1OA 2025

[Pavel Buchnevich]

As an aside, I don't think Hagens DY-2 was more impressive than Misa's DY-2. Misa set the record for the highest PPG of an exceptional status player in the OHL above guys like McDavid and Tavares. Hagens 1.29 PPG at 16 in the USHL is impressive but not historic. He was behind players like J. Hughes, Celebrini, Vanek, and Eiserman. Hagens was more impressive in his DY-1.

I actually think if Misa didn't have that really awful DY-1 he would've had a much better shot at 1OA (at least I feel he'd be the top OHL guy). He was looked at rather comparatively to Hagens in that first year of junior. Hagens significantly outperformed Misa at the WHC17, and I remember people came out of that thinking Hagens was ahead. He just had more hockey sense, skill, playmaking, but Misa was viewed not too far behind on the consensus. It was the DY-2 that did the damage for why I don't think there's almost any chance he goes 1OA.

Here's my main point. Past production doesn't equal future production. If it did, Hagens would have far better numbers in the NCAA this season. Jack Eichel went from putting up 1.88 PPG in the USHL to 1.78 PPG in the NCAA the next season. Clayton Keller went from putting up 1.61 PPG in the USHL to 1.45 PPG in the NCAA the next season.

I'm completely with anyone that wants there to be more to analysis than PPG.

So by that logic, Hagens 1.81 PPG in the USHL should translate to roughly 1.65 PPG in the NCAA this season. Yet it hasn't. He's averaging 1.08 PPG.

Uh, or BC has played basically the hardest strength of schedule ever this year. Do you think Leonard and Perreault instantly just got a lot worse too? They're essentially playing an Allsvenskan level schedule.

As I said above, I am with you if you want there to be nuance. If you want this to not all be about PPG, that's what I'd advocate for too, which I'm not sure you actually did there. You just used a raw comparison of stats and are trying to say it's just random luck or Hagens peaked at 18 as why?

My main point is I don't really get the logic that if we're transporting Hagens into the CHL (not the NCAA on steroids that he's now playing as the OHL is really only the tiniest bit stronger than the USHL he's previously played) that he would be scoring at the same level as Martone and considerably less than Misa. I guess it's possible and anyone can project whatever they want, but to me that doesn't follow with the logic of the prior evidence we have on the players.

Let me give you an example of this from this draft. Jack Ivankovic posted a .915 sv% last season in the OHL while Alexei Medvedev put up a .904 sv% in Junior B. By your logic, Ivankovic should have better numbers this season. Yet, Medvedev has a .922 sv% while Ivankovic sits at an .898 sv%.

I've seen you put Medvedev ahead of Ivankovic in your draft rankings. I've seen you say that Ivankovic (a small goalie) should fall down the rankings but you're unwillingly to say the same about Hagens (a small forward). I don't believe I'm being unfair to Hagens when I can back up my reasoning with statisical evidence

I am not at all against small goaltenders. I am against small goaltenders who don't put up elite stats. There are actually plenty of small goaltenders who put up elite stats. You'll probably find like 10 of them per draft scattered around the world. Chances are 1 or 2 of them will hit because they are just that player that can put up elite SV%'s anywhere they go in any league, regardless of difficulty (a la a Dustin Wolf). This is how I'd draft. I don't care about size with goaltenders as a standalone problem. I don't think the play is "take the really hyped smaller guy who isn't actually putting up elite numbers" because he has a lot of hype.

For me goaltending is a different assessment than the other positions. All other positions there's a lot more than just one measurement. For goaltenders, it's literally just about how good they are at keeping the puck out of the net. I don't want to say SV% captures everything you need exactly (it's not and I don't think stuff like GSAe and GSAA does so either), but I think it's the closest of any stat for a position in doing so because goaltending is the position where you are balancing the least elements. You are essentially only judging a goaltender on how well they keep the puck out of the net. Their hits, their blocks, their TOI, their face-offs, none of that stuff matters for a goaltender, as it might for a forward or defensemen.

Hagens absolutely has elite stats for a DY guy in the NCAA. I don't see that as remotely comparable to Ivankovic, who isn't even faring well for a draft eligible. Does Hagens have the best ever stats in the NCAA? No, but pretty damn good. As I've said, my preference is for discussions that aren't a strict PPG contest. I believe there's nuance. I believe you get situations where Adam Fantilli scores a higher PPG than Celebrini and Eichel, yet is not the same caliber of hockey player. I think when we're talking about PPG you want a player to be in a range. Once they're in that range, the difference is really often just the nuances within the team, the schedule, their age, their usage, and stuff like that.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Okay so regardless, the average Hockey East Schedule is still significantly different from essentially like the hardest strength of schedule ever in NCAA history (someone posted the link to it one of these pages, but I can't find it now) that is calculated via a mathematical formula weighing each game.

