All purpose draft-gripe thread

[Uhmkay]

I don't see what point you are indicating by the worse team thing when you indicate that 9 players over 0.65 ppg and 4 guys over 0.5 ppg.
Obviously a better team would be have more players producing at a higher rate. The fact that Ehlers produces more on a worse team means he has to work with crappier line mates in general. I bet that every team in hockey wants to spread the wealth and the fact that it can't and has to rely on a couple guys makes them usually means they are a one line team.

Halifax had two phenomenal talents in Drouin and Ehlers playing on different lines half of their entire ice time. Both of them broke 100 points which makes it impressive. It's similar thing to Malkin and Crosby both are phenomenal talents and can achieve 100 points and they are considered 1/2 in the world. Does that mean that for ex. Kopitar having a larger difference in points between his teammates means he was a better player?


"The majority of Ehlers' even strength offence (around 70%) also came with Drouin on the bench, so he was pretty clearly driving the bus for his line at even strength."
Ehlers had very strong production without Drouin which is why he is considered really skilled.

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/6/19/canucks-army-draft-prospect-profile-7-nikolaj-ehlers


The difference between Ehlers and Point respective draft projections and areas were that Ehlers is 5'11 and Point is 5'9. The two inches in size. Ehlers is slightly below average and Point is significantly below average. There are plenty of 5'11 players but there are almost no 5'9 players. Their projections into the NHL is a huge difference. Crosby is 5'11 and no one ever calls him too small for the league.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=164346

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=151992

Nichushkin was considered a top 5 talent in a way deeper draft. Many believed Nichushkin to be a potential franchise talent. Virtanen is not the same tier of prospect. Nichushkin is a powerforward himself, had we taken him in 13, we would not have needed a powerforward in Virtanen. Nichushkin is also bigger and would be more successful in that role of Powerforward. Virtanen's shot is good might be better than Nichushkin but Nichushkin is the more dynamic prospect.

I would have taken Nichushkin over Horvat, Nylander over Virtanen and Barbeshev over Mccann. Ehlers was my second pick.

Nichushkin-Barbeshev-Nylander > McCann-Horvat-Virtanen

Your last example is bad you are clearly not even supply the same tier of players.
Would you like to go to battle with Taylor Hall or Colin Greening?

Why not take both Nichushkin and Virtanen? They were in separate drafts, so I'm not sure why we are comparing the two. They are both great examples however in that when you have a player with both size and skill... That's a very nice combo, so why would you not focus on taking players like this?

 

[Sharpshooter]

I'm happy we took Virtanen over Ehlers or Nylander. I don't see why people are complaining about this. Virtanen is a great prospect in his own right.

I was very pleased Virtanen was taken over those two.

 

[Sharpshooter]

Virtanen is a faster more powerful skater with better acceleration as well, both forwards and backwards.

Ehlers is probably more agile though.

You haven't debunked anything.

Who would you have drafted in 2009 - I highly doubt you weren't "all-in" on Jordan Schroeder.

Also, the much worse team excuse is an excuse. Being on teams that aren't deep afford you ice time and opportunity you don't get when you're on a team that has talent and rolls their lines. Again, you might speak like this is a fact and it very well could be a fact that Halifax is worse, but it doesn't speak to a more impressive showing. The Hitmen have 9 guys over 0.65ppg, the Mooseheads have 4.....seems one team spreads the wealth, the other doesn't.

Ehlers is a good prospect, so is Jake Virtanen. Producing 100 points in the CHL is impressive....what sets Ehlers apart from 3rd rounder Brayden Point? I mean one guy produced 30+ points more than his next closest teammate last season and Ehlers didn't (and don't make me bring up his playoff stats and how 3/4 of his production was tied to Drouin).

If you don't think Jake Virtanen has skill you don't watch. Nobody passed up "skill", they passed up a smaller bodied finesse forward for a strong, fast, sniper.

Remember when you were all over Nichushkin? What do you say about him? He's basically a 2 inch taller version of the prospect you say is meat and potatoes and not skilled, and Virtanen has a much better shot and is much more likely to run you through the end boards (yes, hockey is about more than just putting up points).

Ehlers isn't faster. Jake beat him in the races at the top prospects game. Mason Raymond is just as fast or faster than Jeff Carter....who you going to battle with?

Seemingly for once, I am in full agreement with arsmaster.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Virtanen is a faster more powerful skater with better acceleration as well, both forwards and backwards.

Ehlers is probably more agile though.

