NHL Entry Draft 2022 NHL Draft Thread - Part 2

[Hale The Villain]

I don't think there's a chance in hell he falls to 7.

Jiricek "falling" to 7 is definitely possible.

He's not as good as the HF consensus thinks, mostly because the majority of people on this site still don't understand how late birthdays work.

 

[BondraTime]

Jiricek "falling" to 7 is definitely possible.

He's not as good as the HF consensus thinks, mostly because the majority of people on this site still don't understand how late birthdays work.

Don’t think there’s a snowballs chance he’s there at 7

 

[Hale The Villain]

Don’t think there’s a snowballs chance he’s there at 7

He was ranked 6th on McKenzie's list of scouts polled at the time of the lottery.

Kemell was ahead of him and I'm skeptical he'll go that high, but Gauthier was not and he's a big time riser that is getting top 6 hype now.

That was also before Jiricek played at the World Championships and looked noticeably slower coming back from his knee surgery.

If that is accurate all it would take is CBJ going off the board (as Jarmo likes to do) for someone like Kasper, Korchinski, etc... and he'd be available at 7.

 

[BondraTime]

He was ranked 6th on McKenzie's list of scouts polled at the time of the lottery.

Kemell was ahead of him and I'm skeptical he'll go that high, but Gauthier was not and he's a big time riser that is getting top 6 hype now.

That was also before Jiricek played at the World Championships and looked noticeably slower coming back from his knee surgery.

If that is accurate all it would take is CBJ going off the board (as Jarmo likes to do) for someone like Kasper, Korchinski, etc... and he'd be available at 7.

I’ll be extremely surprised if Jiricek isn’t gone before pick 5

 

[Hale The Villain]

I’ll be extremely surprised if Jiricek isn’t gone before pick 5

Well I don't see him going top 3 over Wright, Slafkovsky and Cooley, and there's no way I'd take him over Nemec if I'm Seattle.

 

[Micklebot]

I’ll be extremely surprised if Jiricek isn’t gone before pick 5

Hope you're wrong, I'd love to get him.

I suspect we're going to end up Gauthier as we'll pass on Kemmel and Savoie for sure. Kaspar does seem like a possibility too though.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Hope you're wrong, I'd love to get him.

I suspect we're going to end up Gauthier as we'll pass on Kemmel and Savoie for sure. Kaspar does seem like a possibility too though.

I don't think Gauthier makes it past CBJ if he doesn't go higher.

Jarmo is the GM that picked PLD top 3. Scouts see Gauthier as a center and there's a lot of parallels there.

Kasper could happen, but if it's true that the Sens have a top 6 and then a big next tier I think moving down is probably the most likely bet.

 

[Duncstar]

Pierre Groulx went from a goalie coach to scout? What was the reasoning behind that? Also, since when did Brock Boesers cousin work for the Sens

Brock Besser coming to O town? I'm game

 

[Ouroboros]

Jiricek "falling" to 7 is definitely possible.

He's not as good as the HF consensus thinks, mostly because the majority of people on this site still don't understand how late birthdays work.

The data suggests the opposite of this.

Among forwards, late birthdays are consistently the highest performing players at the NHL level. Forwards whose birth month is in October, November and December become stars at a far higher rate than those from any other quarter. These players are consistently under-drafted yet they consistently over-perform.

For defenseman there appears to be no relationship at all, so there shouldn't be any age bias either way.

If you want to be biased then be biased against forwards drafted in the first quarter [January, February, March] of a year. Those players are over-represented at the draft and are the lowest performing.

 

[Hale The Villain]

The data suggests the opposite of this.

Among forwards, late birthdays are consistently the highest performing players at the NHL level. Forwards whose birth month is in October, November and December become stars at a far higher rate than those from any other quarter. These players are consistently under-drafted yet they consistently over-perform.

For defenseman there appears to be no relationship at all, so there shouldn't be any age bias either way.

If you want to be biased then be biased against forwards drafted in the first quarter [January, February, March] of a year. Those players are over-represented at the draft and are the lowest performing.

I'm not surprised by the greater success rate for late birthdays.

With late birthdays you get to essentially draft a player in their 18YR old season, while most prospects are drafted in their 17YR old season.

