2017 NHL Draft: Grant McCagg's Top 10 (Updated on-the-fly, not intermittently)

[KBobs]

Thank you, Grant, for taking the time to post here. Having people such as yourself and Mark Edwards discuss players/player rankings on here is fantastic.

 

[hurricanedave]

One thing I'm curious to talk about: why update your rankings so frequently?

Hear me out. I think how a player plays over a season is a reflection of a bunch of factors we can't see, and hockey ability is one of those factors. We can only measure it through what we can see: on-ice performance. So our goal in scouting is to estimate what that hidden level of hockey ability is, while bearing in mind that we get all kinds of random noise and other factors clouding up the performances we see on the ice. Example: sometimes good kids don't play well for non-hockey reasons. Maybe his girlfriend broke up with him, or whatever.

If we've got a player, and he's performing like this over 10 games: 6, 7, 8, 8, 6, 7, 7, 10, 6, 4, how do you rank that kid? His average is 6.9, and that should give us an idea of roughly what level of player he is right now. But if you see him at a 10, you can get the wrong idea, and the same if you see him at a 4.

My question is: does changing your rankings frequently help with this problem? Certainly if you see a guy once a season and he's at a 4, you only ever saw him at his worst, and you never get a good read on him. But what about if you saw him at a 7 and then saw him blow a couple of games in a row: like a 5. Do you update your rankings to reflect that? Or do you account that it might have just been the kind of inconsistency you'd see with a young player (i.e. that's just the variance you're going to see in this data)? What about if he's at a 10?

Or what about a player who's, say, a 7 average, but you saw him at an 8. How do you know that 8 is truly who he is, and not the 7? That 8 might end up statistically indistinguishable from the 7 average. (He might just be having a really great day.) Essentially, when you're updating these rankings, how do you know the change you saw in the player is a real one coming from how good he is at hockey, and not anything like puck luck or external factors?

Who's to say he updates every single player's ranking every single update? He tracks the top 100, there's ~30 days a month. Why wait a month to update a player you've been scouting recently?

 

[Michael Brand Eggs]

Who's to say he updates every single player's ranking every single update? He tracks the top 100, there's ~30 days a month. Why wait a month to update a player you've been scouting recently?

But doesn't it become inaccurate if you're only updating the players you've seen? Like you've seen Player A, but you haven't seen Player B. Player A wows you, and although you know Player B is good, you aren't going to see him for a while. What do you do then? You definitely have recency bias with Player A. How do you keep that from affecting your ranking?

And the opposite seems true, too: if you update players without seeing them, you're just as bad as the posters here.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

All I know is, Grant is the man!

 

[Grant McCagg]

In honour of my wacky decision to rank Rasmussen in the top ten..here's a free look at his profile and why my wacky NHL scouting friends agree with me:

https://recrutes.ca/profile/michael-rasmussen/

 

[Grant McCagg]

Thank you, Grant, for taking the time to post here. Having people such as yourself and Mark Edwards discuss players/player rankings on here is fantastic.

Thanks for the kind words. I try not to forget where it all began even if it can be difficult to be on here at times as there are always posters that feel the need to be disrespectful and hyper critical...but I dish it out as much as I take it..lol. if not for HF Boards I probably would have never got into scouting...so there is still a soft spot for this place even if I can only now take it in small doses.

 

[jvr32]

Why you have Hague rated only 31st? I think you should have him higher... good size, good shot, smart guy, skating needs improvement (it's still good for his size and good for anybody). Logan Stanley was drafted 19th and he has not the two-way style in his game that Hague has. What's the word from the scouts? (Btw I don't like Tippett's game... he shoots from everywhere and doesn't make team mates around him better which is a red flag. IQ is not very high. But He has a amazing shot and release though.)

 

[TMLife*]

Just curious, what has Makar done since February 22nd to catapult himself over Patrick and others? No offence, but your rankings are very what have you done for me lately.