You haven't debunked anything.

Who would you have drafted in 2009 - I highly doubt you weren't "all-in" on Jordan Schroeder.

Also, the much worse team excuse is an excuse. Being on teams that aren't deep afford you ice time and opportunity you don't get when you're on a team that has talent and rolls their lines. Again, you might speak like this is a fact and it very well could be a fact that Halifax is worse, but it doesn't speak to a more impressive showing. The Hitmen have 9 guys over 0.65ppg, the Mooseheads have 4.....seems one team spreads the wealth, the other doesn't.

Ehlers is a good prospect, so is Jake Virtanen. Producing 100 points in the CHL is impressive....what sets Ehlers apart from 3rd rounder Brayden Point? I mean one guy produced 30+ points more than his next closest teammate last season and Ehlers didn't (and don't make me bring up his playoff stats and how 3/4 of his production was tied to Drouin).

If you don't think Jake Virtanen has skill you don't watch. Nobody passed up "skill", they passed up a smaller bodied finesse forward for a strong, fast, sniper.

Remember when you were all over Nichushkin? What do you say about him? He's basically a 2 inch taller version of the prospect you say is meat and potatoes and not skilled, and Virtanen has a much better shot and is much more likely to run you through the end boards (yes, hockey is about more than just putting up points).

Ehlers isn't faster. Jake beat him in the races at the top prospects game. Mason Raymond is just as fast or faster than Jeff Carter....who you going to battle with?

Didn't you make the complete opposite argument for not picking Ehlers Pre draft? That he Was on a powerhouse team and not Playing top opposition and he was benefitting from Drouin ? So before he was succesfull because he Was on a good team in a bad division benefitting from Drouin, now he is successfull because he is on a bad team in a good division as the go to guy?

Ehlers played plenty With Drouin on the pp, but most of his points were Either not With Drouin, or with Ehlers as the more active contributor. Sure they had a lot of points together in the po's but they also played together in the Po. Now he is on a crap team With no Drouin and putting up one of the best ppg in the CHL and the fact that he is in on 58+ %, 65+% for Nov-dec (since his return) of Halifax goals this season. Still Drouin? Guess not...

I like Jake, not unhappy With the Pick, just feel as if you are cherry picking your arguments to suit the discussion.

 

[Serac]

In (somewhat) all fairness
Florida was shopping that 1st overall pick (or possibly some other team, like Buffalo) to move back in the draft so they could draft someone like Nylander/Ehlers/Ritchie
I believe it was talks with the 9th overall pick (leafs) where those players were projected to go

So huzzah, a top pick team was considering moving back in the draft to get one of these players
And huzzah, that still likely meant Virtanen was ranked higher than all of those guys at that spot

Everyone wins !

 

[Jyrki21]

Even as a 13-year old, I was perplexed at the Alek Stojanov selection.

 

[CanaFan]

Even as a 13-year old, I was perplexed at the Alek Stojanov selection.

Hehe, I was only a few years older myself (16) and so badly wanted us to trade up for either Falloon or Neidermayer. Thank god we didn't because we almost certainly would have picked the wrong guy and thus added to our fanbase's collective angst. As it was Stojanov was still a horrible, horrible pick (thought so at the time too, all the stuff about him rising in the rankings mainly because he fought Lindros was maddening) but fortunately there weren't any real home runs taken right after us either (Matvichuk and Lapointe were probably the best). And of course it was fortunate to have Stojanov in the vault when Pittsburgh came calling a few years later wanting to swap a skilled winger for a 4th line knuckle chucker ...

 

[pahlsson]

Didn't you make the complete opposite argument for not picking Ehlers Pre draft? That he Was on a powerhouse team and not Playing top opposition and he was benefitting from Drouin ? So before he was succesfull because he Was on a good team in a bad division benefitting from Drouin, now he is successfull because he is on a bad team in a good division as the go to guy?

Ehlers played plenty With Drouin on the pp, but most of his points were Either not With Drouin, or with Ehlers as the more active contributor. Sure they had a lot of points together in the po's but they also played together in the Po. Now he is on a crap team With no Drouin and putting up one of the best ppg in the CHL and the fact that he is in on 58+ %, 65+% for Nov-dec (since his return) of Halifax goals this season. Still Drouin? Guess not...

