F James Hagens - Boston College, NCAA (2025 Draft) Part 2

[4thline]

04 had Cooley, 05 had Smith/Leonard, 06 has Hagens.
Their development tracks are near identical, with a few plus and minuses and contextual arguments here and there for the different guys. 2 of those players were Day 1 (or next to it) top-6 players as U20 NHL rookies. One of them immediately took the step to be a legitimate top line guy in his U21 sophomore season. The 3rd is arguably the best drafted prospect in hockey. The 4th is not the american answer to Bedard and Celebrini has some hoped/convinced themselves, but he's damn good prospect, and I think it's pretty hard to argue against him having top line upside. Is that enough to go number 1 in this draft? Maybe, I don't know. But if my team were drafting anywhere in the top 5 and got him I'd be super happy.

And no, comparing him to Cooley and Smith at their appropriate ages is not dishonest. They all entered USNDP for their U17 year, played their 2nd USNDP season at U18, played their freshman NCAA season at U19. He's an 06 that has played with the 06 cohort since before puberty- he doesn't magically become a year younger just because of a legal technicality that forced him to wait a year to be drafted.

 

[Mathieukferland]

The player you mentioned is older by a full development season

That’s not true, they’re both 06s. Minor and Junior hockey in North America works in accordance to birth years, not the September cutoff date set by the NHL for insurance reasons.

 

[newmanager]

You’re comparing apples to oranges. Hagens’ cohort is first-year eligibles in the NCAA. The player you mentioned is older by a full development season and already under NHL dev staff mentorship.

According to CHN, BC has the second toughest strength of schedule in the nation. It was No. 1 for most of the season until recently. That’s out of 60+ programs.

Both 2006 birthyears. Both freshmen. Both forwards. Both played in the same age groups growing up. They're more alike than different as far as development has gone.

From a few years ago and up until now we've always compared McKenna and Misa up in Canada cause they always played with and against each other and are in the same age group. Misa getting drafted one year earlier doesn't change their performance in any way shape or form. Nor does Hage getting drafted earlier than Hagens.

I wouldn't trust anything those NCAA Colleges put out. I was told BC has the hardest schedule and now when I check it's just no so.

And take a look at this gem. It's an NCAA College page. 5 feet 12 inches. Good grief. I've seen a lot of other mistakes on the NCAA pages but this one I like. Makes me wonder how many more mistakes are made on that schedule strength list of theirs.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

That’s not true, they’re both 06s. Minor and Junior hockey in North America works in accordance to birth years, not the September cutoff date set by the NHL for insurance reasons.

04 had Cooley, 05 had Smith/Leonard, 06 has Hagens.
Their development tracks are near identical, with a few plus and minuses and contextual arguments here and there for the different guys. 2 of those players were Day 1 (or next to it) top-6 players as U20 NHL rookies. One of them immediately took the step to be a legitimate top line guy in his U21 sophomore season. The 3rd is arguably the best drafted prospect in hockey. The 4th is not the american answer to Bedard and Celebrini has some hoped/convinced themselves, but he's damn good prospect, and I think it's pretty hard to argue against him having top line upside. Is that enough to go number 1 in this draft? Maybe, I don't know. But if my team were drafting anywhere in the top 5 and got him I'd be super happy.

And no, comparing him to Cooley and Smith at their appropriate ages is not dishonest. They all entered USNDP for their U17 year, played their 2nd USNDP season at U18, played their freshman NCAA season at U19. He's an 06 that has played with the 06 cohort since before puberty- he doesn't magically become a year younger just because of a legal technicality that forced him to wait a year to be drafted.

Post-draft development is different from pre-draft development. Hage officially became property of an NHL team eight months ago, or, the length of a full season. That means he's been partnered with NHL mentors, trainers, etc. Hage, Smith, Leonard, Perreault, Cooley, Keller, et. al, all had this benefit and most participated in an NHL development or prospects camp, which any prospect will tell you is a huge deal and beneficial to their development. Hagens has yet to receive this privilege.

Comparing pre-draft to post-draft players is peak ignorance, even if the difference is only a few months. Your draft year is your draft year, end of story.

