Winnipeg Jets Top 20 Prospects 2015 - #18

[truck]

Here's an example of how age and moving to the next level is imperative in evaluating prospects.

Looking at all NCAA players, those who played at x age, y% played 1+ NHL game, and z% played 200+ games:
17, 62%, 17%
18, 32%, 12%
19, 18%, 6%
20, 12%, 2%

Gives you an idea on how the later and older someone stays in the NCAA, the less likely they are good enough to be a NHL player...

Sorry Tanner Lane.

Some people forget how elite a player has to be (at a junior level) to be a legit NHL prospect.

Glover for example, who I like as a prospect, was the second best freshman defender on his team. Granted, his team was stacked, but I would he a lot more comfortable with him if he took the job with his play. That is what elite players do and elite players (relative to age) are the ones that tend to matter in the NHL.

 

[Guilty Party]

I still like a lot of the defensemen left on the board.
Thinking specifically about Kichton, Glover, Niku & Poolman.
Seeing that the defense position takes longer time to develop gives me hope for some of these guys.
Takes that age factor and stretches it out or prolongs it a bit. Buys them some extra years IMO.

 

[Jets4Life]

Here's an example of how age and moving to the next level is imperative in evaluating prospects.

Looking at all NCAA players, those who played at x age, y% played 1+ NHL game, and z% played 200+ games:
17, 62%, 17%
18, 32%, 12%
19, 18%, 6%
20, 12%, 2%

Gives you an idea on how the later and older someone stays in the NCAA, the less likely they are good enough to be a NHL player...

Sorry Tanner Lane.

Do you have similar stats for the Canadian junior leagues?

 

[Jets4Life]

Some people forget how elite a player has to be (at a junior level) to be a legit NHL prospect.

Glover for example, who I like as a prospect, was the second best freshman defender on his team. Granted, his team was stacked, but I would he a lot more comfortable with him if he took the job with his play. That is what elite players do and elite players (relative to age) are the ones that tend to matter in the NHL.

.

If Glover had accomplished some notability in his first year, I would be more inclined to believe he has a shot at the pros. Even C.J. Franklin was voted on to the WCHA all-rookie team.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

Do you have similar stats for the Canadian junior leagues?

I wouldn't imagine that you'd get much useful information out of that, mainly because of the CHL-AHL rules.

99% of Canadian Jr. prospects play their 18 year old season in junior, and slightly less than that play their 19 year old year in junior as well. Then you've probably got less than 1% that play their 20 year old (overage) year in junior and still go on to play in the NHL.

 

[truck]

Exactly.

If Glover had accomplished some notability in his first year, I would be more inclined to believe he has a shot at the pros. Even C.J. Franklin was voted on to the WCHA all-rookie team.

Franklin is the same age as Copp. Franklin was 7th on his team in scoring. He doesn't support your argument.

I have Glover easily ahead of Franklin.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Exactly.

If Glover had accomplished some notability in his first year, I would be more inclined to believe he has a shot at the pros. Even C.J. Franklin was voted on to the WCHA all-rookie team.

Franklin was 21 playing 3rd line. Glover was 18 playing #7.
Yeah I take Glover based on his awesome predraft record compared to Franklins non-existant list of achievements (rookie of the year at 21 when most seniors are 20/21 doesn't count).

 

[truck]

I wouldn't imagine that you'd get much useful information out of that, mainly because of the CHL-AHL rules.

99% of Canadian Jr. prospects play their 18 year old season in junior, and slightly less than that play their 19 year old year in junior as well. Then you've probably got less than 1% that play their 20 year old (overage) year in junior and still go on to play in the NHL.

I think you are looking at these numbers backwards.

99% of CHLers play in the CHL at 18. That is a given. The point is the sooner they graduate to pro, the more likely they are to stay in the NHL.Same goes for the NCAA and even the AHL.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

I think you are looking at these numbers backwards.

99% of CHLers play in the CHL at 18. That is a given. The point is the sooner they graduate to pro, the more likely they are to stay in the NHL.Same goes for the NCAA and even the AHL.

