VoidCreature
Before you see the light, you must die.
I don't think Slafkovsky has a chance to be as good as Jagr in his prime, but I could see him being similar to the Jaromir Jagr we had on the team in 2013-14.
Prospect Info: Devils Win #2 Overall -- Slafkovsky vs. Jiricek vs. Nemec
- Thread starter StevenToddIves
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Better Call Sal
Salnalysis
Oh absolutely.
But in all seriousness, you really believe that COOLEY is the BPA over Slaf? I mean...Seriously?
Yes. Quite clearly as well.
Unknown Caller
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 10,409
- 8,241
I don't think it's clear cut. Cooley's production certainly projects a little better, but Slafkovsky had limited minutes and a limited role that impacted the production. He thrived when given a larger role. Definitely too close to call one way or the other.
- Dec 20, 2018
- 23,308
- 53,111
Montreal has major center problem and I don’t see them not try to solve it with this top pick. They have a bunch of pure wingers, leaving the team with Suzuki and lol? as the top centers is rough.
Plus the very top of the next draft has super star fire power in tiny packages. A two-way center is not bad base. So I see Wright over Slafkovsky. Or even Cooley. Or RD. I just don’t see them going winger. Who knows, maybe they’re super high on him and less so with anyone else.
Um, I call it "actually watching hockey players play hockey". It's a good way to at least begin to assess a player. Clearly, you did not watch the Olympics or Slafkovsky in the Finland Jr. league or the Liiga playoffs.
Slafkovsky is an even better playmaker and puck-handler than Cooley -- who is also elite in both respects. Cooley is clearly much faster. Cooley is better in space, but Slafkovsky is better in tight and on the interior. Cooley is better in transition, but Slafkovsky is better on the cycle. Overall, I'd have to say it's quite close between these two players, neither of whom are realistically conceivable as a "bust". A lot would have to go wrong in either case.
I'd say if you want to pump Cooley, that's great! He's a terrific young talent. But inventing a false narrative about Slafkovsky is probably not the most effective method of going about this.
- Dec 20, 2018
- 23,308
- 53,111
Yes, the guy with the PNHLe model likes the guy who scored more now vs. the dude who missed major time with a knee injury.
It’s not that useful for defensemen at this range. Luke Hughes didn’t look that good until this year with his system and it always go bonkers for random defensemen too.
Honestly, I don't see how we can make the "Cooley is quite clearly superior to Slafkovsky argument".
As the "draft guy" around here, I have Slafkovsky ranked higher than Cooley, and I've stated multiple times it's pretty close. Between Slafkovsky and Cooley, I have Jiricek and Nemec, and I'd say I'd accept any shuffling of these 4 players as reasonable. But you don't have to take my word for it, of course.
The most accurate rankings are universally considered to be the McKenzie NHL scout poll. His most recent one -- which came out yesterday -- has a 1 thru 4 of Wright, Slafkovsky, Cooley, Nemec.
From a scouting perspective, I'd say we're looking at two terrific players. My reasoning for preferring Slafkovsky is simple -- Cooley's foremost strength is an elite combination of skating, playmaking and puckhandling. But Slafkovsky grades even higher for me with an even more elite combination of playmaking and puckhandling. Though he is not even close to the skater which Cooley obviously is, Slafkovsky makes up for this with a dominant power/interior/net-front game enabled by a massive 6'4-220 frame and high-end compete level. Both players have elite hockey IQ.
So, while we can say "I like this guy better because..." or "I like that guy better because..." -- I don't think there's a reasonable justification to say one is quite clearly superior to the other. I think we can make that argument in a Cooley v. Geekie debate, or in a Slafkovsky v. Lekkerimaki debate, but not in a Cooley v. Slafkovsky debate -- it's too close.
When a poll of multiple NHL head scouts agrees with my assessment of Slafkovsky at #2, everyone is still free to have the conviction that we're all wrong. But to say it's not close is a bit dicey.
- Jan 24, 2007
- 7,680
- 8,392
I think he and his model were high on Zellweger which looks like a slam dunk pick right now FWIW.