 

[firstemperor]

I agree with your thoughts on Vesalainen being a supreme talent but #3 or even top 5 may be pushing it IMO. Although I did have him slotted in the top 5 pre-season, his talent, size, and tools are just to much to pass on. He does need the right situation to maximize his worth, however....as his overall season this year was very disappointing from a productivity standpoint. I think his talent is top 5 in this draft but he needs the right environment to succeed.

I personally don't have Makar in my top 10 (I think he's very overrated), Rasmussen (he's closer to #15 at most) but I respect most of your opinions on here. They are thoughtful and your general attitude is very positive.

What are your thoughts on Hague/Foote? In terms of rankings, Hague may one of the most polarizing players in the draft this year. Seems like he can be high as top 10 on some lists, bottom of the 2nd round in others.

 

[Legion34]

As mentioned before...I have experience in being called wacky for having a list different than the norm. In 2012 I was not sold on Yakupov..I saw character/compete issues as well as selfish play...I did not think he should be ranked number one despite EVERY draft list saying he was....I ended up ranking him third...I was not working with McKeens that year...they had Yakupov first like everyone else.

Last year loads of folks called me crazy for being the first scout to rank Laine first overall in February with McKeen's. How could I not agree with the consensus? By draft time that didn't seem as crazy..and today...I don't think anyone that looks at Matthews and Laine fairly cannot say that Laine could end up being even better. Maybe he doesn't end up having a better career..but he did things NEVER done by 18-year-olds in the history of the game..considering him the best player from last year's draft crop was not wacky at all. I said at draft time that he has the potential to be a 60-goal scorer some day..and still feel that way. I also think his playmaking, compete and defence are severely underrated..let's see how good he is at 23.

I was also severely chastised for liking McLeod more than Dubois..that was insane to some... "look at the regular season stats!" they said. Well.....I don't think today you can call me wacky for liking McLeod more...to me he looks like a better prospect..faster, better defensively, better at center, better on faceoffs, better on the pk, works harder..and has outproduced him by a fair margin this season.

So...just a word of warning when you take the time to use such terms to describe where I or anyone else ranks someone...these posts/comments can be revisited at a later date..they are here for posterity.

I respect that you provide your own insights and don't get swayed by the norm. But I do not understand the reasoning here. You site not ranking Yak as 1 but instead 3 due to lazy unselfish play. How is ranking him 3 that much better? He is no where near the third best player in that draft. I'm not claiming to know better, but being slightly less wrong than others is not a selling feature.

The rest of the explanations are equally curious

Picking Laine over Matthews when Matthews broke multiple records and is going to be a lock for the Calder.. but It's ok because Laine still might be better? I would be pretty upset if the leafs took the 60 goal winger to watch him get outscored by the 2 way centre.

Picking McLeod over Dubois is already a victory, but we have to wait 8 years post draft to see if fleury equals him.

So when your picks are right, you are immediately right, but when they seem wrong we should wait 5-8 years??????

Again not picking on the specifics but these are really curious suggestions.

 

[IComeInPeace]

I initially thought your rankings were just for clicks...
I love your explanation(s) given in the posts following, and appreciate your courage to go against the grain a little.
I look forward to reading more.
Thanks!

 

[Mathletic]

I respect that you provide your own insights and don't get swayed by the norm. But I do not understand the reasoning here. You site not ranking Yak as 1 but instead 3 due to lazy unselfish play. How is ranking him 3 that much better? He is no where near the third best player in that draft. I'm not claiming to know better, but being slightly less wrong than others is not a selling feature.

The rest of the explanations are equally curious

Picking Laine over Matthews when Matthews broke multiple records and is going to be a lock for the Calder.. but It's ok because Laine still might be better? I would be pretty upset if the leafs took the 60 goal winger to watch him get outscored by the 2 way centre.

Picking McLeod over Dubois is already a victory, but we have to wait 8 years post draft to see if fleury equals him.

So when your picks are right, you are immediately right, but when they seem wrong we should wait 5-8 years??????

Again not picking on the specifics but these are really curious suggestions.

welcome to arguing with Grant. Expect to be blocked before long.