I like Jake, not unhappy With the Pick, just feel as if you are cherry picking your arguments to suit the discussion.

yeah there's a crazy amount of spin going around when talking about our prospects

2 weeks ago i heard virtanen wasn't putting up points cuz he was playing with overage scrubs, now it's because his team is deep and he can't be the go-to guy when the team is rolling 4 lines

 

[arsmaster*]

Didn't you make the complete opposite argument for not picking Ehlers Pre draft? That he Was on a powerhouse team and not Playing top opposition and he was benefitting from Drouin ? So before he was succesfull because he Was on a good team in a bad division benefitting from Drouin, now he is successfull because he is on a bad team in a good division as the go to guy?

Ehlers played plenty With Drouin on the pp, but most of his points were Either not With Drouin, or with Ehlers as the more active contributor. Sure they had a lot of points together in the po's but they also played together in the Po. Now he is on a crap team With no Drouin and putting up one of the best ppg in the CHL and the fact that he is in on 58+ %, 65+% for Nov-dec (since his return) of Halifax goals this season. Still Drouin? Guess not...

I like Jake, not unhappy With the Pick, just feel as if you are cherry picking your arguments to suit the discussion.

The point wasn't at all about playing second class competition. It's about deep teams that roll for 3 lines for offense and Halifax which clearly doesn't have the depth to do that so they play their top guys a lot.

The idea that being on a loaded team vs a poor team with no scoring depth somehow makes one more impressive is where my gripe is.

Good for Ehlers for scoring 2/3 of his teams goals. It's impressive. Does it make him an auto NHL star? Nope, neither does scoring 25% of your teams goals.

I don't care about PPG all that much, it's about skillset and projection. Not every guy who torches the CHL makes the NHL let alone becomes a star. Impressive statistics in the CHL are nice, but they don't make or break your ability to become a successful nhl player.

Yours and VKW's point almost all last season was look at the points, kids gonna be a star. I tempered those. Lots of guys score in the CHL. Project the skill sets not the ppg average in the CHL.

It's why Gabe Landeskog's get drafted 2nd overall over Sean Couturier's and Ryan Strome's. You're making a projection. Of course production helps, but you miss out on really good nhl players by just taking the CHLer with the best PPG average.

 

[MS]

Even as a 13-year old, I was perplexed at the Alek Stojanov selection.

We had a jersey with FORSBERG on the back and were ready to select him until Philly went off the board to take him right ahead of us.

 

[CanaFan]

yeah there's a crazy amount of spin going around when talking about our prospects

2 weeks ago i heard virtanen wasn't putting up points cuz he was playing with overage scrubs, now it's because his team is deep and he can't be the go-to guy when the team is rolling 4 lines

Spin is how you want to see it. Others would say it is including team context in the evaluation. Never called Tambellini and Helgeson scrubs however let's be fair and acknowledge they aren't 'star' players even at the junior level. At the same time, the Hitmen seem to prefer to balance their ice time amongst these forwards even though many who watch the games would tell you that Jake is on most nights the best player. Call it coaches preference if you will. Regardless, it impacts Virtanen because he doesn't have the benefit of playing with other players who play at his level but at the same time he doesn't get opportunity to play 25 minutes a night either (which of course gives more opportunity to produce offense). Some of that is likely due to the surgery and missing training camp and first 11 or so games of the season. He seems to have been getting more ice time since Greg Chase was suspended/traded and not surprisingly his production has been increasing as well (1.44 PPG in his last 9 games).


Of course you can dismiss this information if you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation which in the end is more important to a players' projection than what any of us chooses to believe or dismiss as 'spin'.

 

[CanaFan]

We had a jersey with FORSBERG on the back and were ready to select him until Philly went off the board to take him right ahead of us.

Huh, never heard this. I did know Forsberg was considered a surprising pick as he was rated in the later half of the first round but I would be quite surprised to hear that Quinn - who was actually a pretty solid drafter in hindsight - liked him enough to take him a 7. Oh what could have been had we not won the 'Smythe Division Turtle Derby' with the Jets that year which had us overtake the Jets for the last playoffs spot on the final game of the year (against the Jets no less). We fell behind 2-0 to Winnipeg, tied it up in the 3rd and Courtnall tipped a Linden shot for the OT winner. I believe a tie (single point) would have had us miss the playoffs and given us the 5th pick instead of 7th. I was in heaven at the time but considering we were spanked by the Kings in 6 that year (though it was a great series), I think 20 years of Peter Forsberg would have been preferable ...

 

[arsmaster*]

We had a jersey with FORSBERG on the back and were ready to select him until Philly went off the board to take him right ahead of us.

