Prospect Info: Bruins Prospects Discussion

[burstnbloom]

Except this draft we speak of was supposedly top 3 all time. Up there with 2003 and 1988.

2003 Dustin Brown Brent Seabrook and Robert Nilsson. I'd take that ...
1979 Doug Sulliman Brian Propp and Brad McKinnon. Not quite as good ... still a lot of quality.

The problem with picking in these extremely deep drafts is the guys that go after. They out smarted themselves. Likely like they did in 2003. I don't mind reaching once in a while but why 3 times in a row?!?

Every player 1-11 is in the NHL already. That isn't normal...

What's even better is so are picks 16/17/18/20/24/28/35/37/39/46/51

That's 22 picks out of the top 60 that have played in the NHL before they turned 20 years old. This wasn't a normal draft year. It's far from it! Having 3 picks where they did should have been franchise changing.

You responded to my post three times, I must have hit a nerve. You've moved the goal posts a lot here but I'll just address this one point. You're being very intellectually dishonest here. McDavid, Eichel, Hanifin are the only guys who made an impact last year. So far this year Marner, Werenski, Provorov have been very good, but all were long gone before the bruins picks. Strome was sent back to his junior team, so saying he's in the NHL is a little much, Meier just played his first game, Crouse, Zacha and Rantanen has been meh to poor. Still we are only talking about people that were gone before the Bruins picked.

As for the players drafted after Senyshyn:
16 -Barzal was sent back to junior and has 2 goals in 13 games
17- Connor was sent to the AHL after being ineffective in the peg
18 - Chabot played 1 game before being sent back to St John
20 - Eriksson-Ek was sent back to Sweden
24 - Konecny - has been really good for Philly
27 - Larson - played 4 games before being sent back
28 - Beauvillier - playing on the islanders 4th line
35 - Aho - has been pretty good for Carolina

I'm really struggling to understand the complaint here. None of these guys with the exception of Konecny, Beauvillier and Aho are really contributing and we would have equally all lost our minds if they were picked at 13, 14 or 15.

You can talk about it as a generational draft and it may well be, but most of the players that are making a significant impact were gone long before the Bruins picked and the rest have proven themselves to not be ready for the NHL, much like the Bruins trio. I wonder if all those other team's fans are bloviating on and on about it the way we are. We won't know what that draft was for the Bruins and whether or not it was a failure until at least 2018.

 

[Fonzerelli]

You responded to my post three times, I must have hit a nerve. You've moved the goal posts a lot here but I'll just address this one point. You're being very intellectually dishonest here. McDavid, Eichel, Hanifin are the only guys who made an impact last year. So far this year Marner, Werenski, Provorov have been very good, but all were long gone before the bruins picks. Strome was sent back to his junior team, so saying he's in the NHL is a little much, Meier just played his first game, Crouse, Zacha and Rantanen has been meh to poor. Still we are only talking about people that were gone before the Bruins picked.

As for the players drafted after Senyshyn:
16 -Barzal was sent back to junior and has 2 goals in 13 games
17- Connor was sent to the AHL after being ineffective in the peg
18 - Chabot played 1 game before being sent back to St John
20 - Eriksson-Ek was sent back to Sweden
24 - Konecny - has been really good for Philly
27 - Larson - played 4 games before being sent back
28 - Beauvillier - playing on the islanders 4th line
35 - Aho - has been pretty good for Carolina

I'm really struggling to understand the complaint here. None of these guys with the exception of Konecny, Beauvillier and Aho are really contributing and we would have equally all lost our minds if they were picked at 13, 14 or 15.

You can talk about it as a generational draft and it may well be, but most of the players that are making a significant impact were gone long before the Bruins picked and the rest have proven themselves to not be ready for the NHL, much like the Bruins trio. I wonder if all those other team's fans are bloviating on and on about it the way we are. We won't know what that draft was for the Bruins and whether or not it was a failure until at least 2018.

Excellent post. Not to mention, of all the guys picked after #15 who have touched NHL ice, we have the best of to this point in Brandon Carlo.

 

[Rumpy]

Excellent post. Not to mention, of all the guys picked after #15 who have touched NHL ice, we have the best of to this point in Brandon Carlo.