 

[Grant McCagg]

I respect that you provide your own insights and don't get swayed by the norm. But I do not understand the reasoning here. You site not ranking Yak as 1 but instead 3 due to lazy unselfish play. How is ranking him 3 that much better? He is no where near the third best player in that draft. I'm not claiming to know better, but being slightly less wrong than others is not a selling feature.

The rest of the explanations are equally curious

Picking Laine over Matthews when Matthews broke multiple records and is going to be a lock for the Calder.. but It's ok because Laine still might be better? I would be pretty upset if the leafs took the 60 goal winger to watch him get outscored by the 2 way centre.

Picking McLeod over Dubois is already a victory, but we have to wait 8 years post draft to see if fleury equals him.

So when your picks are right, you are immediately right, but when they seem wrong we should wait 5-8 years??????

Again not picking on the specifics but these are really curious suggestions.

You don't seem to be grasping the point. People last year were adamant that it was wacky to rank McLeod over Dubois even though..as you say..you should wait 5-8 years to pass judgment. Well..it is a year later..and it ALREADY doesn't seem so preposterous..does it? Am I saying it's now evident McLeod will be better? No....and I stated that....but to make the argument that he will be is quite justifiable. My ranking was not wacky at all..and in fct..MAY turn out to be right.

Care to tell me the league records Matthews broke? Laine finished fifth overall in goals per game before the age of 19...no 18-year-old in the HISTORY of the game had finished top 15 in that category. Again...I'm not saying Laine will be better..but it's not wacky to suggest that he might be ...and lots of folks informed me last year that the idea would be preposterous. No....it is not. Matthews is no lock for the Calder..he will likely win..but a lock? Right up until the last two weeks of the season when the Jets were out of the playoff race and Laine slowed down..it was a virtual tie. But all that matters to you is who wins a trophy voted on by writers from all over the league..yes...that proves one way or another who will have the better NHL career.

Last February I ranked Laine ahead of Matthews and was vilified....well..between then and the draft Laine won the MVP of the Finnish playoff at 17, won the MVP of the World Championship weeks after turning 18. In his first season he scored at a pace no one at his age has ever done. Was it wacky to suggest that he may end up being a better player than Matthews? Well...apparently a year later you already have the answer..and that is no..because Matthews broke underwhelming Leaf rookie records that Laine also surpassed...Clark scored 34 goals in his rookie season...Laine scored more.

So your argument is that folks should indeed proclaim that rankings are wacky and vilify folks like me when they disagree with them before players are ever drafted? Predominantly because Matthews may win the Calder?

 

[ijuka]

You don't seem to be grasping the point. People last year were adamant that it was wacky to rank McLeod over Dubois even though..as you say..you should wait 5-8 years to pass judgment. Well..it is a year later..and it ALREADY doesn't seem so preposterous..does it? Am I saying it's now evident McLeod will be better? No....and I stated that....but to make the argument that he will be is quite justifiable. My ranking was not wacky at all..and in fct..MAY turn out to be right.

Care to tell me the league records Matthews broke? Laine finished fifth overall in goals per game before the age of 19...no 18-year-old in the HISTORY of the game had finished top 15 in that category. Again...I'm not saying Laine will be better..but it's not wacky to suggest that he might be ...and lots of folks informed me last year that the idea would be preposterous. No....it is not. Matthews is no lock for the Calder..he will likely win..but a lock? Right up until the last two weeks of the season when the Jets were out of the playoff race and Laine slowed down..it was a virtual tie. But all that matters to you is who wins a trophy voted on by writers from all over the league..yes...that proves one way or another who will have the better NHL career.

Last February I ranked Laine ahead of Matthews and was vilified....well..between then and the draft Laine won the MVP of the Finnish playoff at 17, won the MVP of the World Championship weeks after turning 18. In his first season he scored at a pace no one at his age has ever done. Was it wacky to suggest that he may end up being a better player than Matthews? Well...apparently a year later you already have the answer..and that is no..because Matthews broke underwhelming Leaf rookie records that Laine also surpassed...Clark scored 34 goals in his rookie season...Laine scored more.

So your argument is that folks should indeed proclaim that rankings are wacky and vilify folks like me when they disagree with them before players are ever drafted? Predominantly because Matthews may win the Calder?