 

[4thline]

Post-draft development is different from pre-draft development. Hage officially became property of an NHL team eight months ago, or, the length of a full season. That means he's been partnered with NHL mentors, trainers, etc. Hage, Smith, Leonard, Perreault, Cooley, Keller, et. al, all had this benefit and most participated in an NHL development or prospects camp, which any prospect will tell you is a huge deal and beneficial to their development. Hagens has yet to receive this privilege.

That would be one of those "contextual arguments" I mentioned. It's relevant, but it doesn't change reality.

Do you believe that Hagens two years at USNDP should be evaluated as if he was an underager playing both of those seasons a year ahead of schedule (despite the fact he entered the program at the same time as his birthyear cohort, with whom he had already been playing for years)? Or did he just magically become younger for this season?

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Both 2006 birthyears. Both freshmen. Both forwards. Both played in the same age groups growing up. They're more alike than different as far as development has gone.

From a few years ago and up until now we've always compared McKenna and Misa up in Canada cause they always played with and against each other and are in the same age group. Misa getting drafted one year earlier doesn't change their performance in any way shape or form. Nor does Hage getting drafted earlier than Hagens.

I wouldn't trust anything those NCAA Colleges put out. I was told BC has the hardest schedule and now when I check it's just no so.

And take a look at this gem. It's an NCAA College page. 5 feet 12 inches. Good grief. I've seen a lot of other mistakes on the NCAA pages but this one I like. Makes me wonder how many more mistakes are made on that schedule strength list of theirs.

View attachment 985764

BC (.552) and Michigan (.553) are essentially tied for the highest SoS in the NCAA, which uses USCHO's rankings, which uses RPI, which uses SoS. A huuuuge part of any RPI is strength of schedule.

Here is the official link:

Men's Division I RPI | Ratings Percentage Index | Rankings - College Hockey | USCHO.com

Rankings College Hockey Rankings, USCHO Poll, USA Today Poll, PairEWise rankings, PWR, PairWise Comaparison, RPI, Ratings Percentage Index

www.uscho.com

Question -- Did you just begin following college sports? I know they're not big at all in Canada, so maybe that explains it. Well, here in the U.S., SoS and RPI are quite relevant come bowl season, March Madness, and Frozen Four time, among other NCAA championship tournaments.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

That would be one of those "contextual arguments" I mentioned. It's relevant, but it doesn't change reality.

Do you believe that Hagens two years at USNDP should be evaluated as if he was an underager playing both of those seasons a year ahead of schedule (despite the fact he entered the program at the same time as his birthyear cohort, with whom he had already been playing for years)? Or did he just magically become younger for this season?

Your draft season is your draft season-- Period. Hagens was never draft-eligible at the NTDP. Birth years are only relevant for overagers who already ran the gauntlet once before and had to be coached/trained on how to improve their chances for the second or third look.

It really is a silly argument to think a prospect's head space is the same between the draft-1, draft year, and draft+1, let alone the way he's being developed and by whom.

 

[4thline]

Your draft season is your draft season-- Period.

Repeating something doesn't make it true.
That you didn't want to answer the question is answer enough.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Repeating something doesn't make it true.
That you didn't want to answer the question is answer enough.

So a draft-1 is the same as a draft season. Brilliant stuff.

 

[4thline]

So a draft-1 is the same as a draft season. Brilliant stuff.

Not the same, but more apt for comparison than a U19 to a U18. Is James Hagens eligible to play in the U18's this year? was he eligible to play in the U17's last year? How many years of U20 eligibility does he have left?

There's a reason a late birthdays play in the U18's their D-1. That a disproportionate number of them make the WJC's in their draft season and Are NHL ready in their D+1. It's because they're drafted a developmental year later, not because they're playing ahead of the curve*.

*There's few exceptions (Knies and Middlestadt come to mind) that legitimately develop with their September cutoff school year cohorts, and certain late bloomers that just plain shred the curve (Makar, Petterson)

 

[Mathieukferland]

most participated in an NHL development or prospects camp, which any prospect will tell you is a huge deal and beneficial to their development.