I have stated in this thread numerous times how they bailed the second round. I don't know how or why you keep acting like that's some kind of point? I'll go as far as to say JFK is going to be the best of the lot when it's all said and done.

You've shown you can make numbers look how you want and I've shown I can make them look how I want. Only thin we can do now is sit back and enjoy the ride. In 10 years we can bump this thread and I'll be happy to be wrong.

 

[Era of Sanity]

Excellent post. Not to mention, of all the guys picked after #15 who have touched NHL ice, we have the best of to this point in Brandon Carlo.

Carlo is a beaut, no doubt.

I have no trouble giving credit where credit is due and you sound as though you feel the Bruins are excellent in drafting. I hope you are right, maybe they are maybe they aren't. One thing in assessing the Senyshyn is you are using goals per game to rate him against other prospects. This is a metric in his favor since he is a goal scorer and there of course are many other factors, some quantified, some not. Quantitatively speaking if you are going to disregard the playmaking ability of say Mathew Barzal then he never would have been considered a good prospect in the first place because he is essentially a playmaker. Senyshyn has outscored him but Barzal vastly outproduces him in assists. By a GPG metric, Laine is better than McDavid.

 

[Fonzerelli]

You've shown you can make numbers look how you want and I've shown I can make them look how I want. Only thin we can do now is sit back and enjoy the ride. In 10 years we can bump this thread and I'll be happy to be wrong.

Actually you haven't. That's the whole thing. Your opinion would be respected so much more if you had put forth something to base your strongly held opinions on. But you don't. You just name call and throw around rhetoric and without doing any kind of legwork whatsoever, just pull stuff out a hat, throwing false claims around like;

"the stats and accomplishments of everyone around them are starting to add up and the Bruins guys aren't following suit"

And you back it up with nothing.

Then you make grandiose claims , like;

"Except we do have a way of knowing. It's called projections and scouting"

and again, you back it up with nothing ... except this;

"I used to watch enough junior hockey and I'm sure if you go back thru prospect and draft threads over the last 15 years I've been pretty damn good at projecting"

As if that's supposed to be all the rest of us in the discussion need to come around to your way of thinking. I've been watching the NFL since I was 7, but it doesn't make me qualified to coach. You've been watching junior hockey, so you're a scouting authority over the paid professionals?

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Nobody begrudges you that. We all have our own opinions and favourites, but you're calling these kids "duds" based on absolutely nothing.

Truthfully, I wouldn't have dug in so much if these unfounded criticisms weren't coming in the hours fallowing what must be a fresh wound for Zac and that bothered me. I admit to being a bit defensive because I genuinely feel bad for the kid. He could probably use a little positive karma from us in moments like this. In fact, I have a PM here from poster Mount Kramer Cameras, and I want to share it because I can't word it any better.

It can be easy to forget that the kids are great people that are working desperately to achieve their dream. The real stuff is happening every day at the rink. We (as fans) have a responsibility to step back and let nature take its course.

Well said MKC!

And I'm done beating this horse as well Rumpy. And I want you to know that I do respect you as a poster. I see we're both from Saskatchewan, so maybe we can talk hockey over beers one day at a Warriors or Pats game. Anyways, I really do appreciate your last words and I agree with them, so I'll leave it on your note where we both agree ...

Only thin we can do now is sit back and enjoy the ride. In 10 years we can bump this thread and I'll be happy to be wrong.

Don't worry my friend, you're already wrong!

Cheers!

 

[Fonzerelli]

One thing in assessing the Senyshyn is you are using goals per game to rate him against other prospects. This is a metric in his favor since he is a goal scorer and there of course are many other factors, some quantified, some not. Quantitatively speaking if you are going to disregard the playmaking ability of say Mathew Barzal then he never would have been considered a good prospect in the first place because he is essentially a playmaker. Senyshyn has outscored him but Barzal vastly outproduces him in assists. By a GPG metric, Laine is better than McDavid.

Right. I used GPG for Zac because we drafted him as a goal scoring winger. I wouldn't use that metric for Carlo for example. Just like I wouldn't use fights won or PIM to qualify Zac. He's a goal scorer, so we compare him against all his peers in that category.