You shouldn't get discouraged. People will see what they want to see and ignore evidence suggesting otherwise, always looking for only things that prove their point.

It certainly is too early to call either way, but when we look at the nature of both of these predictions, they're both trending very well for you in my opinion.

Especially when it comes to Laine's rookie season, it's amazing how much value people are placing on a slump after Jets even already were out of playoff contention. And suddenly that's what defines him as a player. When he was only 18 years old for the entire season.

 

[Legionnaire11]

Reading comprehension is in very short supply on HF. Saying "I think these guys are close, and B could be better than A" is often interpreted on the other side as "B is infinitely better than A in every facet of hockey and life, and you're an imbecile for not seeing it this way"

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I respect that you provide your own insights and don't get swayed by the norm. But I do not understand the reasoning here. You site not ranking Yak as 1 but instead 3 due to lazy unselfish play. How is ranking him 3 that much better? He is no where near the third best player in that draft. I'm not claiming to know better, but being slightly less wrong than others is not a selling feature.

The rest of the explanations are equally curious

Picking Laine over Matthews when Matthews broke multiple records and is going to be a lock for the Calder.. but It's ok because Laine still might be better? I would be pretty upset if the leafs took the 60 goal winger to watch him get outscored by the 2 way centre.

Picking McLeod over Dubois is already a victory, but we have to wait 8 years post draft to see if fleury equals him.

So when your picks are right, you are immediately right, but when they seem wrong we should wait 5-8 years??????

Again not picking on the specifics but these are really curious suggestions.

The point completely flew over your head. All he is saying is that these examples give his rankings validity. Nothing talking about prospects is absolute. The fact that he isn't always siding with the norm and has a good track record in doing so is what's important.

 

[Constable]

grant has a good eye for the game and i agree with most of his scouting (rasmussen and veselainen are too high but outside of that it's fine) and being reactionary is fine if it doesn't severely change your opinions

 

[Legion34]

The point completely flew over your head. All he is saying is that these examples give his rankings validity. Nothing talking about prospects is absolute. The fact that he isn't always siding with the norm and has a good track record in doing so is what's important.

The point is those examples don't make sense

1.) Being proud ranking Yakupov 3rd overall instead of first isn't much to hang your hat on. He still ranked him as a top 3 pick

2.) In one breath Being proud of ranking Laine over Matthews when Matthews had the better year and NHL coaches voted 20-4 in favour of Matthews. Claiming that we will see at 23. Further claiming that Fleury and Ekblad would be similar in the NHL. Ekblad has been an NHL star. FLeury hasn't played a game. In both of these examples he claims wait 5-8 years to see who is better

3.) In the next breath he takes pride in ranking McLeod over Dubois due to performance after 1 year?

So when it goes his way he claims victory, but when it doesn't we won't know for years.

Again no specific issue with rankings. Just horrible arguments and conflicting logic.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

The point is those examples don't make sense

1.) Being proud ranking Yakupov 3rd overall instead of first isn't much to hang your hat on. He still ranked him as a top 3 pick

2.) In one breath Being proud of ranking Laine over Matthews when Matthews had the better year and NHL coaches voted 20-4 in favour of Matthews. Claiming that we will see at 23. Further claiming that Fleury and Ekblad would be similar in the NHL. Ekblad has been an NHL star. FLeury hasn't played a game. In both of these examples he claims wait 5-8 years to see who is better

3.) In the next breath he takes pride in ranking McLeod over Dubois due to performance after 1 year?

So when it goes his way he claims victory, but when it doesn't we won't know for years.

Again no specific issue with rankings. Just horrible arguments and conflicting logic.

You're still to focused on the specifics, though. If 95% of the hockey world has Yak as the consensus top pick, because of elite tools, and Grant is putting him at 3, that is indeed a big drop. Also, at the time while there were concerns about his game, there was nothing to suggest he would be a complete bust and you cannot account for how he was handled by the Oilers which played a key part in his lack of development. The fact that he had Yak at 3, is more than enough to justify his concerns in comparison to others.