Can we create some device for the HFBoards which blocks any Byron Bader cards from being used as an argument for anything?
Asking Byron Bader to assess hockey prospects is like asking a clown fish to assess mountain climbing. The guy wouldn't know David Jiricek from Matt Savoie if he were standing in an elevator with the two of them.
He also had Zellweger 10 spots over McTavish and 18 spots over Edvinsson, which looks ridiculous right now.
FooteBahl
Took a big shitz for Nemec
Zellweger was hot in Jerry MacGuire, then took a 40 yard dash in a 30 yard room.
There was an article done a while back that compared the Canucks drafting to instead having just taken the highest available PPG CHLer and the CHLer list blew away what the Canucks picked. I want to see someone do that on a league wide scale using NHLe
Not just no, but hell no. The Devils have needs pretty much everywhere except LD.
- Jan 24, 2007
- 7,680
- 8,392
Whats with the hostility? I think it's a very common question to have for prospect evaluation: what was their production so far and how do I compare that production across leagues? Even if his model is imperfect (all models are) it's a useful signal imo, as it was for Zellweger which it looks like many teams missed.
You can say it's fruitless if the guy played in a limited role or whatnot and add context but at the scale of evaluating 100+ 18 year olds, I'd certainly not throw it out, and if I were forced to decide between Nemec/Jiricek I don't think I'd just totally ignore point production in my calculation.
ZachaFlockaFlame
Registered User
- Aug 24, 2020
- 17,334
- 23,379
One thing I will say with having 2nd overall, it's gotta be BPA on NJ's board + scouting. I don't want them taking Slaf because the need for winger like him is huge but the fact they think he's the second best overall prospect in this draft. Guys like Cooley, Nemec, Jiricek all have good cases for it as well.
- Dec 20, 2018
- 23,308
- 53,111
Because he scores a ton of points in juniors, it’s not mystery. Zellweger size dropped him to #34.
It’s a PNHLe model, they have some limited usefulness. I wouldn’t make a final call at #2 based on it, rather that how the player generates offense and how that projects to the NHL.
Also, defensemen aren’t just power play quarterbacks and that system f***ing loves PPQ (not that Nemec is that, he’s a stud).
People can like Nemec more. People can (and should) use statistics to evaluate prospects but PNHLe isn’t the best, and certainly not the only statistics available.
I like using them to evaluate overall drafts & prospect pools because you do want a rough sense of the potential offensive production you can get there. We haven’t done a great job there in Fitz drafts and other teams, for example Dallas, clearly have.
Stephen Gionta
Boston College > Boston University
I would be completely cool with the Devils taking any of the top 4 guys. But if I had to put them in order, this is it:
1. Slafkovsky/Jiricek
2. Cooley
4. Nemec
1. Slafkovsky/Jiricek
2. Cooley
4. Nemec
I would say if you're into this type of evaluation, then check out Will Scouching, who relies on heavily statistical models but also actually watches and can scout hockey.
But Bader's model is based on "you don't have to watch a single game in order to evaluate the prospects", which is simply absurd. No one needs his model to evaluate players, because they can just look at the statistics on eliteprospects.com. Combined with his ludicrous "star probability" and constantly begging for an NHL job in his Twitter feed despite minuscule hockey knowledge -- well, the guy just bugs me. I think he makes a mockery out of what many people work hard doing, simply printing up useless charts and then Tweeting them out as some sort of gospel. He's a snake oil salesman.
Apologies for the vitriol, but I was trying to answer your question of "what's with the hostility?"
Recently, Bader was disputing Cam Robinson on a comparison between two 2022-eligible defensemen. This led to a Twitter debate which was absurd -- Cam Robinson is one of the best in the business, not only considering statistical models, but also watching countless hours of prospects playing hockey, and writing about it brilliantly.
Yet on Twitter, people would side with Bader as if his opinion was equally valid. I couldn't believe it. It was like having an argument on quantum physics and saying: "yeah sure, you can believe this Einstein guy all you want, but I think this illiterate 4 year old's opinion is equally valid!"