It's probably because I'm tired, but I'm not following. I don't know how the CHL numbers would be meaningful, because there's no real gradient like the NCAA numbers.

Put another way:

-If you're graduating from the CHL at 18 or 19, you are an elite prospect. Would guess that over 95% of that cohort plays 200+ games in the NHL.

-If you haven't graduated before your overage year, you have little hope of ever playing a game in the NHL, much less reaching 200+.

-If you're graduating to pro after playing your 18 and 19 year old year in junior, congrats, you're basically like every legitimate Canadian Junior prospect. Your chances of playing 200+ games? Depends how good you are.

The NCAA numbers say something meaningful, whereas I'm not sure that the CHL numbers would. Again though, I could be missing something.

 

[Jets4Life]

Franklin was 21 playing 3rd line. Glover was 18 playing #7.
Yeah I take Glover based on his awesome predraft record compared to Franklins non-existant list of achievements (rookie of the year at 21 when most seniors are 20/21 doesn't count).

The bottom line is Franklin and Glover were drafted in the same year.
Glover was drafted 60 spots ahead of Franklin.
Franklin played in more games, and achieved more notability than Glover in his first year in college.

PS Glover is two years younger than Franklin, not three. The fact that a 3rd round draft pick cannot make the top 3 pairings for a college team has to be a bit concerning to the Jets. I hope Glover has a better year in 2015-16.

 

[Jets4Life]

Pavel Kraskovsky

Winnipeg Jets #18 rated Prospect.

 

[Jets4Life]

It's probably because I'm tired, but I'm not following. I don't know how the CHL numbers would be meaningful, because there's no real gradient like the NCAA numbers.

Put another way:

-If you're graduating from the CHL at 18 or 19, you are an elite prospect. Would guess that over 95% of that cohort plays 200+ games in the NHL.

-If you haven't graduated before your overage year, you have little hope of ever playing a game in the NHL, much less reaching 200+.

-If you're graduating to pro after playing your 18 and 19 year old year in junior, congrats, you're basically like every legitimate Canadian Junior prospect. Your chances of playing 200+ games? Depends how good you are.

The NCAA numbers say something meaningful, whereas I'm not sure that the CHL numbers would. Again though, I could be missing something.

Would it be too much to ask, and start the #19 thread. I'm starting to become addicted to these prospect polls.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

Would it be too much to ask, and start the #19 thread. I'm starting to become addicted to these prospect polls.

It's been up for over 30 minutes.

 

[Mathmew Purrrr Oh]

The bottom line is Franklin and Glover were drafted in the same year.
Glover was drafted 60 spots ahead of Franklin.
Franklin played in more games, and achieved more notability than Glover in his first year in college.

PS Glover is two years younger than Franklin, not three. The fact that a 3rd round draft pick cannot make the top 3 pairings for a college team has to be a bit concerning to the Jets. I hope Glover has a better year in 2015-16.

no the bottom line is 2 years of development time is massive

 

[Jets4Life]

Some people are just late bloomers.

Hellebuyck
Hutchinson
Chiarot
Enstrom
Postma
Pardy
Clitsome

 

[truck]

The bottom line is Franklin and Glover were drafted in the same year.
Glover was drafted 60 spots ahead of Franklin.
Franklin played in more games, and achieved more notability than Glover in his first year in college.

PS Glover is two years younger than Franklin, not three. The fact that a 3rd round draft pick cannot make the top 3 pairings for a college team has to be a bit concerning to the Jets. I hope Glover has a better year in 2015-16.

I don't imagine that the Jets are concerned one way or another about Glover or anyone outside of the "sure thing" selections. I mean they'd surely love him to succeed, but they knew the odds were that he wouldn't.

Also, your bottom line also makes no sense. It completely ignores age and age is huge. They were drafted in the same year. Glover was drafted earlier because he was the better prospect. Glover remains the better prospect.

 

[truck]

It's probably because I'm tired, but I'm not following. I don't know how the CHL numbers would be meaningful, because there's no real gradient like the NCAA numbers.

