pick we made this year makes sense for where we took them. People are getting more and more satisfied with just about all of them. Wheeeee ....

 

[StreetHawk]

I mean that describes pretty much any prospect after the 4th round. So Allvin saying "swinging for the fences" is meaningless because at the stage of the draft, every team is swinging for the fences.

Most later round guys something is holding them back. Be it size, Skating , hockey sense, defensive awareness etc.
is it possible for the player to improve in the weakness or is their best strength something that can still carry them to the next level.

 

[Josepho]

you know its interesting. After draft day malaise, the general consensus seems to be that virtually every pick we made this year makes sense for where we took them. People are getting more and more satisfied with just about all of them. Wheeeee ....

Meh, so far I think it's been a bit of a mixed bag. Alriksson and Perkins definitely would go lower in a redraft and Mynio probably would as well, but Brz/Willander/Celebrini/Mueller probably would go a bit higher (or way higher in the case of Brz) or stay at about the same.

But there were no obviously terrible Pettit/Stewart/Gunnarsson sort of picks from this draft IMO and some of the outrage was unwarranted, especially to this pick in particular,

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

Currently, he's in a good spot playing in all situations 1pp 1pk and functioning as a genuine center. His playing style is summed up as an intense pursuit of the puck, high energy levels, and decent skating ability.. Think William LockWood.(minus physical attribute)

While he exhibits agility, his smaller stature makes him susceptible to being overpowered on the ice although he makes the effort. to me, that would be the difference maker (only if he was just a tad taller)
While he has the potential to carve out a decent pro career somewhere, his playing style might make him a favorite among coaches

Perkins who we also drafted also shows similar characteristics in playing style.

only seen both a few games so far so idk what im talking about