Yeah, I would way rather have had that kid from Orskovlmijsdfdsfj than the one we got. Hadn't ever heard that either.

 

[Jyrki21]

As it was Stojanov was still a horrible, horrible pick (thought so at the time too, all the stuff about him rising in the rankings mainly because he fought Lindros was maddening)

I am heavily critical of when sports people do irrational stuff today, in the Internet-enabled, post-Moneyball era. But the reality is it was so much worse back then. I have no doubt that fight mattered a ton for his draft position.

but fortunately there weren't any real home runs taken right after us either (Matvichuk and Lapointe were probably the best).

Well, except for that Näslund guy...

And of course it was fortunate to have Stojanov in the vault when Pittsburgh came calling a few years later wanting to swap a skilled winger for a 4th line knuckle chucker ...

Yeah, that guy!

I was always convinced that Quinn would have drafted Stojanov even if Forsberg were available, until reading one of Wetcoaster's posts, where he mentioned that...

We had a jersey with FORSBERG on the back and were ready to select him until Philly went off the board to take him right ahead of us.

...which still strikes me as somewhat un-Quinn like. I never understood that Forsberg was a particularly off-the-board pick, though. But again, no Internet, so I have no real idea what was said at the time.

Oh what could have been had we not won the 'Smythe Division Turtle Derby' with the Jets that year which had us overtake the Jets for the last playoffs spot on the final game of the year (against the Jets no less). We fell behind 2-0 to Winnipeg, tied it up in the 3rd and Courtnall tipped a Linden shot for the OT winner. I believe a tie (single point) would have had us miss the playoffs and given us the 5th pick instead of 7th.

So I'm going to go full 1990-91 nerd here, as it's the season I started following hockey, and I am still disproportionately passionate about it. That game was the Canucks' last game of the season, but Winnipeg had one remaining. If the Canucks and Jets had tied (or possibly even if the Jets had won -- I don't fully remember), that final Jets' game would have determined the standings. But winning in OT, the Canucks made it moot.

With that 5th pick, Winnipeg of course selected Aaron Ward in front of Forsberg, so, whoops on them. And then of course the only reason the Flyers got their shot at Forsberg before Vancouver despite having more points than the Canucks is because the Patrick Division was the only one where two teams (Philly and the Islanders in this case) missed the playoffs. But on a straight, points-based draft order, the Canucks would have had Forsberg.

 

[PRNuck]

We had a jersey with FORSBERG on the back and were ready to select him until Philly went off the board to take him right ahead of us.

I really wish I had never learned this If anyone needs me I'll be moping.

Can you imagine how many games he would have missed to injury as a Canuck though!?

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Thanks for opening the thread for this particular type of prospect 'discussion'. I don't mind these debates, just nice not to have to wade through the Virtanen thread to find stuff specifically about the player.

Anyway you and Uhmkay were debating the impact of size on player's projections and/or likelihood to reach the NHL. You both give numerous 'spot' examples which, at the end of the day, don't amount to much since it is unknown how representative they are of all junior and NHL players. And we obviously know both sides hand pick the examples that suit their argument.

So I thought I'd take a stab at quantifying how much size drive's a players' chances of success at the NHL level. Keep in mind this is just a toe in the water as I haven't really wrapped my head around the 'best' way to represent the numbers. Nor is my sample terribly large since I have to manually look up the height of each player in the analysis (nothing is listed in row format). And of course this is all at the mercy of the biases and inaccuracies of the sources I've used (WHL, OHL, and QMJHL sites for juniors, NHL.com for NHLers).

Basically my thinking is if Height is no source of advantage or disadvantage in the NHL, I would expect the ratio of player heights in the NHL to be roughly similar to the ratio of player heights in the CHL. Pretty simple idea. For example, if 20% of CHL players are under 6 feet and 20% of NHL players are under 6 feet, then there is no clear bias towards or away from players under 6 feet. If the ratio of players is higher in the NHL then it would seem there is a premium on being sub-6 feet. If the ratio is lower in the NHL then it would suggest there is a premium on being over-6 feet.

For sample, I took the top 20 scoring forwards in each of the WHL, OHL, and QMJHL to give me a total of 60 CHL forwards. I took their heights only because height tends to stay the same from junior to NHL while weight tends to increase with age and training. I also took the top 30 scoring forwards in the NHL and their heights. In both cases I used 2013-14 data since I figure the scoring leaders would be more stable at that point.