Obviously, elite 3 dimmensional players like McDavid bring more to the table, but you probably need a top 3-5 pick to get a sniff at a player like that, which we didn't have, so it's a mute point. And Laine probably wouldn't stack up to McDavid on GPG. Look at the leaders on the above list, .73 GPG average the 2 years FOLLOWING their draft. McDavid had 44 goals in 47 games as a 17 year old in Major Junior. He's on another planet from Laine and everyone else. Odds are he will always out-produce Laine, though Laine may score more goals.

Incidentally, for forwards, the goals per game metric is still the most accurate of the projection models. The assist metric has many flaws. They've tried to fine tune it to primary assists, which seems better in theory but doesn't really impact the projection accuracy in any meaningful way from what I've seen. So that's another reason to lean on GPG.

But anyways, back to Zac. When they set their sights on a goal scoring RW in the first round in 2015, we couldn't have made a better choice than Zac Senyshyn. That was the point of the illustration. He is not falling behind his peers statistically. He is one of the best goal scorers this century available in that spot. And we know that now with HINDSIGHT 2 years later, but Sweeney and his staff had the FORESIGHT to know it before the rest of us. That's impressive.

 

[Era of Sanity]

Right. I used GPG for Zac because we drafted him as a goal scoring winger. I wouldn't use that metric for Carlo for example. Just like I wouldn't use fights won or PIM to qualify Zac. He's a goal scorer, so we compare him against all his peers in that category.

Obviously, elite 3 dimmensional players like McDavid bring more to the table, but you probably need a top 3-5 pick to get a sniff at a player like that, which we didn't have, so it's a mute point. And Laine probably wouldn't stack up to McDavid on GPG. Look at the leaders on the above list, .73 GPG average the 2 years FOLLOWING their draft. McDavid had 44 goals in 47 games as a 17 year old in Major Junior. He's on another planet from Laine and everyone else.

Incidentally, for forwards, the goals per game metric is still the most accurate of the projection models. The assist metric has many flaws. They've tried to fine tune it to primary assists, which seems better in theory but doesn't really impact the projection accuracy in any meaningful way from what I've seen. So that's another reason to lean on GPG.

But anyways, back to Zac. When they set their sights on a goal scoring RW in the first round in 2015, we couldn't have made a better choice than Zac Senyshyn. That was the point of the illustration. He is not falling behind his peers statistically. He is one of the best goal scorers this century available in that spot. And we know that now with HINDSIGHT 2 years later, but Sweeney and his staff had the FORESIGHT to know it before the rest of us. That's impressive.

Interesting info and some good points, I was rating Laine and McDavid based on their NHL GPG to date, which may or may not hold up over time. My point is to consciously structure the parameters to the best goal scoring RW doesn't mean he is the bpa. I am greedy. I hope Zach does turn out to be the right choice if so kudos to Sweeeny and the scouts, of course time will tell.

 

[Fonzerelli]

Interesting info and some good points, I was rating Laine and McDavid based on their NHL GPG to date, which may or may not hold up over time. My point is to consciously structure the parameters to the best goal scoring RW doesn't mean he is the bpa. I am greedy. I hope Zach does turn out to be the right choice if so kudos to Sweeeny and the scouts, of course time will tell.

I'm far from an authority but I do dabble in analytics and have for many years. So I'll speak from that viewpoint, just from my own experience as an analytic hobbyist

When making NHLe's for predictive purposes, there is not an agreement on one right way. From the work I've done with them, the single most predictive metric for forecasting offensive forwards is NON POWER PLAY GOALS PER 60. Gabriel Desjardin originally put forth NON POWER PLAY GOALS PER GAME, which is good too, but if you can break it to per 60 minutes it's even more accurate. I like to pull out the empty netters as well.

The fact is goals are goals. There is a variety of ways to score them and while they are often individually a product of luck, over time they become predictive with players who consistently produce and who consistently improve. As long as games are won and lost by the team who has the most goals, then players who can produce goals will be in big demand. Since past results are the best predictor of future results, players who's body of work includes consistent high end production of goals over time are valuable assets and identifying those players is a high priority on any team.