That's what is important, he goes against the norm at times and is often correct in doing so.

 

[Legion34]

You're still to focused on the specifics, though. If 95% of the hockey world has Yak as the consensus top pick, because of elite tools, and Grant is putting him at 3, that is indeed a big drop. Also, at the time while there were concerns about his game, there was nothing to suggest he would be a complete bust and you cannot account for how he was handled by the Oilers which played a key part in his lack of development. The fact that he had Yak at 3, is more than enough to justify his concerns in comparison to others.

That's what is important, he goes against the norm at times and is often correct in doing so.

What? He is providing specific numerical rankings. So we don't focus on specifics? He has not cited
A time when he is correct... just not as wrong maybe as some people thought? That's not a Good success story.

1.) Yak was not a top 3 pick. At all. He ranked him as such. Also lots of people didn't have Yak at 1. Burke said they had Reilly at 1. The rumor was that the oil wanted Murray just as examples. Hell I liked galchenyuk and forsberg over Yak . Of course
I didnt want Reilly so I was wrong on that too.

2.) claiming Fleury (0 NHL games) may still be better than Ekblad. Sure it could happen
But hell I "could" be better too. I wouldn't be hanging my hat on that one

3.) Matthews has been better than Laine by all metrics including a 20-4 beating in a coaches poll.
Sure Laine could be better. No proof yet. But somehow McLeod ranking is proof?

The point is. He did not provide a specific "crazy" prediction that is right. Just maybe not as wrong as people thought at best. If he said "giroux over staal", or Benn over Brule or scheifle over Rnh. I don't have an issue with the rankings but these are bizzarre examples. That make no sense. If that's the best you can do.....

 

[Legion34]

You don't seem to be grasping the point. People last year were adamant that it was wacky to rank McLeod over Dubois even though..as you say..you should wait 5-8 years to pass judgment. Well..it is a year later..and it ALREADY doesn't seem so preposterous..does it? Am I saying it's now evident McLeod will be better? No....and I stated that....but to make the argument that he will be is quite justifiable. My ranking was not wacky at all..and in fct..MAY turn out to be right.

Care to tell me the league records Matthews broke? Laine finished fifth overall in goals per game before the age of 19...no 18-year-old in the HISTORY of the game had finished top 15 in that category. Again...I'm not saying Laine will be better..but it's not wacky to suggest that he might be ...and lots of folks informed me last year that the idea would be preposterous. No....it is not. Matthews is no lock for the Calder..he will likely win..but a lock? Right up until the last two weeks of the season when the Jets were out of the playoff race and Laine slowed down..it was a virtual tie. But all that matters to you is who wins a trophy voted on by writers from all over the league..yes...that proves one way or another who will have the better NHL career.

Last February I ranked Laine ahead of Matthews and was vilified....well..between then and the draft Laine won the MVP of the Finnish playoff at 17, won the MVP of the World Championship weeks after turning 18. In his first season he scored at a pace no one at his age has ever done. Was it wacky to suggest that he may end up being a better player than Matthews? Well...apparently a year later you already have the answer..and that is no..because Matthews broke underwhelming Leaf rookie records that Laine also surpassed...Clark scored 34 goals in his rookie season...Laine scored more.

So your argument is that folks should indeed proclaim that rankings are wacky and vilify folks like me when they disagree with them before players are ever drafted? Predominantly because Matthews may win the Calder?

Well that is quite the response. I don't know what you mean by vilify.... I don't see how wacky and vilify
Go together. All I was saying was I don't have an issue with the rankings. But the examples are
Odd, and actually less convincing.

If you said. "I ranked giroux over staal" or "Weber over phaneuf" or benn over Brûlé sure that's convincing. Ok I can get behind that. Providing examples of ranking a bust as a top 3 pick, the second best player over the first and comparing a star to an AHL player doesn't help

Matthews vs Laine isn't the point but you do realize he

1.) set the all time Us rookie goal scoring record
2.) most goals in a debut in NHL history
3.) was the first rookie to finish top 2 in goals since selanne (may need confimation)
4.) scored the 5th most goals in NHL teenage rookie history.