Here's what I got:

So basically junior hockey has nearly 2x the ratio of sub-6 foot players that comprise the top scorers than the NHL does (43% vs 23%). Even with reasonably small sample sizes (n.60 and n.30) this is statistically significant and on the surface says that the NHL definitely puts a premium on size (in this case height) with sub-6 foot scorers in the CHL is much more common (nearly 2x) than sub-6 foot scorers in the NHL.

What does this mean? Well it certainly doesn't mean that a sub-6 foot player like Ehlers (who at 5'11 is just on the cusp of the sub-6 foot group) isn't going to succeed at the next level, nor does it mean that an over-6 foot player like Virtanen is going to succeed. In fact Virtanen and Ehlers are probably cases to attempt to make this argument for, given their proximity to the 6 ft cut point. But when we look at probability and likelihood to succeed, I don't think there should be any argument that the long run odds do favour bigger players. And even though you can always find a Giroux, Crosby, or Kane that makes it through, there is additional adversity working against them that likely needs to be taken into consideration.

Of course all this obviously doesn't take into consideration the role of weight and strength (similar but not exactly the same), which I can't factor in because I'd have to see how junior weights translate to NHL weights after time for growth and training. But intuitively it seems that weight and strength are more important than height (and that height is probably just a proxy for strength and weight in general) as I only found 5 NHLers in 30 with weights listed below 190 lbs (Giroux, St. Louis, Kane, Krejci, and Eberle) and just 2 listed below 180 (Giroux and Kane). At 176 lbs today, Ehlers biggest challenge will either be to try to reach 190 and at least join a moderate number of small players that have shown they can play under 200 lbs, or take his chances by being only the 3rd player on this list to play below 180.

Nothing definitive but hopefully this helps advance the conversation a bit more.

As intriguing as the idea is, I think that the method you used is inherently flawed for a number of reasons:

1) You absolutely cannot assume that 17, 18, 19 year olds are finished growing. For instance, Stamkos was listed at 5'11 and 178 in his draft year, currently he is listed at 6'0, 190.
2) Building off of that, 6'0 is an arbitrary cutoff point. Ehlers is listed at 5'11.75 and is 18 years old. If he grows even another quarter of an inch, does that make your whole analysis irrelevant? And how many players do you think are listed at 6'0 but are actually 5'11 and change?
3) Size does matter to some degree. Players who are 5'9 and under I'd say have a harder time of making the NHL. But As long as you are of a certain height, (certainly at 5'11), any difference in probabilities that you make the NHL is marginal.

Here, I calculated the average height (in cm) for the top 60 scorers in the NHL this year, as well as looked at the top 20 scorers from each of the CHL leagues, while removing those players that are 5'9 or less(because in that situation I'd agree more risk is involved).

The difference in average height is just 1 cm. And I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute that to natural growth.

Lots to like about Ehlers but he is not without his warts/risks too. His playing size/weight was a major concern with him last year, with many sources listing him at 163 lbs. That is nearly Gaudreau weight and with a body type that looked like it might have trouble gaining mass, that was a huge red flag. Since I see him listed at 176 lbs recently, this lessens the concerns about his ability to battle NHL-strength players 82 games a year but as I mention above, sub-180 lb players are still a rarity (only Kane and Giroux amongst top 30 NHL scorers last year).

Again, you're comparing the playing weights of players in their prime to an 18-year old. As an 18-year old Stamkos was 178 pounds. It's almost a given that players put on at least 10-15 pounds of muscle as they physically mature. I saw the 163 pound listing as earlier as the summer before the 2014 draft, so I'm more than certain it's out of date. (also, I'm 5'11 and 165 pounds and I'm definitely not as bulked as Ehlers, even though that's not exactly objective proof)

Secondly, there is more to playing hockey than just those skills and attributes you listed above. No doubt Ehlers is the better play maker and puck handler. I wouldn't put Ehlers as conclusively the better goal scorer however as he outpaced JV by just 0.15 GPG last year despite significantly greater PP and ice time. This year he has widened the gap for sure but Virtanen has also clearly struggled to get his touch back. Is Ehlers the better goal scorer in Nov-Dec 2014? No argument. Is he the better goal scorer at their peak? That is debatable.

Ehlers outscored Virtanen at ES last year as well. When Ehlers has scored more goals Virtanen based on whatever criteria you want to go by (ES, PP, SH, this year, last year, etc) I think it's fair to say he is a better goal scorer.