Assists have more variables. Often times 2nd assists are total phantoms. especially in junior games where teams assist totals at home are typically higher than on the road and some barns are more notoriously for gifting phantoms than others. Then there are the meaningless touches that get awarded as assists. A center loses a draw, but it's retrieved and sent back to the point where the d-man shoots and scores. Centerman gets second assist and he may have never touched the puck. Other assists aren't even meant to be assists. A harmless chip off the glass finds a friendly stick in the neutral zone who dangles a defender, nascars the net and finds a high guy in the slot, but the chip off the glass gets an assist.

There's been phantom goals as well, but few and far between. Even the back door tap ins seem like gifts, but the goal scorer still has to read the play, get to the right spot, maybe shake a defender, have his stick on the ice and be ready for the pass. There's skills there and intent that a lost faceoff or chip off the glass for example, just don't have.

Forwards who score goals translate their entire point totals, not just the goals. Many forwards who are goal heavy have closer to a 1:1 goal assist ratio. Elite players have the heavy goal totals and still maintain a 1:2 goals to assist ratio. Like McDavid, Tavares, Kane etc.

And the numbers bear out the theory. Forwards who don't score goals at the high end, but who's points are lopsided in assists rarely translate to the NHL game. When you see forwards with assist ratios of 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1 for example. That's all fluff. It rarely translates to the pro game. You look at the best playmakers in the history of the game - guys like Adam Oates and Wayne Gretzky. Oates assist to goal ratio was 2:1 as an amatuer and Gretzky was even less than that (roughly 1.6:1). They were great playmakers, but at the amateur level they also scored goals with the best of them.

Matt Barzal in his draft year had 12 goals and was almost 4:1 assist to goal ratio, and he's more than 8:1 this season. For his career he's over 3:1 with 55 goals and 163 assists and only 38 of those goals came at even strength - and this is a kid who plays near 30 minutes a game. Think about that - 38 goals in 174 games and people complain that we passed on him. People like to compare him to Nugent-Hopkins, but RNH could score. He had slightly over a 2:1 ratio with 57 goals and 120 assists, so he's right there on the edge of 2:1. And RNH scored those 57 goals all before he turned 18, where Barzal had 26 during the same time frame, and only 19 of those were non-power play. So I don't believe that his game will translate. It might translate to an international amateur tournament on the big ice, but I don't believe he will be wheeling and dealing on an NHL ice surface against NHL players like he does against 18 year olds in Seattle. He might I guess, but I don't think he will based on both my own viewings of him (over 100 games since bantam) and the analytic work that I've been doing for the past 6 years.

You never want to say a kid can't do something. It could be Barzal is a unique one-of-a-kind trailblazer that will make his own path and be the first WHL forward ever to carry an assist to goal ratio of greater than 2:1 to the NHL and have it translate. The only other guy I who had notably more than a 2:1 assist to goal ratio and played in the NHL from the WHL was Andrew Schneider, who had 108 goals and 258 assists. He played 10 pointless games in the NHL with Ottawa before heading overseas. He played in the World Juniors though. He did have an international game they figured. Anyways, I hope Barzal does it. He'll be a first and that would be exciting, but I don't think it will happen based on above.

That's what's special about McDavid. Like Oates and Gretzky, Crosby and Tavares, he does have that healthy assist ratio (1.5-2 range) but his goal scoring is also elite. Whereas Laine has the goals but he doesn't have the playmaking in his pocket like those guys did (the assists).

Laine vs McDavid is quite similar to Ovechkin vs Crosby. Laine and Ovechkin are better goal scorers (and could be predicted as such), but McDavid and Crosby are balanced elite players and better point producers (which also could easily be predicted as such).

Zac Senyshyn is a goal scorer. He's not Ovechkin or Laine but he's in that mold of high goals and low assists. He's not projected at their elite level but he could certainly turn out to be a high end producer. Certainly one of the best availabl this century at the draft position we got him at.

 

[Era of Sanity]

I'm far from an authority but I do dabble in analytics and have for many years. So I'll speak from that viewpoint, just from my own experience as an analytic hobbyist

When making NHLe's for predictive purposes, there is not an agreement on one right way. From the work I've done with them, the single most predictive metric for forecasting offensive forwards is NON POWER PLAY GOALS PER 60. Gabriel Desjardin originally put forth NON POWER PLAY GOALS PER GAME, which is good too, but if you can break it to per 60 minutes it's even more accurate. I like to pull out the empty netters as well.