I don't think it does service to the schedule BC is playing this year. They aren't really playing an NCAA schedule. They're playing whatever is the next highest league up schedule (probably like Allsvenskan).

But how about the strength of schedule of the Chicago Blackhawks, or the San Jose Sharks? Or any other team that's going to be in position to draft him. This time his team-mates are going to be worse than the opposition not better. I honestly believe your doing Hagens a disservice talking about BC's schedule. He's better than that, he doesn't need excuses like that. He won't have any like that in the NHL.

 

[S E P H]

I think this entire discussion about where players will be drafted is entirely useless. A 6th round pick in Datsyuk is better than 1st overall Vincent Lecavalier. It's not where you are picked that matters, it's what you do afterwards which is the telling story. Draisaitl should have gone 1st in 2014 and would have if he was Canadian, but the Oilers got a steal at 3rd overall and are extremely happy about that. Hagens at this point in time will be better than Schaefer IMHO, it doesn't matter if a team would be stupid enough to pick Matthew first overall because teams do it all the time (EJ Johnson, Ekblad, etc.).

Here are the forwards from the last ten seasons that played on the USNDTP and went to the OHL the next season.

Tyler Boucher - 1.06 PPG on NDTP ----> 0.58 PPG in the OHL

Jeremy Bracco - 1.45 PPG on NDTP ----> 1.31 PPG in the OHL

Kristian Epperson - 0.38 PPG on NDTP ----> 1.37 PPG in the OHL (season not completed)

Liam Gilmartin - 0.70 PPG on NDTP ----> 0.62 PPG in the OHL

Christian Humphreys - 1.12 on NDTP ----> 1.14 PPG in the OHL (season not completed)

Sasha Pastujov - 1.59 PPG on NDTP ----> 1.17 PPG in the OHL

Matthew Tkachuk - 1.46 PPG on NDTP ---> 1.88 PPG in the OHL

Most of their averages stayed the same or went down. Hagens had 1.76 PPG last season. I gave him the benefit of the doubt in this scenario

Sure, but Humphreys couldn't cut it at a superior UMichigan team, so he downgraded to the OHL for a higher spot on the team.

Canada hardly controls the NHL.

Agreed, but the entire climate of scouting is based in Canada and the OHL is the Mecca of the scouting world, so there definitely is bias there.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

But how about the strength of schedule of the Chicago Blackhawks, or the San Jose Sharks? Or any other team that's going to be in position to draft him. This time his team-mates are going to be worse than the opposition not better. I honestly believe your doing Hagens a disservice talking about BC's schedule. He's better than that, he doesn't need excuses like that. He won't have any like that in the NHL.

I truly don't get your point. It's not an excuse. He's having a solid season. People just aren't properly contextualizing it if they're gonna compare his point totals (or those of Leonard or Perreault) to these guys that are getting these cupcake games every other week where the team is scoring 15 goals on a weekend against a team that barely belongs in D1.

The NCAA is not built equal. It's not an even distribution schedule. Teams schedule the out of conference games on their own. It's like comparing MHL stats. You can't compare the Gold to the Silver. I think a lot of people try to make EVERYTHING about stats when comparing players (not my preference), and I think if this is your argument you have to really know the nuances of each league, team, player, usage, line mates, and it usually always fails because unless you're someone who does this for a living and understands the context behind the stats you're looking at, you're probably going to miss some important nuance.

I think with BC this year the nuances are the ridiculously hard schedule, the fact that their PP isn't really working this year, the lines and offense have been mixed and matched and inconsistent and there's not the type of secondary scoring and depth they had last year. This is not the BC of last year where Smith, Gauthier, Perreault, and Leonard basically got to eat every game, and padded their stats. They are a great team, but it's more about having a great defense, arguably the best goaltender, and some offensive players that are scoring at a good, not great, rate with individual moments.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It was never that we didn't believe that to be true, and more that it doesn't solely account for Hagens' subpar performance this season. I get that he's played some tough teams. I get that his coach isn't utilizing him optimally, I get that BC isn't a run-and-gun OHL team and their PP is bad. It's not strictly about production.

I have no doubt that Hagens is going to be a good NHL player. He may even be a great one. That's not in question as far as I'm concerned. The problem is that doesn't look like a future star NHL player. He has no more physical disadvantages than Perreault or Smith did last season. He has no more age disadvantage than Celebrini or Buium or Fantilli before him. He isn't being asked to carry totally incompetent linemates. He isn't playing on a bad team that's constantly stuck in their own zone with little opportunity to create offense.