Thirdly, Virtanen has other skills and attributes that give him value in ways Ehlers does not. His size and aggressiveness suggest a more effective forechecker and puck retriever. Hitting is an effective way to create turnovers, retrieve pucks, and wear on defenseman. You may argue the value of this skill and given your focus on goals and assists I suspect we view the value of this differently, but it is certainly something that has a non-zero value.

Physicality doesn't have a non-zero value, but if it's the only thing he has going for him over Ehlers (and even in terms of tenacity/forechecking I wouldn't say he's necessarily better than Ehlers). Not to mention oftentimes going for the big hit ends up putting you out of position. Being physical is a nice bonus, but should not take precedence over Ehlers who is as good or superior at virtually every other facet of the game.

At the end of the day, it is entirely possible that both players end up being excellent NHLers. I don't feel the need to run Ehlers (or Nylander) down just because they aren't Canucks. Both are excellent prospects but at this point they are just as unproven as Virtanen so until I see some sign that one is outperforming the other at the NHL level, I'll maintain a wait, follow, and see approach. And if Virtanen becomes the 30+ goal scoring physical winger that Benning likely sees in him and Ehlers becomes the shifty, dynamic 35+ goal winger that some think he can become, well I'll still be happy because to me its about the player you added, not the player you missed. But that I realize is not the norm around here.

If Virtanen becomes good enough that there can even be a comparison made in terms of how much they contribute to their team then I might relent a bit. But certainly right now Ehlers is a far more valuable player to his team than Virtanen is, and I don't see any reason for that to change at the higher levels.

 

[CanaFan]

So I'm going to go full 1990-91 nerd here, as it's the season I started following hockey, and I am still disproportionately passionate about it. That game was the Canucks' last game of the season, but Winnipeg had one remaining. If the Canucks and Jets had tied (or possibly even if the Jets had won -- I don't fully remember), that final Jets' game would have determined the standings. But winning in OT, the Canucks made it moot.

With that 5th pick, Winnipeg of course selected Aaron Ward in front of Forsberg, so, whoops on them. And then of course the only reason the Flyers got their shot at Forsberg before Vancouver despite having more points than the Canucks is because the Patrick Division was the only one where two teams (Philly and the Islanders in this case) missed the playoffs. But on a straight, points-based draft order, the Canucks would have had Forsberg.

That was my first season following as well so I share your nerd-dom and fondness for that season. It is crazy to think that a team could make the playoffs and still draft as high as 7th, and that was only because San Jose joined that year and was gifted the 2nd pick thus bumping everyone down one spot. Had they entered the league in 1992 like Tampa and Ottawa it is conceivable that Forsberg is still there for us at 6 (if say Philly valued Aaron Ward more than Forsberg). Reminds me of the 1998 draft where we were slotted 3rd going into the lottery but were bumped to 4th because Nashville was seeded 2nd. The 3rd slot (San Jose) won the lottery and moved up to 1st but a previous deal (involving Bryan Marchment) gave Tampa the option to swap picks (giving Tampa #1 and SJ #2) and take Lecavalier. San Jose then traded down with Nashville giving them the picks to take Legwand and Brad Stuart. Vancouver missed out on all this and took the underwhelming Bryan Allen at #4. Expansion has not been good to us it seems.

 

[Jyrki21]

Expansion has not been good to us it seems.

You may be onto something -- if Ottawa and Tampa aren't picking in 1992, two spots ahead of Polasek was Martin Straka.

Although in this case I am certain that Quinn still takes Polasek.

 

[CanaFan]

As intriguing as the idea is, I think that the method you used is inherently flawed for a number of reasons:

1) You absolutely cannot assume that 17, 18, 19 year olds are finished growing. For instance, Stamkos was listed at 5'11 and 178 in his draft year, currently he is listed at 6'0, 190.

It isn't 100% but my sense is that most kids post-draft don't grow any taller (they do put on weight). No doubt you can find spot examples that do but I'd need to see a more thorough assessment to believe it accounts for more than that. Besides, the top 20 scorers in the CHL generally aren't 17 year olds and are probably more 19 and 20 than 18 year olds.

2) Building off of that, 6'0 is an arbitrary cutoff point. Ehlers is listed at 5'11.75 and is 18 years old. If he grows even another quarter of an inch, does that make your whole analysis irrelevant? And how many players do you think are listed at 6'0 but are actually 5'11 and change?