The fact is goals are goals. There is a variety of ways to score them and while they are often individually a product of luck, over time they become predictive with players who consistently produce and who consistently improve. As long as games are won and lost by the team who has the most goals, then players who can produce goals will be in big demand. Since past results are the best predictor of future results, players who's body of work includes consistent high end production of goals over time are valuable assets and identifying those players is a high priority on any team.

Assists have more variables. Often times 2nd assists are total phantoms. especially in junior games where teams assist totals at home are typically higher than on the road and some barns are more notoriously for gifting phantoms than others. Then there are the meaningless touches that get awarded as assists. A center loses a draw, but it's retrieved and sent back to the point where the d-man shoots and scores. Centerman gets second assist and he may have never touched the puck. Other assists aren't even meant to be assists. A harmless chip off the glass finds a friendly stick in the neutral zone who dangles a defender, nascars the net and finds a high guy in the slot, but the chip off the glass gets an assist.

There's been phantom goals as well, but few and far between. Even the back door tap ins seem like gifts, but the goal scorer still has to read the play, get to the right spot, maybe shake a defender, have his stick on the ice and be ready for the pass. There's skills there and intent that a lost faceoff or chip off the glass for example, just don't have.

Forwards who score goals translate their entire point totals, not just the goals. Many forwards who are goal heavy have closer to a 1:1 goal assist ratio. Elite players have the heavy goal totals and still maintain a 1:2 goals to assist ratio. Like McDavid, Tavares, Kane etc.

And the numbers bear out the theory. Forwards who don't score goals at the high end, but who's points are lopsided in assists rarely translate to the NHL game. When you see forwards with assist ratios of 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1 for example. That's all fluff. It rarely translates to the pro game. You look at the best playmakers in the history of the game - guys like Adam Oates and Wayne Gretzky. Oates assist to goal ratio was 2:1 as an amatuer and Gretzky was even less than that (roughly 1.6:1). They were great playmakers, but at the amateur level they also scored goals with the best of them.

Matt Barzal in his draft year had 12 goals and was almost 4:1 assist to goal ratio, and he's more than 8:1 this season. For his career he's over 3:1 with 55 goals and 163 assists and only 38 of those goals came at even strength - and this is a kid who plays near 30 minutes a game. Think about that - 38 goals in 174 games and people complain that we passed on him. People like to compare him to Nugent-Hopkins, but RNH could score. He had slightly over a 2:1 ratio with 57 goals and 120 assists, so he's right there on the edge of 2:1. And RNH scored those 57 goals all before he turned 18, where Barzal had 26 during the same time frame, and only 19 of those were non-power play. So I don't believe that his game will translate. It might translate to an international amateur tournament on the big ice, but I don't believe he will be wheeling and dealing on an NHL ice surface against NHL players like he does against 18 year olds in Seattle. He might I guess, but I don't think he will based on both my own viewings of him (over 100 games since bantam) and the analytic work that I've been doing for the past 6 years.

You never want to say a kid can't do something. It could be Barzal is a unique one-of-a-kind trailblazer that will make his own path and be the first WHL forward ever to carry an assist to goal ratio of greater than 2:1 to the NHL and have it translate. The only other guy I who had notably more than a 2:1 assist to goal ratio and played in the NHL from the WHL was Andrew Schneider, who had 108 goals and 258 assists. He played 10 pointless games in the NHL with Ottawa before heading overseas. He played in the World Juniors though. He did have an international game they figured. Anyways, I hope Barzal does it. He'll be a first and that would be exciting, but I don't think it will happen based on above.

That's what's special about McDavid. Like Oates and Gretzky, Crosby and Tavares, he does have that healthy assist ratio (1.5-2 range) but his goal scoring is also elite. Whereas Laine has the goals but he doesn't have the playmaking in his pocket like those guys did (the assists).

Laine vs McDavid is quite similar to Ovechkin vs Crosby. Laine and Ovechkin are better goal scorers (and could be predicted as such), but McDavid and Crosby are balanced elite players and better point producers (which also could easily be predicted as such).

Zac Senyshyn is a goal scorer. He's not Ovechkin or Laine but he's in that mold of high goals and low assists. He's not projected at their elite level but he could certainly turn out to be a high end producer. Certainly one of the best availabl this century at the draft position we got him at.