The Hagens proponents on this forum anointed him 1st overall before the season started yet are ignoring the uncomfortable fact that Hagens hasn't taken a step forward from what he was last season, while Schaefer and Misa have taken HUGE strides forward. Yes, I understand that Hagens has historically out-produced his draft classmates. That's why he was ranked #1 going into the season. But ignoring draft-year performance feels like an absolutely insane way to scout. Especially when the same people making excuses for Hagens lackluster stats this year are criticizing Schaefer's and Misa's lackluster stats from last year, whining about how hard Hagens has it this year and ignoring Schaefer's soul-crushing off-ice circumstances or Misa's crappy deployment last season.

Hagens goes whole games being largely invisible. I had hoped that that being separated from Leonard would give Hagens the opportunity to be puck-dominant and show that he can be The Guy on a line at a high level of hockey and prove that he deserves to go #1 overall. But every time I tune in, and I tune in a lot, I'm left disappointed.

I realize that it's a tall ask for an 18 year old to dominate college hockey. Yet other players, some of whom didn't even go 1st overall in their own draft years, did it. If Hagens is a 1st overall-caliber prospect, then why is he so often outplayed by his linemates? Why is he so often not the puck-carrier on his line? Hell, he was outplayed by Stiga at the Beanpot and a non-insignificant number of BC games I've caught.

To reiterate, all but one of his 9 WJC points came against Switzerland, Latvia, and Germany. He went invisible for long stretches against the teams that mattered. He certainly wasn't bad by any means and I wouldn't ding him for it (after all, most of Celebrini's points came against bad teams last WJC too), but holding Hagens' WJC performance up like a great victory seems foolish to me.

Again, if he was putting up the same numbers he has been but looked the part of a future true #1C, I would be in this thread defending him. I want him to succeed. And I don't think anyone sane is suggesting he won't go or deserves not to go top-4 at the absolute latest this summer. But it's exhausting seeing the Hagens defenders make the same excuses and not actually address what we're all seeing on the ice.

And fin.

Your arguments are inconsistent and reaching. Just very weak stuff. So you suggest that Hagens isn't playing as well as Buium (referencing last season, I get that), but let's use Buium this season as a comparison point. Buium essentially plays like another league level of competition. 4 of 28 top 11 teams compared to 16 of 27. Do you really not think that McDavid or MacKinnon would have worse stats if they played every game the Kings or Hurricanes every game compared to the Preds or Flyers? And the argument has become largely perverted. Hagens is the third leading scorer right now on the best NCAA team in the country. He was two points off the lead at the WJC (in his draft year). The idea he's not scoring points this year is really overplayed by the detractors. He's not having the greatest scoring season ever, but the idea he's not having a credible scoring season is complete nonsense.

Are you seriously trying to act like some TWO (yes two) game nothing tournament with some fancy name "the beanpot" between two shitty teams and two great teams (where everyone knew who would beat in the final) is some point against him? Oh my, he didn't score against Northeastern in the "Beanpot" but he managed to score against them like a few weeks ago? But that must matter less because that wasn't called the beanpot.

And no one is ignoring draft year performance. Some of us that understand the context are just explaining that it's a pretty naive argument to strictly go by PPG for three players who are playing a drastically lower level (one that Hagens conquered last year and sought a higher level of hockey after, while these three were nowhere near ready to do that), eating every game in these pond hockey junior games where like 12-17 goals are being scored comparatively to an "NCAA on steroids" schedule for Hagens. It's just very different hockey. If people's conclusion is "Hagens has peaked and isn't as good" and they don't believe he'd essentially be putting up the same (or better) totals if he chose to play in the OHL when he decided contrary to challenge himself and put himself in an environment that isn't as conducive to stat padding, that's simply very naive.

I mean, look at the WJC. Hagens was a top player there (I know your "he scored in the wrong games argument", but I guess a lot of players did then.) Martone wasn't even close to a top player there. Schaefer got injured, so we don't know. Misa didn't even make the Canadian team. Some of you will end up looking duped when you see Hagens is "magically" better than these players once they get to the NHL (he was never worse, but some people can't decipher stats and draw incorrect conclusions from what they mean).

 

[Mattb124]

It is interesting to look at NCAA scoring to see how dramatically better Leonard (1.30 ppg) and Perrault’s (1.33) production is vs Hagens (1.07) this year and how much better Celebrini’s production (1.68) was than Leonard (1.46) and Perrault’s (1.46) production last year.

 

[Tutu to]

Okay again, he’s 5’11. This is documented by now. It’s willful to call him shorter than he’s being listed at.