Well I did acknowledge that Ehlers and Virtanen were not good cases to be impacted by this analysis, given both of them being close to the 6 foot cut-off. It was meant to be a more general assessment of the bias towards size in the NHL vs junior. I don't actually see much risk in Ehlers' height nor do I see much advantage in Virtanen's height, given that they are about 1 inch apart. Their weight and frame is a different matter.

3) Size does matter to some degree. Players who are 5'9 and under I'd say have a harder time of making the NHL. But As long as you are of a certain height, (certainly at 5'11), any difference in probabilities that you make the NHL is marginal.

Generally I'd agree though I'd probably bump that even up to 5'10 as there are relatively few of those in the NHL relative to CHL. 5'11 to 6'0 seems to be in similar ratio in both leagues while 6'1 and taller tends to be greater in the NHL (this is based on what I recall when I did the analysis last night, which is on my home computer). Again, the combo of height and weight is probably the bigger factor, which I did state in my post.

Here, I calculated the average height (in cm) for the top 60 scorers in the NHL this year, as well as looked at the top 20 scorers from each of the CHL leagues, while removing those players that are 5'9 or less(because in that situation I'd agree more risk is involved).

The difference in average height is just 1 cm. And I don't think it's unreasonable to attribute that to natural growth.

I don't know that I agree with just removing the 5'9 players since their prevalence in junior speaks to the fact that size is much less important in the CHL but much more important in the NHL. Stating that 5'9 is a 'floor' or 'minimum' doesn't mean that size stops being a factor beyond that level. It merely stops being an absolute (or near absolute barrier). I believe it still favours larger size beyond 5'9 however other factors start to come into play (absolute skill level, strength, etc). Below 5'9 very few players can make it even with elite skill levels (the odd exception of course exists).

Again, you're comparing the playing weights of players in their prime to an 18-year old. As an 18-year old Stamkos was 178 pounds. It's almost a given that players put on at least 10-15 pounds of muscle as they physically mature. I saw the 163 pound listing as earlier as the summer before the 2014 draft, so I'm more than certain it's out of date. (also, I'm 5'11 and 165 pounds and I'm definitely not as bulked as Ehlers, even though that's not exactly objective proof)

Again I clearly stated that weight continues from CHL to NHL hence why I opted not to use it in my analysis. And in general most kids will have their NHL height in junior but not their NHL weight. This is my concern with Ehlers, and was even when I was pushing for him in Feb-March of this year (before I turned more in favour of Virtanen). The fact that he started at such a low weight (163) and has put on a lot of weight in a short period of time (+13 lbs) but is still well below NHL average (195-205) does make me question whether he can ever get to a level where he won't be easily outmuscled at the NHL level. Some players can be short and incredibly strong (Crosby) while others simply never gain enough strength to be as effective as their skills (Raymond). It certainly isn't a given that Ehlers won't get there, but it also isn't a given that he will. It's a legit question, just as you question Virtanen's production.

Ehlers outscored Virtanen at ES last year as well. When Ehlers has scored more goals Virtanen based on whatever criteria you want to go by (ES, PP, SH, this year, last year, etc) I think it's fair to say he is a better goal scorer.

If you ignore TOI completely, then yes Ehlers had a higher GPG. If you factor in TOI, which I did based on the extraskater.com estimates last year, then Virtanen actually had the higher GPG.

Physicality doesn't have a non-zero value, but if it's the only thing he has going for him over Ehlers (and even in terms of tenacity/forechecking I wouldn't say he's necessarily better than Ehlers). Not to mention oftentimes going for the big hit ends up putting you out of position. Being physical is a nice bonus, but should not take precedence over Ehlers who is as good or superior at virtually every other facet of the game.

Of course this is where we differ. You prioritize Ehlers puck skills and vision more than Virtanen's physical element, just like you prioritized Nichushkin's size and speed more than Horvat's defensive skills. All have an impact on the outcome of a game and it is hard to say if an extra 5 goals and 10 assists a year contribute more than being better at retrieving the puck on a forecheck or being able to battle around the net more effectively. At the end of the day, it will come down to the magnitude of the gaps between these players. You can't simply say Ehlers is better at x, y, and z while Virtanen is only better at x so take Ehlers. HOW much better each player is matters. How many more goals (if any) will Ehlers score is what counts, not merely that he may score more goals. And HOW much more effective Virtanen is at puck retrieval (if at all) matters more than simply being more effective. We don't know the magnitude yet because both of them have not applied their games at the NHL level.