Did you not know he set the us rookie goal scoring record?

 

[TMLife*]

and being reactionary is fine if it doesn't severely change your opinions

But it does... Look at his lists from just two months ago to now. There is no explanation for these rankings other than stirring the pot and looking for hits. Unless he really believes his recency bias.

 

[TMLife*]

And I wouldn’t be bragging about Laine over Matthews, if you were the Leafs and you picked Laine, we’d be calling for your head. Just saying.

 

[Whileee]

Well that is quite the response. I don't know what you mean by vilify.... I don't see how wacky and vilify
Go together. All I was saying was I don't have an issue with the rankings. But the examples are
Odd, and actually less convincing.

If you said. "I ranked giroux over staal" or "Weber over phaneuf" or benn over Brûlé sure that's convincing. Ok I can get behind that. Providing examples of ranking a bust as a top 3 pick, the second best player over the first and comparing a star to an AHL player doesn't help

Matthews vs Laine isn't the point but you do realize he

1.) set the all time Us rookie goal scoring record
2.) most goals in a debut in NHL history
3.) was the first rookie to finish top 2 in goals since selanne (may need confimation)
4.) scored the 5th most goals in NHL teenage rookie history.

Did you not know he set the us rookie goal scoring record?

...And still finished behind Laine in goals/game and points/game.

I think Matthews was the correct pick at 1st overall, but Laine had an outstanding rookie season and it's not ludicrous to view him at the same level as Matthews going forward. As he gets stronger and more attuned to the NHL game he projects as a dominating star. Tagging him as #1 going into the draft doesn't look as controversial now as it might have at the time of the draft.

 

[rt]

Patrick at #5 is ridiculous.

I've watched all of the shift-by-shifts on Patrick, the TPG, a few Brandon games the last two seasons, and I've seen all the highlights. And that's it. So I'm by no means an authority. Total armchair scout and not even a good one because my sample size is so small and without much context that can be so valuable.

However, I have watched a lot of draft eligible prospects over the last 10+ years, so I have some experience to fall back on. I've been surprised by prospects and disappointed by them. I've found some diamonds in the rough and been taken by fool's gold. I've seen top prospects come and go.

So my opinion isn't worth much but I do have some idea of what I'm seeing when I see it. I haven't been at all impressed with Patrick. He's been statistically very impressive, especially last year when his production for a pre draft prospect in the WHL was absolutely eye popping. Also, NHL scouts seem really high on him. There must be a reason for that. Kid is highly regarded for a reason. Kid puts up big numbers for a reason. But damn. He just looks like nothing special on the ice. Fails the eye test for me.

And that's not even considering the injury woes listed below:

Does it though?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juniors/big-read-nolan-patricks-unconventional-road-nhl-draft/

2011/12 55% of games played, 45% missed due to injury
2012/13 33% of games played, 66% missed due to injury
2013/14 68% of games played, 32% missed due to injury
2014/15 76% of games played, 24% missed due to injury
2015/16 100% of games played
2016/17 46% of games played, 54% missed due to injury

This isn't over analysis of him as a player, it's what is coming down to be a trend. The guy misses significant time due to injury, almost every year. Half of his last six seasons, he's missed half a season. There comes a point in time when you have to concede, this is who he is, an injury prone guy.

How much does a guy who misses at least a quarter of a season, 5 of the last 6 years, and half the season, half the time, get discounted? I mean, he's a very good player, not elite... and he's likely going to miss a lot of time, and at some point, maybe even risking his career, and production dropping, due to injuries. He's a big risk from that perspective....

I doubt anyone would argue, that a fully healthy Patrick, who had production and play growth over last season, would be a consensus #1.... But missing half this season, with his history, and then not improving this year over last.... Now it brings into focus his injury history.

-----

Let's put it another way.... let's suppose Nolan projects the talent to be a good two way NHL center, 60 points a season.

Using his last six seasons injuries, his first six seasons see him produce (not in order), 60 points, TWO 45 point season, and THREE 30 point seasons. How much is a two way center, who averages 40 points a season worth? (Due to injury).