Getting to see an extra year of development for a prospect is huge and typically means a better chance of evaluating the prospect correctly.

Don't have the data to back this up but my experience is that there is typically a greater level of boom/bust to drafting non-late birthdays since you don't get to see as much from them pre-draft.

But my point about Jiricek is that most uninformed posters uncritically compare his current 18YR old season to the 17YR old seasons of alternatives like Nemec and Korchinski thinking they are in the same development year.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

How should scoring chances be evaluated relative to production?

Thinking about it conceptually, production is largely influenced by randomness. Production is an end outcome which is caused by a sequence of events, some of which can be emulated to increase the probability of a similar outcome while others are random and fortuitous. Therefore while production offers a nice quantifiable metric to rank order players, making inferences about it can be misleading if the factor of randomness is not given sufficient consideration.

Alternatively, a scoring chance is one of those events that helps cause production, that can be emulated. Scoring chances can be ranked ordered from some qualitative stand point and there might be a way to associate more predictable probabilities about causing production with each type of scoring chance. As a result players could theoretically be rank ordered by the qualitative types of scoring chances they generate and the quantitative amount of them.

One issue that might arise is properly attributing whether a player caused a scoring chance or was a party to one. As players that cause them, or contributed more heavily to them, should be valued higher than those that are a party to them.

The point here is that if that knowledge was public, there would likely be some disparity between production and generation of scoring chances for any given prospect and relatively across them. Hypothetically one prospect might have superior production relative to another, but the other creates more scoring chances or better yet more scoring chances per game. The challenge becomes what kind of inference to make from that.

One argument would be that higher production relative to scoring chances generated is an indication of superior skill and it could be an indication that they need less chances to generate that production. An alternative argument would be that the outcome of production is influenced by randomness whereas the generation of scoring chances is a stronger indicator of the ability to potentially produce and that over time the ability to generate high quality scoring chances more frequently will lead to superior production in the long run.

Which side do you favor more? How would you evaluate scoring chances relative to production? How would you evaluate a player who is able to more frequently generate scoring chances (and high quality ones) relative to a player with superior production? What other variables do you think need to be given consideration here to make a proper evaluation and rank order those prospects properly?

 

[NHL Dude 120]

I ran a draft sim based on team needs, Nemec fell to us.

It wents
Habs-Wright
NJ - Savoie
Yotes - Slaf
Seattle - Cooley
Flyers - Jiricek
CBJ - Kemell
Ottawa - Nemec

Yotes are gonna go with Cooley

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Jiricek "falling" to 7 is definitely possible.

He's not as good as the HF consensus thinks, mostly because the majority of people on this site still don't understand how late birthdays work.

I hope so. I would take him ahead of Nemec. I doubt he is available but .. willing to hope.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Anyone who reads the boards regularly would strongly disagree with the bolded. There has never been more open hostility and disdain for the organization and the people who run it and people are desperate to see failure. It's way beyond the parameters of discussion on a discussion board. There's this undercurrent of pessimism and negativity that pervades every single discussion on this forum. Any stance softer than the strongest and most forceful rebuke of the organization and everything they do is considered defending it. If that's not considered hoping for failure, I don't know what is.

I read the boards regularly and I strongly disagree that there are people here hoping for failure other than possibly one concerning Colin White.
Fans can have strong feelings that you disagree with which is fair but I don't believe anyone is hoping for failure. Being critical or the organization has been warranted .. Anyone that believes this is hoping for more not less.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

How should scoring chances be evaluated relative to production?

Thinking about it conceptually, production is largely influenced by randomness. Production is an end outcome which is caused by a sequence of events, some of which can be emulated to increase the probability of a similar outcome while others are random and fortuitous. Therefore while production offers a nice quantifiable metric to rank order players, making inferences about it can be misleading if the factor of randomness is not given sufficient consideration.

Alternatively, a scoring chance is one of those events that helps cause production, that can be emulated. Scoring chances can be ranked ordered from some qualitative stand point and there might be a way to associate more predictable probabilities about causing production with each type of scoring chance. As a result players could theoretically be rank ordered by the qualitative types of scoring chances they generate and the quantitative amount of them.

One issue that might arise is properly attributing whether a player caused a scoring chance or was a party to one. As players that cause them, or contributed more heavily to them, should be valued higher than those that are a party to them.