Smith isn’t part of BC this year. Don’t play expert on a team that you obviously aren’t following this year in the way you did last year. Otherwise you’d know that Perreault and Leonard aren’t putting up huge totals either. Do you think they got worse? Did we not see these three dominate at the WJC in leading their team to a title? Or maybe here’s a novel thought, the team isn’t that high scoring! Almost like being on one of the best teams doesn’t guarantee that the team will score 5 goals every game or participate in 10-7 games of pond hockey in juniors.

And it’s funny you’re literally trying to turn him being one of the best players at the WJC into a bad thing. He scored in the GMG. He didn’t score against a Canada team that lost 3 of their 5 games, but he was able to score against the lowly Latvia that beat Canada. But I guess the guy who was a 1C for the Gold Medal winners, has won gold at World U17, World U18, and World U20 levels before being drafted, setting the points record at 2 of those 3 tournaments and being one of the best players at the other, scored in the wrong games and isn’t any good.


Canada refuses to relent. Their hockey prowess is declining, but they want the first pick every year. They control the institutions. It’s their choice.

If anything its the other way around. The US have been struggling to produce elite talent despite the world junior results. Canada will likely go 5 years in a row with the first overall. Bedard, Celebrini, Schafer, Mckeena and Du Pont.

The States have a golden generation between 96-01 which will be on display at the four nations. A lot can change but I like Canada at best on best going forward.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

If anything its the other way around. The US have been struggling to produce elite talent despite the world junior results. Canada will likely go 5 years in a row with the first overall. Bedard, Celebrini, Schafer, Mckeena and Du Pont.

The States have a golden generation between 96-01 which will be on display at the four nations. A lot can change but I like Canada at best on best going forward.

You are making my point. Canada has a lot of first picks. I agree with you it's headed for 7 of 8. Canada has already claimed 2026 and 2027. When they decide one of their players is worthy of 1OA (every single year), there's essentially nothing that can be done (takes a disastrous fall like Wright).

What do they have to show for it? Is Lafreniere looking like a 1OA player? Is Power looking like a 1OA player? Is Bedard looking anywhere near as good as hyped? I certainly don't think it's anywhere near a lock as what we were told at the draft that he'll end up the best player from 2023. We'll see with Celebrini. A decent rookie season, but I don't see him being one of the best centers in the league.

Canada has just had their two worst World Junior results in forever. They lost to Latvia. That would've seemed impossible 5 or 6 years ago. Their share of NHL players is declining every year.

The USA, on the other hand, has just won the last two World Junior tournaments. That was the first time they've ever done that. For the first time maybe ever they have what most people believe (although it's clearly close) is the best national team in the world. You can say "they don't have the 1OA's", but that's kind of the point. They have the best player this year, and he likely won't go 1OA. Bob McKenzie has announced it. This is the briefing about what to expect. But the 1OA doesn't matter. What matters is how good players are in the NHL. Lane Hutson was discriminated against and went at the end of the second round (when he was a clear first round talent, at the very least). Now he's the best player in the 2022 draft. The same thing happened with his brother. Now people are admitting he was way underdrafted, and we might be headed for the same type of situation with him.

Canada has had the first round picks and Bob McKenzie has announced about 20 first round slots for them this year. Despite that, they underperform their draft slots, and every other country seems to be over performing their draft slots. Makes you wonder about the draft process.

 

[Star Platinum]

We'll see with Celebrini. A decent rookie season, but I don't see him being one of the best centers in the league.

Which American do you think deserved to be picked #1 over him?

 

[Deep Blue Metallic]

You are making my point. Canada has a lot of first picks. I agree with you it's headed for 7 of 8. Canada has already claimed 2026 and 2027. When they decide one of their players is worthy of 1OA (every single year), there's essentially nothing that can be done (takes a disastrous fall like Wright).

What do they have to show for it? Is Lafreniere looking like a 1OA player? Is Power looking like a 1OA player? Is Bedard looking anywhere near as good as hyped? I certainly don't think it's anywhere near a lock as what we were told at the draft that he'll end up the best player from 2023. We'll see with Celebrini. A decent rookie season, but I don't see him being one of the best centers in the league.

Canada has just had their two worst World Junior results in forever. They lost to Latvia. That would've seemed impossible 5 or 6 years ago. Their share of NHL players is declining every year.