A development camp is a 3/4 day training camp where more than half the guys will never play in the NHL, many guys I played with have been to them (both as draftees and invitees) and they have next to no impact on the course of a player’s career. It’s a baseline recording of where a player is at physically, mentally etc, and a chance for management and the development staff to get familiar with their draftees.

And I can tell you that the "NHL mentor process" involves a monthly or bi monthly meeting with a person from the organization, usually someone in player development. And it’s usually a checkup rather than any sort of instruction that would supersede anything that that player’s current coaching staff is telling him. All that to say, two 06s; one drafted and one not, the undrafted one has essentially no difference in development disadvantage than the drafted one just because of a 4 day camp and some monthly meetings with player development staff.

 

[Wieters]

I wouldn't trust anything those NCAA Colleges put out. I was told BC has the hardest schedule and now when I check it's just no so.

And take a look at this gem. It's an NCAA College page. 5 feet 12 inches. Good grief. I've seen a lot of other mistakes on the NCAA pages but this one I like. Makes me wonder how many more mistakes are made on that schedule strength list of theirs.

Has it occurred to you that strength of schedule changes over the course of the season? When BC played St. Cloud State and Dartmouth, for instance, they were both ranked teams. And the earlier references posters made to BC’s historically difficult strength of schedule were made before they played teams like New Hampshire and Vermont, which had since dragged down the strength of schedule. But sure, it’s definitely some conspiracy theory about NCAA programs spreading disinformation and totally not you misunderstanding statistics.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Not the same, but more apt for comparison than a U19 to a U18. Is James Hagens eligible to play in the U18's this year? was he eligible to play in the U17's last year? How many years of U20 eligibility does he have left?

There's a reason a late birthdays play in the U18's their D-1. That a disproportionate number of them make the WJC's in their draft season and Are NHL ready in their D+1. It's because they're drafted a developmental year later, not because they're playing ahead of the curve*.

*There's few exceptions (Knies and Middlestadt come to mind) that legitimately develop with their September cutoff school year cohorts, and certain late bloomers that just plain shred the curve (Makar, Petterson)

There is no comparison except for the fact that they're all skating on ice while holding a stick.

A player's first look is by far -- BY FAR -- more stressful and pressure-packed both on and off the ice. A draft+1 is a cake-walk in comparison and the players admit that themselves. Draft-1 is smooth sailing and the leash is incredibly long.

But what you're claiming as "reality" is the equivalent of saying the Pre-SAT/ACT months of your junior year in high school are identical to the last three you'll spend as a senior, with college acceptance already booked. Sounds silly, doesn't it? And draft-1 is sophomore year, which is almost like the end of senior year in the sense that you can coast and still get away with it. I get that draft+1 types in the NCAA are still playing for a contract, but they know it's almost guaranteed, more so than how high they want to get drafted.

The comparisons for Hagens are not draft+1 prospects who own an NHL affiliation. It's limited to top-of-the-scale NCAA forwards in their first year of draft eligibility -- 2024 Celebrini and 2023 Fantilli and 2021 Johnson/Beniers and 2018 Tkachuk and 2015 Eichel and 2006 Toews & Kessel and 2003 Vanek and 2000 Heatley and 1993 Kariya.

Again, for the umpteenth time, it is a silly argument to think a draft year and draft+1 are the same simply because of a birth year.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Not the same, but more apt for comparison than a U19 to a U18. Is James Hagens eligible to play in the U18's this year? was he eligible to play in the U17's last year? How many years of U20 eligibility does he have left?

Not sure why you think that age cutoff is more relevant for draft prospects than NHL and NHL Draft Eligibility when the discussion pertains to players that are obviously hoping to play in the NHL. The late birthday skeptics get proven wrong time and time again, but keep insisting it's super relevant that they're a "full year" ahead.

NHL teams care about (a) how good you are and (b) how good they think you can be in about five years based on developmental curve. The history to that point is largely noise. By age 17 going on 18 season, "relative age effect" has likely run its course. If two kids had identical paths and are exactly 364 days apart, then sure make of it what you will.. Otherwise it's just a thing people harp on too much in the absence of any critical discussion.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

A development camp is a 3/4 day training camp where more than half the guys will never play in the NHL, many guys I played with have been to them (both as draftees and invitees) and they have next to no impact on the course of a player’s career. It’s a baseline recording of where a player is at physically, mentally etc, and a chance for management and the development staff to get familiar with their draftees.