Oh yeah, . . . well . . my dad could beat up your dad

Interesting info Fonz, we'll see how this develops. If the good guys get a good scoring winger I'll be happy with the pick.

 

[Era of Sanity]

Has the American team been announced or when is it expected? Does McAvoy project as the #1D on the roster?

 

[Speed Shooter]

Has the American team been announced or when is it expected? Does McAvoy project as the #1D on the roster?

Any one else find the lack of goal scoring by McAvoy - at any level so far - a bit disconcerting?

Expected his totals to tick up some given a new year of development, maturity, ice time.

But no. Basically on same glacial pace he always has. Which is fine, just wonder how that may translate at highest level for someone being tabbed by few as future top D pairing, if it does not change.

 

[Rumpy]

Is there a way I can go back and search for 2006 or 2008 draft threads? Or was the data base reset at some point in time?

 

[DKH]

Any one else find the lack of goal scoring by McAvoy - at any level so far - a bit disconcerting?

Expected his totals to tick up some given a new year of development, maturity, ice time.

But no. Basically on same glacial pace he always has. Which is fine, just wonder how that may translate at highest level for someone being tabbed by few as future top D pairing, if it does not change.

No because he's focusing on what they want him to do in the NHL- strong in own zone good first pass pass, support play.

The Thursday night beer leading 'here, there, and everywhere'

ZS has been told to get better away from puck and play in all 3 zones

We have people here who just pick up a sheet and determine the player sucks because not challenging Ray Ferraro scoring record

Not that I'm Scotty Bowman but I started coaching youth hockey and teaching learn to skate 35 years ago and nothing drove me more crazy than 1/2 sheet players and players that couldn't play away from the puck- I don't care if it was my 10 year old

It's frustrating reading this thread because it's 100% about stats with some

McAvoy is playing the way he will play in the pros

 

[Sharp Shooting Neely]

No because he's focusing on what they want him to do in the NHL- strong in own zone good first pass pass, support play.

The Thursday night beer leading 'here, there, and everywhere'

ZS has been told to get better away from puck and play in all 3 zones

We have people here who just pick up a sheet and determine the player sucks because not challenging Ray Ferraro scoring record

Not that I'm Scotty Bowman but I started coaching youth hockey and teaching learn to skate 35 years ago and nothing drove me more crazy than 1/2 sheet players and players that couldn't play away from the puck- I don't care if it was my 10 year old

It's frustrating reading this thread because it's 100% about stats with some

McAvoy is playing the way he will play in the pros

Zboril has been focused on that part of his game as well with the Sea Dogs. When Chabot was still with Ottawa he moved into a more offence first role and put up good numbers in doing it. When Chabot was returned to junior he went back to more of a shut down role against other teams top players. Always good to see the effort and commitment to develop a more complete game before turning pro. If McAvoy is on that same track that will pay off for all down the road.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Is there a way I can go back and search for 2006 or 2008 draft threads? Or was the data base reset at some point in time?

Why?

So you can say you were right about a couple of kids back then? My recollection was that you were always pretty good with your prospect stuff, but every kid is different. Being right about one, doesn't mean you will be right about another.

Generally speaking, if you understand the game, the more you see a kid, the better your "take" on him will be. That's why I pay attention to what Dom says about OHL prospects and why I put more weight into Fonzy's and Colt's WHL stuff. Nobody's perfect, but the more you see a player, the more familiar you are with their strengths and weaknesses.

That's why I get annoyed when some poster from Quebec or Mass is looking at the stat sheet and telling me some kid from Ottawa is a bust, based simply on the numbers. Will they be right sometimes? Sure, but a broken clock is right twice a day too. It's why teams have area scouts watch these kids multiple times and don't base their draft on numbers a kid put up in Bantams.

 

[DominicT]

Why?

So you can say you were right about a couple of kids back then? My recollection was that you were always pretty good with your prospect stuff, but every kid is different. Being right about one, doesn't mean you will be right about another.

Generally speaking, if you understand the game, the more you see a kid, the better your "take" on him will be. That's why I pay attention to what Dom says about OHL prospects and why I put more weight into Fonzy's and Colt's WHL stuff. Nobody's perfect, but the more you see a player, the more familiar you are with their strengths and weaknesses.