The USA, on the other hand, has just won the last two World Junior tournaments. That was the first time they've ever done that. For the first time maybe ever they have what most people believe (although it's clearly close) is the best national team in the world. You can say "they don't have the 1OA's", but that's kind of the point. They have the best player this year, and he likely won't go 1OA. Bob McKenzie has announced it. This is the briefing about what to expect. But the 1OA doesn't matter. What matters is how good players are in the NHL. Lane Hutson was discriminated against and went at the end of the second round (when he was a clear first round talent, at the very least). Now he's the best player in the 2022 draft. The same thing happened with his brother. Now people are admitting he was way underdrafted, and we might be headed for the same type of situation with him.

Canada has had the first round picks and Bob McKenzie has announced about 20 first round slots for them this year. Despite that, they underperform their draft slots, and every other country seems to be over performing their draft slots. Makes you wonder about the draft process.

You do know that "Bob McKenzie's picks" are a consensus of what 10 (iirc) NHL scouts provide him, right? Right?

He's just passing on information from the most qualified group of people on the planet to judge draft-eligible NHL prospects.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Which American do you think deserved to be picked #1 over him?

I've had a Canadian ranked first overall the prior five drafts, so nice try.

You do know that "Bob McKenzie's picks" are a consensus of what 10 (iirc) NHL scouts provide him, right? Right?

He's just passing on information from the most qualified group of people on the planet to judge draft-eligible NHL prospects.

Yes, I said that. Bob McKenzie gets a briefing from the NHL teams on what is expected to happen. I never said it's his opinion or anything other than a briefing from NHL teams to alert the masses on what to expect.

 

[Kingpin794]

You are making my point. Canada has a lot of first picks. I agree with you it's headed for 7 of 8. Canada has already claimed 2026 and 2027. When they decide one of their players is worthy of 1OA (every single year), there's essentially nothing that can be done (takes a disastrous fall like Wright).

What do they have to show for it? Is Lafreniere looking like a 1OA player? Is Power looking like a 1OA player? Is Bedard looking anywhere near as good as hyped? I certainly don't think it's anywhere near a lock as what we were told at the draft that he'll end up the best player from 2023. We'll see with Celebrini. A decent rookie season, but I don't see him being one of the best centers in the league.

Canada has just had their two worst World Junior results in forever. They lost to Latvia. That would've seemed impossible 5 or 6 years ago. Their share of NHL players is declining every year.

The USA, on the other hand, has just won the last two World Junior tournaments. That was the first time they've ever done that. For the first time maybe ever they have what most people believe (although it's clearly close) is the best national team in the world. You can say "they don't have the 1OA's", but that's kind of the point. They have the best player this year, and he likely won't go 1OA. Bob McKenzie has announced it. This is the briefing about what to expect. But the 1OA doesn't matter. What matters is how good players are in the NHL. Lane Hutson was discriminated against and went at the end of the second round (when he was a clear first round talent, at the very least). Now he's the best player in the 2022 draft. The same thing happened with his brother. Now people are admitting he was way underdrafted, and we might be headed for the same type of situation with him.

Canada has had the first round picks and Bob McKenzie has announced about 20 first round slots for them this year. Despite that, they underperform their draft slots, and every other country seems to be over performing their draft slots. Makes you wonder about the draft process.

Cool. Then it doesn't matter what the rankings are, where guys get selected, or how hard the powers that be push them. The cream rises to the top in the end. So why all the worry about draft positions not being reflective of actual skill? It fixes itself in the end even according to you.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Cool. Then it doesn't matter what the rankings are, where guys get selected, or how hard the powers that be push them. The cream rises to the top in the end. So why all the worry about draft positions not being reflective of actual skill? It fixes itself in the end even according to you.

It's not totally meaningless. Ultimately, it matters how you do in the NHL, but players drafted higher get more chances. It must be disheartening to kids from Latvia or Czechia, for instance, to know they need to be better (not as good) to go ahead of the same exact caliber of player from Canada. It delegitimizes the system. Every single country's fanbase believes their players are systematically discriminated against, except Canadians, who are getting all the prime draft slots. I don't know who'd want to be beat over the head being told they're less than due to having the wrong nationality and participate in an illegitimate system.

 

[Kingpin794]

It's not totally meaningless. Ultimately, it matters how you do in the NHL, but players drafted higher get more chances. It must be disheartening to kids from Latvia or Czechia, for instance, to know they need to be better (not as good) to go ahead of the same exact caliber of player from Canada. It delegitimizes the system. Every single country's fanbase believes their players are systematically discriminated against, except Canadians, who are getting all the prime draft slots. I don't know who'd want to be beat over the head being told they're less than due to having the wrong nationality and participate in an illegitimate system.

So who currently is being kept out of the NHL because they aren't Canadian?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

So who currently is being kept out of the NHL because they aren't Canadian?

Don't think I ever claimed that.

There are examples from every country of being under-drafted in a way they wouldn't be if they were Canadian.