And I can tell you that the "NHL mentor process" involves a monthly or bi monthly meeting with a person from the organization, usually someone in player development. And it’s usually a checkup rather than any sort of instruction that would supersede anything that that player’s current coaching staff is telling him. All that to say, two 06s; one drafted and one not, the undrafted one has essentially no difference in development disadvantage than the drafted one just because of a 4 day camp and some monthly meetings with player development staff.

Who's talking about a career? We're talking the 12 months before drafted and the 12 months immediately after. Night and day. Go watch the post-camp interviews online. The prospects clearly think it's beneficial, so what you're saying is they're lying because guys you allegedly played with said it was no big deal.

NHL player dev., video, analytics, and strength/conditioning staffs but a ton of effort into dev camps and no competent Director of Player Development will just hand wave the development of his prospects. Most, if not all, have a direct line to the player, the parents, the agent, the school/team, coaches, etc. Just because the immediate post-draft development cycle is intermittent doesn't mean it's insignificant. It's still part of the development cycle that Hagens has yet to experience.

But again, getting advice from an NHL staff is just part of it. You guys keep overlooking the mental aspect, that includes intense media and scouting scrutiny and the fact that these are teenagers who know their NHL dream has yet to be realized. Some of them crack under this pressure and it impacts their draft stock. Scouts talk about it all the time.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

You have already been told this but

No one is “against” Hagens. That such a childish view. We believe that your logic and reasoning are extremely flawed. We are against your arguments because they don’t hold up. Get better arguments for Hagens and maybe it won’t seem like people are attacking Hagens.

It’s going to be funny when Hagens is drafted by one of your teams (there must be 15-20 who’ve been regularly campaigning against him in this thread to pump up others, so it’s bound to at least be someone), and then these people will quickly walk back their statements.

And absolutely when you display such a constant attempt to unnecessarily level weak criticisms against a top prospect like this it comes from a place of disdain. No one is entering the Martone or Misa or Schaefer thread and every weak is attacking them.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

And no, comparing him to Cooley and Smith at their appropriate ages is not dishonest. They all entered USNDP for their U17 year, played their 2nd USNDP season at U18, played their freshman NCAA season at U19. He's an 06 that has played with the 06 cohort since before puberty- he doesn't magically become a year younger just because of a legal technicality that forced him to wait a year to be drafted.

Except he’s completely outdone those players pretty thoroughly, even with an age disadvantage.

American hockey fans don’t compare the talent of those players to Hagens, but the stat watchers do this season. They didn’t in prior seasons because they had no real argument.

 

[4thline]

NHL teams care about (a) how good you are and (b) how good they think you can be in about five years based on developmental curve. The history to that point is largely noise. By age 17 going on 18 season, "relative age effect" has likely run its course. If two kids had identical paths and are exactly 364 days apart, then sure make of it what you will.. Otherwise it's just a thing people harp on too much in the absence of any critical discussion.

The bolded is exactly right. And that developmental curve and where a given player should be on it is largely defined by YOB.

As I said-
There's a reason that late birthdays play in the U18's their D-1. That a disproportionate number of them make the WJC's in their draft season and Are NHL ready in their D+1. It's because they're drafted a developmental year later, not because they're playing ahead of the curve*.

The only time it really comes into the discussion is when people don't account for the late birthday and try to characterize their performance as happening ahead of the curve.
Accounting for it has Hagens as a Smith/Cooley level prospect, the best American in his age cohort and the class of the field internationally, a contender for 1st overall and no doubt top 5 pick in pretty much any draft. Not accounting for it has him being the best of the field while playing every step underage, a no doubt generational prospect. Which would you say is a better read?

 

[Kingpin794]

It’s going to be funny when Hagens is drafted by one of your teams (there must be 15-20 who’ve been regularly campaigning against him in this thread to pump up others, so it’s bound to at least be someone), and then these people will quickly walk back their statements.

And absolutely when you display such a constant attempt to unnecessarily level weak criticisms against a top prospect like this it comes from a place of disdain. No one is entering the Martone or Misa or Schaefer thread and every weak is attacking them.

