CBJ Board Summer '15 Prospect Rankings: #9
- Thread starter Samkow
- Start date
cydawg
#DefendNWA
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
Doggy
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2011
- 3,702
- 2,812
Serious question guys...what makes one player a better prospect than another...in other words: what's the criteria you use? I am having this dilemma...
Example is TJ Tynan vs Josh Anderson.
TJ Tynan is a skill guy...a top six player who I suspect would struggle as a bottom six guy. However...I also think his chances of making it to the NHL as a top six forward are less than 50-50...IMO that means he's not a great prospect.
Josh Anderson doesn't necessarily have the skill and vision of a TJ Tynan but he is a big physical player that will punish opponents on the forecheck and make a real nuisance of himself while chipping in a little offense. His probably ideal on a third line but based on everything I have heard he won't be in the minors for long. IMO that makes him a great prospect.
So when you guys vote...is it simply based on who is the better skill guy or the guy who is more likely to make it to the NHL playing the role he is best suited for?
Example is TJ Tynan vs Josh Anderson.
TJ Tynan is a skill guy...a top six player who I suspect would struggle as a bottom six guy. However...I also think his chances of making it to the NHL as a top six forward are less than 50-50...IMO that means he's not a great prospect.
Josh Anderson doesn't necessarily have the skill and vision of a TJ Tynan but he is a big physical player that will punish opponents on the forecheck and make a real nuisance of himself while chipping in a little offense. His probably ideal on a third line but based on everything I have heard he won't be in the minors for long. IMO that makes him a great prospect.
So when you guys vote...is it simply based on who is the better skill guy or the guy who is more likely to make it to the NHL playing the role he is best suited for?
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
I think the beauty and the ugliness of this poll is that all users use different criteria. It's interesting to see where the 'group' sticks certain prospects.
For me, I try to guess how I'd rank these players 5-7 years from now in terms of their NHL career. I balance between what their ceiling is and what their floor is (i.e. how likely are they to make the NHL) and make some sort of non-scientific weighing of those two options.
When you look back, guys like Boll, Dorsett, Clitsome were never going to project to have high ceilings, but they have had better NHL careers that most of the names on the lists when they were eligible. They found their role and carved a career out of that role. Guys like Filatov, Picard, Straka clearly had higher ceilings but completely flamed out.
I'm pretty sure Anderson is going to have some sort of NHL career, likely bottom 6, and I can't see Tynan getting more than a cup of coffee in the NHL. I have Anderson higher than Tynan but others may see it differently.
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,701
- 26,750
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,446
I try to pick the guy who has imo the highest upside to impact the team. That's why in this round (and last) I voted Bittner. At his peak potential I think he can be a top 6 W who puts up 50 pts a year.
TheOllieC
cajun filet
LetsGOJackets!!
Registered User
Xoggz22
Registered User
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Honestly, I use something like the same two-part approach HF themselves does - max upside tempered by potential of making it that far. That and I try to make a guess as to most likely outcome, but historically I've been g-dawful at that.
Oh, and Karlsson, add Stenlund. Seriously, Stenlund had better make it on because he's next on my list and if I can't vote for my guy I'ma be pissed.
(Assuming Karlsson wins this one, anyways - looks like Bittner's in the lead.)Bittner; add Stenlund.
The criteria I generally use involves imagining several possible outcomes, starting with the 100th percentile projection, where absolutely everything breaks right, and working down to the 1st percentile, where everything goes wrong. I usually don't bother with anything below about the 40th percentile, since below that point you're almost never talking about an NHL future. Then, I usually narrow it down to the 50th to 70th percentile, because those are by definition more likely than 71-100.
I don't know if this makes any sense in the abstract, so let's use Josh Anderson as an example to illustrate the system:
100th percentile - scoring touch develops and he becomes a top-6 power forward, an absolute terror to play against because of his physicality and goal-scoring.
80th percentile - middle-6 forward, not a lot of scoring ability but gets the dirty goals, strength and speed allow him to be effective on the forecheck
60th percentile - bottom-6 forward, occasional goals but mostly relied upon as a checking forward who does the dirty work.
40th percentile - 4th-line forward/healthy scratch
20th percentile - AHL fodder
In comparison, Tynan's 100th percentile outcome is maybe a little more valuable, but once you drop to his 60th-percentile outcome, things might start looking better for Anderson.
I still don't know if this makes any sense to anyone, but it does in my head, and that's what really matters to me, I guess.
The criteria I generally use involves imagining several possible outcomes, starting with the 100th percentile projection, where absolutely everything breaks right, and working down to the 1st percentile, where everything goes wrong. I usually don't bother with anything below about the 40th percentile, since below that point you're almost never talking about an NHL future. Then, I usually narrow it down to the 50th to 70th percentile, because those are by definition more likely than 71-100.
I don't know if this makes any sense in the abstract, so let's use Josh Anderson as an example to illustrate the system:
100th percentile - scoring touch develops and he becomes a top-6 power forward, an absolute terror to play against because of his physicality and goal-scoring.
80th percentile - middle-6 forward, not a lot of scoring ability but gets the dirty goals, strength and speed allow him to be effective on the forecheck
60th percentile - bottom-6 forward, occasional goals but mostly relied upon as a checking forward who does the dirty work.
40th percentile - 4th-line forward/healthy scratch
20th percentile - AHL fodder
In comparison, Tynan's 100th percentile outcome is maybe a little more valuable, but once you drop to his 60th-percentile outcome, things might start looking better for Anderson.
I still don't know if this makes any sense to anyone, but it does in my head, and that's what really matters to me, I guess.