The point here is that if that knowledge was public, there would likely be some disparity between production and generation of scoring chances for any given prospect and relatively across them. Hypothetically one prospect might have superior production relative to another, but the other creates more scoring chances or better yet more scoring chances per game. The challenge becomes what kind of inference to make from that.

One argument would be that higher production relative to scoring chances generated is an indication of superior skill and it could be an indication that they need less chances to generate that production. An alternative argument would be that the outcome of production is influenced by randomness whereas the generation of scoring chances is a stronger indicator of the ability to potentially produce and that over time the ability to generate high quality scoring chances more frequently will lead to superior production in the long run.

Which side do you favor more? How would you evaluate scoring chances relative to production? How would you evaluate a player who is able to more frequently generate scoring chances (and high quality ones) relative to a player with superior production? What other variables do you think need to be given consideration here to make a proper evaluation and rank order those prospects properly?

To me quantitative analysis of these data depends on how much data you have.

If you have a small, to medium, sample size I think you have to give more weight to scoring chances over actual production.

If you have a large sample size I think that random noise will be smoothed out and actual production should be more heavily weighted.

Of course you always should supplement any quantitative hockey data with qualitative analysis (eye test). It's pretty clear that some players need less opportunity to produce than others when you watch them play. You can give Chris Tierney all of Josh Norris's opportunity but there is no way he pots 35 goals.

 

[Qward]

I used a different sim and it showed Jiricek falling to us again, it then showed Yzerman taking Nazar which would prove how right I was about him.

 

[SquidNasty]

Not sure if any of you guys read that Pronman article where he surveys NHL scouts + execs but it's super interesting.

My biggest takeaways:

-Gauthier is going to go HIGH in this draft. Sounds like his transition to center halfway through the season left a huge impression on NHL front offices. Lots of scouts said they see him as a top 3-4 player. This feels like Mctavish all over again.

-Over 50% of surveyed "scouts" said they'd take Slafkovsky 1OA. All the "execs" said Wright.

-A considerable amount of teams have been instructed not to draft Russian players.

-Kemell and Savoie did not get amazing reviews. Sounds like the size factor might make them drop pretty far. Opinions on Lekkerimäki were all over the place.

-Pretty much everyone surveyed was super down on Lambert. Sounds like he'll go in the second half of the first round.

 

[Sensators]

How should scoring chances be evaluated relative to production?

Thinking about it conceptually, production is largely influenced by randomness. Production is an end outcome which is caused by a sequence of events, some of which can be emulated to increase the probability of a similar outcome while others are random and fortuitous. Therefore while production offers a nice quantifiable metric to rank order players, making inferences about it can be misleading if the factor of randomness is not given sufficient consideration.

Alternatively, a scoring chance is one of those events that helps cause production, that can be emulated. Scoring chances can be ranked ordered from some qualitative stand point and there might be a way to associate more predictable probabilities about causing production with each type of scoring chance. As a result players could theoretically be rank ordered by the qualitative types of scoring chances they generate and the quantitative amount of them.

One issue that might arise is properly attributing whether a player caused a scoring chance or was a party to one. As players that cause them, or contributed more heavily to them, should be valued higher than those that are a party to them.

The point here is that if that knowledge was public, there would likely be some disparity between production and generation of scoring chances for any given prospect and relatively across them. Hypothetically one prospect might have superior production relative to another, but the other creates more scoring chances or better yet more scoring chances per game. The challenge becomes what kind of inference to make from that.

One argument would be that higher production relative to scoring chances generated is an indication of superior skill and it could be an indication that they need less chances to generate that production. An alternative argument would be that the outcome of production is influenced by randomness whereas the generation of scoring chances is a stronger indicator of the ability to potentially produce and that over time the ability to generate high quality scoring chances more frequently will lead to superior production in the long run.

Which side do you favor more? How would you evaluate scoring chances relative to production? How would you evaluate a player who is able to more frequently generate scoring chances (and high quality ones) relative to a player with superior production? What other variables do you think need to be given consideration here to make a proper evaluation and rank order those prospects properly?