That's why I get annoyed when some poster from Quebec or Mass is looking at the stat sheet and telling me some kid from Ottawa is a bust, based simply on the numbers. Will they be right sometimes? Sure, but a broken clock is right twice a day too. It's why teams have area scouts watch these kids multiple times and don't base their draft on numbers a kid put up in Bantams.

Thanks Joe, appreciate it.

You more than anyone has asked me about players. And even though my answer is always the same with guys outside the OHL, you continue to ask me about them.

And that answer is always: I don't know. Haven't seen them enough.

But keep on asking because I know you never get sick of hearing it

 

[pierre gagnon*]

Just read this post from JCRO, checked it out and he is right
Celharik leads ahl rookies with 13 goals on the season.
Thats a good pick so far and way off the board, hope he gets a shot soon

 

[Fonzerelli]

It's frustrating reading this thread because it's 100% about stats with some

It should never be 100% about stats. In fact, not about stats at all, but the proper analytics those stats reveal are a huge part of the equation. Even a dinosaur like Brian Burke concedes you ignore them at your own peril. The bigger danger than those who seek to drill down on the metrics is those who wish to ignore them. The proper balance, as all 31 teams have discovered to varying degrees, is that both analytics and eyeballs are required for effective scouting. To ignore one is to scout poorly. The analytics allow us to cast a wider, yet more accurate net and our boots on the ground allow us to add context to the numbers.

 

[Fonzerelli]

That's why I pay attention to what Dom says about OHL prospects and why I put more weight into Fonzy's and Colt's WHL stuff. Nobody's perfect, but the more you see a player, the more familiar you are with their strengths and weaknesses.

Appreciate that Joe. It's also being familiar with the league, the coaching tendancies, the players they are playing against, back stories, even some officiating trends. That's why I try not to comment on players outside the WHL except on a purely analytical level and when I do, try and frame it as such. I'm not generally comfortable speaking about on players I don't have a lot of personal viewings on. Certainly wouldn't speak negatively on a player I haven't seen play quite a bit.

 

[Mount Kramer Cameras]

Any one else find the lack of goal scoring by McAvoy - at any level so far - a bit disconcerting?

Expected his totals to tick up some given a new year of development, maturity, ice time.

But no. Basically on same glacial pace he always has. Which is fine, just wonder how that may translate at highest level for someone being tabbed by few as future top D pairing, if it does not change.

I wouldn't be concerned at all - Shattenkirk had 18 goals in 121 NCAA games, Suter 3 in 39. Top pairing guys can be assist-oriented in their formative years. Even Doughty only scored 13 in 58 in his draft year.

 

[CDJ]

Debust the dud just scored a nice goal according to Divver

 

[Mount Kramer Cameras]

Congrats Charlie

 

[SPLBRUIN]

Zack Senyshyn with a goal today.

 

[DoubleAAAA]

I'm far from an authority but I do dabble in analytics and have for many years. So I'll speak from that viewpoint, just from my own experience as an analytic hobbyist

When making NHLe's for predictive purposes, there is not an agreement on one right way. From the work I've done with them, the single most predictive metric for forecasting offensive forwards is NON POWER PLAY GOALS PER 60. Gabriel Desjardin originally put forth NON POWER PLAY GOALS PER GAME, which is good too, but if you can break it to per 60 minutes it's even more accurate. I like to pull out the empty netters as well.

The fact is goals are goals. There is a variety of ways to score them and while they are often individually a product of luck, over time they become predictive with players who consistently produce and who consistently improve. As long as games are won and lost by the team who has the most goals, then players who can produce goals will be in big demand. Since past results are the best predictor of future results, players who's body of work includes consistent high end production of goals over time are valuable assets and identifying those players is a high priority on any team.

Assists have more variables. Often times 2nd assists are total phantoms. especially in junior games where teams assist totals at home are typically higher than on the road and some barns are more notoriously for gifting phantoms than others. Then there are the meaningless touches that get awarded as assists. A center loses a draw, but it's retrieved and sent back to the point where the d-man shoots and scores. Centerman gets second assist and he may have never touched the puck. Other assists aren't even meant to be assists. A harmless chip off the glass finds a friendly stick in the neutral zone who dangles a defender, nascars the net and finds a high guy in the slot, but the chip off the glass gets an assist.