Sorry, more vitriol.
glenwo2
JESPER BRATWURST
This argument makes sense if one player is head and shoulders above the rest, but not if it's especially close.
I'll give you a silly little hypothetical. Lets say my team has 3 top prospects at LD and 0 top prospects at RD. It's now draft day. And let's just say my team gives numerical rankings to prospects, just to make my silly little hypothetical even easier. My team is set to pick and these are my top ranked players:
1 LD with a 7.8 ranking
2 RD with a 7.7 rankings
3 LD with a 7.6 ranking
Well, I don't think I'm going to be struggling to figure out which of the 3 is best, because it's just so damned close. I'm going to take the RD and run.
I do agree with the BPA argument in this scenario:
1 LD with 7.8 ranking
2 RD with 6.8 ranking
...because I agree with the idea that I'd be kind of dumb to take a player when I'm convinced there's another player who is convincingly superior still on the board.
As such, I will say there is no way you can convince me that it's not at least close between not only Slafkovsky, Jiricek, Nemec and Cooley but also Wright and Nazar. That being said, Wright will be gone and Cooley and Nazar don't fit needs the way Slafkovsky, Jiricek and Nemec do. Therefore, my choice at #2 would be limited to those 3 players.
Stephen Gionta
Boston College > Boston University
@StevenToddIves I mean this in the most non-attacking way possible, but what did Byron Bader ever do to you that you hate him so much haha.
I've read about 5-6 long paragraphs from you in the past 2 days alone just sh*tting on him lol
I've read about 5-6 long paragraphs from you in the past 2 days alone just sh*tting on him lol
AfroThunder396
[citation needed]
It's not a matter of BPA vs Need, I hate this false dichotomy. Every draft board is unique and the criteria for ranking those players will vary depending on what the organizations likes.
If a team really values speed or size or passing or any other specific attribute, then that is going to be reflected on their board. I think this is most obvious when looking at later round picks when you're going to see a lot more variation with draft boards.
Under Shero the later (after the 2nd) round picks were guys like Bratt, Gritsyuk, Gignac, Anderson, Walsh, Zetterlund, Studenic - clearly an emphasis on speed over size. Even the guys that didn't have super great speed (Moynihan, Talvitie, McCarthy) had pretty high floors because of their intangibles + "good enough" talent. Whereas looking at Fitz's later round picks it's guys like Pytlik, Salminen, Hurtig, and while he's not ignoring raw offensive talent he's clearly emphasizing size, versatility, and tenacity over production.
Fitz seems to like more traits-y/tools-y project guys, whereas Shero split between guys with safe floors and guys that were being overlooked due to their lack of size.
Point is that "Best Player Available" is purely subjective and that team needs and priorities are already going to baked into those lists. So arguing for one or the other doesn't really make sense.
If a team really values speed or size or passing or any other specific attribute, then that is going to be reflected on their board. I think this is most obvious when looking at later round picks when you're going to see a lot more variation with draft boards.
Under Shero the later (after the 2nd) round picks were guys like Bratt, Gritsyuk, Gignac, Anderson, Walsh, Zetterlund, Studenic - clearly an emphasis on speed over size. Even the guys that didn't have super great speed (Moynihan, Talvitie, McCarthy) had pretty high floors because of their intangibles + "good enough" talent. Whereas looking at Fitz's later round picks it's guys like Pytlik, Salminen, Hurtig, and while he's not ignoring raw offensive talent he's clearly emphasizing size, versatility, and tenacity over production.
Fitz seems to like more traits-y/tools-y project guys, whereas Shero split between guys with safe floors and guys that were being overlooked due to their lack of size.
Point is that "Best Player Available" is purely subjective and that team needs and priorities are already going to baked into those lists. So arguing for one or the other doesn't really make sense.
FooteBahl
Took a big shitz for Nemec
I'll guess those models were really high on Ty Smith as well. Doesn't mean they are always wrong but I'm sure you can find instances where the results don't translate to the NHL easily.
I mean it was there for Ty last year then this year he fell off a cliff. He could still go either way.
- Status