You can't take into account one without the other. I, unfortunately, am way too into fantasy hockey for my own good. And I am very good at it because I take the time to look at both chance generation and production. However, scoring generation stats are impossible to qualify due to the many factors that influence just how good a chance was (traffic in front, pace of the pass, defensive positioning, goalie positioning, etc). For example, the blues this yr were a prime example of a team that generated such great chances that they didn't need alot of chances to score. This was in my opinion not due to being clinical finishers, but it was due to making the extra pass to turn a good chance into a near empty net.

In fantasy it is advantageous to prioritize chance creation because chance creation without production usually means they have room to grow from a production stand point. From a GM standpoint it should be even more important to prioritize chance creation because it means that the player is controlling the puck / in the ozone at least, it is also very rare to have a player with good production be available at a discount price, so from a salary cap perspective chance generation should be prioritized. This is my view on it at least.

 

[Micklebot]

-Kemell and Savoie did not get amazing reviews. Sounds like the size factor might make them drop pretty far. Opinions on Lekkerimäki were all over the place.

This is disappointing to me, not because I want either, but because they at one time were candidates to go ahead of us and push someone I want down.

It's looking more and more like Gauthier (my 6th choice) will begone by 7 leaves which us in a situation where I hope we trade the pick. I guess maybe Kaspar or Korchinski might be good at 7 but I'd rather try and trade back.

 

[BondraTime]

This is disappointing to me, not because I want either, but because they at one time were candidates to go ahead of us and push someone I want down.

It's looking more and more like Gauthier (my 6th choice) will begone by 7 leaves which us in a situation where I hope we trade the pick. I guess maybe Kaspar or Korchinski might be good at 7 but I'd rather try and trade back.

Absolutely, the top 6 is as sure as set as the top 9 was last year.

 

[Zorf]

I'm making a prediction!

If, by pick 7, the dmen aren't there, the Sens will trade back to pick 10-12 and draft McGroarty.

He'd still be a reach at that spot...I think he's predicted to go in the 15-18 range, but he basically checks all of the boxes that Trent and Pierre love.

Oozes leadership. USNDP usually has 2 captains per year...but they kept McGroarty as captain for an entire year, at the request of the players.

All reports are that he's a great kid. Great in the locker room

I think his dad played pro hockey (IHL?)

He's a power forward who can score goals.

Excellent shot. Great down low. Can feed a pass really well too.



Knock is his skating. Not a weakness, but not speedy either.




**obviously assuming the Sens don't trade pick 7

 

[Micklebot]

Absolutely, the top 6 is as sure as set as the top 9 was last year.

If only Kemmel had worn his padded socks and platform shoes for the combine...

 

[BondraTime]

I'm making a prediction!

If, by pick 7, the dmen aren't there, the Sens will trade back to pick 10-12 and draft McGroarty.

He'd still be a reach at that spot...I think he's predicted to go in the 15-18 range, but he basically checks all of the boxes that Trent and Pierre love.

Oozes leadership. USNDP usually has 2 captains per year...but they kept McGroarty as captain for an entire year, at the request of the players.

All reports are that he's a great kid. Great in the locker room

I think his dad played pro hockey (IHL?)

He's a power forward who can score goals.

Excellent shot. Great down low. Can feed a pass really well too.



Knock is his skating. Not a weakness, but not speedy either.




**obviously assuming the Sens don't trade pick 7

Projected to be end of the 1st/early 2nd type guy. I’m sure he’s going to be in the 15/20 range on teams lists though.

 

[benjiv1]

Absolutely, the top 6 is as sure as set as the top 9 was last year.

Ehhhhh, I feel like 6-8 might have some hiccups.

Agree regarding the top 5 for sure though.

Like I have said previously though, apparently a couple of Ottawa scouts really like Kaspar. Wouldn’t be surprised if he’s our guy assuming the consensus top 6 are gone and we decide to keep the pick.

 

[Senator Stanley]

Ehhhhh, I feel like 6-8 might have some hiccups.

Agree regarding the top 5 for sure though.

Like I have said previously though, apparently a couple of Ottawa scouts really like Kaspar. Wouldn’t be surprised if he’s our guy assuming the consensus top 6 are gone and we decide to keep the pick.

Kaspar definitely checks a lot of their boxes. A centre with pro size and tools. Questions around his skill and upside, but a high floor. He fits that Pinto, Bowers, White mold.