There's been phantom goals as well, but few and far between. Even the back door tap ins seem like gifts, but the goal scorer still has to read the play, get to the right spot, maybe shake a defender, have his stick on the ice and be ready for the pass. There's skills there and intent that a lost faceoff or chip off the glass for example, just don't have.

Forwards who score goals translate their entire point totals, not just the goals. Many forwards who are goal heavy have closer to a 1:1 goal assist ratio. Elite players have the heavy goal totals and still maintain a 1:2 goals to assist ratio. Like McDavid, Tavares, Kane etc.

And the numbers bear out the theory. Forwards who don't score goals at the high end, but who's points are lopsided in assists rarely translate to the NHL game. When you see forwards with assist ratios of 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1 for example. That's all fluff. It rarely translates to the pro game. You look at the best playmakers in the history of the game - guys like Adam Oates and Wayne Gretzky. Oates assist to goal ratio was 2:1 as an amatuer and Gretzky was even less than that (roughly 1.6:1). They were great playmakers, but at the amateur level they also scored goals with the best of them.

Matt Barzal in his draft year had 12 goals and was almost 4:1 assist to goal ratio, and he's more than 8:1 this season. For his career he's over 3:1 with 55 goals and 163 assists and only 38 of those goals came at even strength - and this is a kid who plays near 30 minutes a game. Think about that - 38 goals in 174 games and people complain that we passed on him. People like to compare him to Nugent-Hopkins, but RNH could score. He had slightly over a 2:1 ratio with 57 goals and 120 assists, so he's right there on the edge of 2:1. And RNH scored those 57 goals all before he turned 18, where Barzal had 26 during the same time frame, and only 19 of those were non-power play. So I don't believe that his game will translate. It might translate to an international amateur tournament on the big ice, but I don't believe he will be wheeling and dealing on an NHL ice surface against NHL players like he does against 18 year olds in Seattle. He might I guess, but I don't think he will based on both my own viewings of him (over 100 games since bantam) and the analytic work that I've been doing for the past 6 years.

You never want to say a kid can't do something. It could be Barzal is a unique one-of-a-kind trailblazer that will make his own path and be the first WHL forward ever to carry an assist to goal ratio of greater than 2:1 to the NHL and have it translate. The only other guy I who had notably more than a 2:1 assist to goal ratio and played in the NHL from the WHL was Andrew Schneider, who had 108 goals and 258 assists. He played 10 pointless games in the NHL with Ottawa before heading overseas. He played in the World Juniors though. He did have an international game they figured. Anyways, I hope Barzal does it. He'll be a first and that would be exciting, but I don't think it will happen based on above.

That's what's special about McDavid. Like Oates and Gretzky, Crosby and Tavares, he does have that healthy assist ratio (1.5-2 range) but his goal scoring is also elite. Whereas Laine has the goals but he doesn't have the playmaking in his pocket like those guys did (the assists).

Laine vs McDavid is quite similar to Ovechkin vs Crosby. Laine and Ovechkin are better goal scorers (and could be predicted as such), but McDavid and Crosby are balanced elite players and better point producers (which also could easily be predicted as such).

Zac Senyshyn is a goal scorer. He's not Ovechkin or Laine but he's in that mold of high goals and low assists. He's not projected at their elite level but he could certainly turn out to be a high end producer. Certainly one of the best availabl this century at the draft position we got him at.

This was a great, informative post. I'm a Senyshyn skeptic but this was a well constructed argument

 

[twominute]

It should never be 100% about stats. In fact, not about stats at all, but the proper analytics those stats reveal are a huge part of the equation. Even a dinosaur like Brian Burke concedes you ignore them at your own peril. The bigger danger than those who seek to drill down on the metrics is those who wish to ignore them. The proper balance, as all 31 teams have discovered to varying degrees, is that both analytics and eyeballs are required for effective scouting. To ignore one is to scout poorly. The analytics allow us to cast a wider, yet more accurate net and our boots on the ground allow us to add context to the numbers.

Excellent post. Thanks for this and your updates on players.