Put another way:

-If you're graduating from the CHL at 18 or 19, you are an elite prospect. Would guess that over 95% of that cohort plays 200+ games in the NHL.

-If you haven't graduated before your overage year, you have little hope of ever playing a game in the NHL, much less reaching 200+.

-If you're graduating to pro after playing your 18 and 19 year old year in junior, congrats, you're basically like every legitimate Canadian Junior prospect. Your chances of playing 200+ games? Depends how good you are.

The NCAA numbers say something meaningful, whereas I'm not sure that the CHL numbers would. Again though, I could be missing something.

I am not sure why you see the scenario as different in the different leagues.

Regardless of which league - CHL, AHL or NCAA - the longer a player stays there,the less likely they are to be an impact pro. Same rule in every league. The best prospects turn pro at 18. The second best batch of prospects turns pro at 19, then 20, then 21 and so on.

 

[Jets4Life]

I don't imagine that the Jets are concerned one way or another about Glover or anyone outside of the "sure thing" selections. I mean they'd surely love him to succeed, but they knew the odds were that he wouldn't.

Also, your bottom line also makes no sense. It completely ignores age and age is huge. They were drafted in the same year. Glover was drafted earlier because he was the better prospect. Glover remains the better prospect.

There is no such thing as a "sure thing" selection. Just ask the San Diego Chargers.

So we should forget about all the St. Louis, Roloson's, and Hellebuyck's out there just because they were drafted later, and were not 18.

If a player makes it to the NHL, he makes it to the NHL. Whether it be 18 or 24. I just hope any one of these prospects eventually makes the Jets. Nobody thought Chiarot would make the NHL last year, but he ended up accomplishing just that, despite being 23 years old.

You seem to forget that just because a player does not make it to the NHL before the age of 20, even though his odds may be greater, there are still tons of NHL players who do not see action until they are 22, 23, or 24. You make it sound as if any player 21 or over should just call it a career, and find a job at the local manufacturing plant.

 

[truck]

There is no such thing as a "sure thing" selection. Just ask the San Diego Chargers.

So we should forget about all the St. Louis, Roloson's, and Hellebuyck's out there just because they were drafted later, and were not 18.

If a player makes it to the NHL, he makes it to the NHL. Whether it be 18 or 24. I just hope any one of these prospects eventually makes the Jets. Nobody thought Chiarot would make the NHL last year, but he ended up accomplishing just that, despite being 23 years old.

You seem to forget that just because a player does not make it to the NHL before the age of 20, even though his odds may be greater, there are still tons of NHL players who do not see action until they are 22, 23, or 24. You make it sound as if any player 21 or over should just call it a career, and find a job at the local manufacturing plant.

Where in anything I said did you get the impression that I forgot the bolded? I said nothing about the volumes of players that fit in each group, I was simply explaining the general concept behind something that Garret posted.

Goalies do generally take a longer path to the NHL.

 

[garret9]

Some people are just late bloomers.

Hellebuyck
Hutchinson
Chiarot
Enstrom
Postma
Pardy
Clitsome

Hellebucyk, Hutchinson, Enstrom, and arguably Postma were not late bloomers.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

I am not sure why you see the scenario as different in the different leagues.

Regardless of which league - CHL, AHL or NCAA - the longer a player stays there,the less likely they are to be an impact pro. Same rule in every league. The best prospects turn pro at 18. The second best batch of prospects turns pro at 19, then 20, then 21 and so on.

The reason why I believe the scenario is different is because junior-aged players that are capable of turning pro cannot due to the NHL/CHL agreement.

I understand the idea that the younger you turn pro, the more likely you are to have NHL success. I just don't know that you'd get any meaningful numbers by looking at those success rates in Canadian Jr. players.

 

[Jets4Life]

Hellebucyk, Hutchinson, Enstrom, and arguably Postma were not late bloomers.

Hellebuyck (22) - has not played in an NHL game
Hutchinson (25) - played his first NHL game at 24.
Enstrom (30) -played his first NHL game at 22 going on 23.
Postma (26) - did not make regular Jets lineup until nearly turning 24.
Chiarot (24) - did not make the Jets regular lineup until 23.

what would you call these players, if not late bloomers?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Some people are just late bloomers.