If Virtanen becomes good enough that there can even be a comparison made in terms of how much they contribute to their team then I might relent a bit. But certainly right now Ehlers is a far more valuable player to his team than Virtanen is, and I don't see any reason for that to change at the higher levels.

This is not surprising given that we place different measures of value on different things. Fortunately we didn't draft Virtanen to be the 17 year old version of himself in the NHL so how they are now matters less than how they are trending. While it will probably be construed as 'spin', I would personally wait until Jake is performing at his 'best' level before making this comparison. The surgery and missing TC (both NHL and junior) along with the first dozen games of the season have him behind the 8-ball. But his play has been steadily improving (0.90 PPG, selected a star 3x in his first 11 games, 1.44 PPG, selected a star 5x in his last 9) and I believe it will continue to get better after the WJC. If he can be even close to Ehlers in PPG - say Virtanen at 1.5 and Ehlers at 2.0 - while getting lower TOI and playing a more physical style game then I will be satisfied (though I realize you may not).

 

[arsmaster*]

There is a certain amount of projecting body types than just looking at raw heights and weights.

Mason Raymond and Jannik Hansen are almost the exact same size, but Hansen's frame has allowed him to carry more mass.

If you gloss over this, of course you'll love all the skinny guys. Not all 5'11" players can pack on the leg and core muscles of a Sidney Crosby.

I won't pretend to be a body type guru, just something I think needs to be factored in to the projections, rather than PPG data in the CHL.

Ehlers is a good prospect, he could be a star in the league. So could Jake Virtanen.

 

[vanuck]

I wish we had drafted Subban instead of Ellington, Severson instead of Mallett, Perron instead of White.

This is just griping about drafts in general right?

Seriously though, even if we had just gone with the no-brainer picks we'd already have Kopitar, Perron and Severson on our team. How much better would those 3 alone make our team right now...

 

[pahlsson]

Spin is how you want to see it. Others would say it is including team context in the evaluation. Never called Tambellini and Helgeson scrubs however let's be fair and acknowledge they aren't 'star' players even at the junior level. At the same time, the Hitmen seem to prefer to balance their ice time amongst these forwards even though many who watch the games would tell you that Jake is on most nights the best player. Call it coaches preference if you will. Regardless, it impacts Virtanen because he doesn't have the benefit of playing with other players who play at his level but at the same time he doesn't get opportunity to play 25 minutes a night either (which of course gives more opportunity to produce offense). Some of that is likely due to the surgery and missing training camp and first 11 or so games of the season. He seems to have been getting more ice time since Greg Chase was suspended/traded and not surprisingly his production has been increasing as well (1.44 PPG in his last 9 games).


Of course you can dismiss this information if you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation which in the end is more important to a players' projection than what any of us chooses to believe or dismiss as 'spin'.

yeah context is important but not to the point of making excuses

i feel like every recent canucks prospect in which people threw out all these "take the stats in context" arguments are the ones who have so far struggled to make the nhl, and the one guy where no context was needed because he actually produced like he should have is the one succeeding

 

[Phenomenon13]

Why not take both Nichushkin and Virtanen? They were in separate drafts, so I'm not sure why we are comparing the two. They are both great examples however in that when you have a player with both size and skill... That's a very nice combo, so why would you not focus on taking players like this?

Nichushkin in my mind was the best prospect available. He was bigger and more skilled than Horvat and I believe that it outweighs Horvat's two way play. Nylander was more skilled than Virtanen and I believe that difference out weighs the physical advantages that Virtanen will bring.

Why Barbashev over Scherbak for you I ask? Seems as though you're giving up skill for two-way play there.
.

I disagree. Barbashev skill level is of similar level to Sherbak but his two way play outweighed any small difference in Sherbak's skill level difference.

 

[Peen]

I'd have gone with Nichushkin, Nylander, and McCann at the time

Only one I'd debate taking currently is McCann

Also.. pastrnak is doing quite well

 

[CanaFan]

yeah context is important but not to the point of making excuses

i feel like every recent canucks prospect in which people threw out all these "take the stats in context" arguments are the ones who have so far struggled to make the nhl, and the one guy where no context was needed because he actually produced like he should have is the one succeeding

So what's an excuse and what is context? I consider an injury and the way a coach chooses to deploy his players' ice time context. If you wish to consider an excuse that is your prerogative, but ultimately it is meaningless. Virtanen will become what he will become, regardless of whether I see it as context and you see it as an excuse. It's ultimately the same thing and only whether we attach a negative to it or not that separates our views.