Hellebuyck
Hutchinson
Chiarot
Enstrom
Postma
Pardy
Clitsome

I wouldn't call any of those players late bloomers.

Where in anything I said did you get the impression that I forgot the bolded? I said nothing about the volumes of players that fit in each group, I was simply explaining the general concept behind something that Garret posted.

Goalies do generally take a longer path to the NHL.

So do D men. Not always of course but generally.

Hellebuyck (22) - has not played in an NHL game
Hutchinson (25) - played his first NHL game at 24.
Enstrom (30) -played his first NHL game at 22 going on 23.
Postma (26) - did not make regular Jets lineup until nearly turning 24.
Chiarot (24) - did not make the Jets regular lineup until 23.

what would you call these players, if not late bloomers?

A late bloomer would be a player who is showing little or nothing at an age when most successful players are showing strong signs of that eventual success. Then they suddenly catch up.

Helle and Hutch are on a normal development path for goalies.
Enstrom chose to stay in Sweden to develop rather than playing in the A.
Neither Postma nor Chiarot suddenly became top pair D at the age of 24. They followed a normal path for 3rd pair D. It takes them longer to arrive simply because they are not as good.

You are trying to make this point in relation to comparing Glover and Franklin. You are claiming that Franklin surpassed Glover but are ignoring his 2 year maturity advantage and the difference in the teams they played for. Franklin's accomplishment is encouraging but it does not mean that he leapfrogged Glover. It says nothing about Glover at all. It only says something about Franklin.

 

[garret9]

Hellebuyck (22) - has not played in an NHL game
Hutchinson (25) - played his first NHL game at 24.
Enstrom (30) -played his first NHL game at 22 going on 23.
Postma (26) - did not make regular Jets lineup until nearly turning 24.
Chiarot (24) - did not make the Jets regular lineup until 23.

what would you call these players, if not late bloomers?

Late entry into NHL does not necessitate late bloomers, and those guys are not that late to enter. They are all well within 1 SD of mean.

Helelbuyck, Hutchinson, Enstrom, and Postma are 100% late bloomers.

Hellebuyck has posted elite numbers at every level he's ever played in.
Hutchinson has been at or above league average at every level he's played in except one.
Enstrom played as a regular in the SHL in his draft year, an accomplishment in itself.
Postma's scored at very high-end levels in his draft+1 and draft+2 season.
Those guys aren't late bloomers.

If Chiarot develops into a top 4 guy who can carry the second pair, sure you could call him a late bloomer.

Late bloomer is a player like Craig Smith or Tyler Johnson. Those are two guys who scored at poor levels relative to their age and league around their draft period, and then exploded afterwards into being well above average for their age and league.

A late bloomer would be if Franklin dominates the NCAA next season and challenges for MVP in the league. He'd go from being a meh player into something new.

 

[Gm0ney]

Hellebuyck (22) - has not played in an NHL game
Hutchinson (25) - played his first NHL game at 24.
Enstrom (30) -played his first NHL game at 22 going on 23.
Postma (26) - did not make regular Jets lineup until nearly turning 24.
Chiarot (24) - did not make the Jets regular lineup until 23.

what would you call these players, if not late bloomers?

Maybe: "Players following a pretty normal development curve"?

Teemu Selanne didn't play his first NHL game until he was 22. Late bloomer?

Ages of Rookie Goalies since 1990:

18 - 4
19 - 12
20 - 41
21 - 48
22 - 37
23 - 56
24 - 43
25 - 29
26 - 23

The peak is at 23. Hellebuyck turned 22 in May. Hutch wasn't unusually old for a rookie goalie either.

Ages of Rookie Defensemen since 1990:

18 - 20
19 - 80
20 - 146
21 - 160
22 - 178
23 - 138
24 - 90
25 - 64
26 - 35

Seems Enstrom entered the league at a fairly standard age. Postma and Chiarot were both 23, so still in the normal range.