What was my next post after the one you just quoted? Like the very next one I made in thread? What did it say?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I wouldn't trust anything those NCAA Colleges put out. I was told BC has the hardest schedule and now when I check it's just no so.

Makes me wonder how many more mistakes are made on that schedule strength list of theirs.

View attachment 985764

So there’s a typo on some hockey website (that is not the NCAA website), and it means they’re rigging the Strength of Schedule to benefit Hagens?

Conspiracy theory alert.

How about you just admit your statement that there are plenty of teams with a harder SOS than BC isn’t true? Michigan has had a harder SOS for maybe a few days. When you brought that up I’m sure you knew that and know SOS is constantly changing and no one was lying or wrong when they said BC had the hardest SOS. If it changes again in a week in BC’s favor, are you gonna admit they’re right? That’s the type of logic you’re using.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It’s a willful choice to compare late birthdays to early birthdays. There are enough of each category to compare that you can separate them out.

It’s picking winners and losers before you even look at the data. Whenever I see someone try to compare Hagens to already drafted dudes, you know it’s an attempt to discredit him and not fairly present the data.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The bolded is exactly right. And that developmental curve and where a given player should be on it is largely defined by YOB.

It's based on a number of factors... YOB only really helps paint the picture of how they came to be wherever they are based on when they played Bantam, Pee-Wee, U15, Junior, College (if applicable). What it tells you about what I fundamentally said "how good you are, how much room you have" is less so.

As I said-
There's a reason that late birthdays play in the U18's their D-1.

Because it's the last year they are eligible to play in it.. because draft year and IIHF U18 use different cutoffs...

That a disproportionate number of them make the WJC's in their draft season

Players aren't drafted by the NHL for the purposes of the WJC. Again, you're just reiterating that two different cutoffs exist but insinuating one is inherently more meaningful. In reality, for purposes of the NHL, the other is more meaningful because the NHL is the one they are being drafted into.

and Are NHL ready in their D+1.

NHL ready for D+1 is more typically tied to draft positioning than to if their birthday happened to fall between mid-September and end of December or prior to mid-September.

It's because they're drafted a developmental year later, not because they're playing ahead of the curve*.

All first time draft eligibles are drafted within the same calendar, just like all the kids that play 15-year old midget hockey are within the same calendar year. The boundaries of that year just differ.

The only time it really comes into the discussion is when people don't account for the late birthday and try to characterize their performance as happening ahead of the curve.

No, the reason it comes into play is because there's an insistence on auto-dinging a player because of when their birthday falls. It happens every single year. People want to find a way to mathematically dock a player from where they are currently compared to other prospects because they're a "year older". This is not what NHL teams do. Maybe some scouts passionately believe that the early birthdays have less runway but at this age in terms of relative age effect and with development timelines still far removed from a player's "prime", I just have never seen any data this actually plays out in real life.

Accounting for it has Hagens as a Smith/Cooley level prospect, the best American in his age cohort and the class of the field internationally, a contender for 1st overall and no doubt top 5 pick in pretty much any draft. Not accounting for it has him being the best of the field while playing every step underage, a no doubt generational prospect. Which would you say is a better read?

What, Hagens analysis doesn't fundamentally change that much either way if you "account" for it or not. He's a PPG center on a number 1 team who was also a top performer for the best team at the world juniors after previously being a record holder at the NTDP level. His pedigree is elite in what you account for anyways but perhaps with current year production that is far short of "generational" which nobody has called him sans your strawman.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

It’s a willful choice to compare late birthdays to early birthdays. There are enough of each category to compare that you can separate them out.

It’s picking winners and losers before you even look at the data. Whenever I see someone try to compare Hagens to already drafted dudes, you know it’s an attempt to discredit him and not fairly present the data.

A little post-draft exercise I like to do (when time permits) is visit the team pages and peruse the pre-draft and post-draft talk of the top draft prospects, just for shits and giggles. Everyone has their favorites and it can be a fun debate. But it's hysterical how quickly their tone changes when they kid they hated ends up being the one they draft. Some hard-liners remain stubborn and refuse to leave the proverbial foxhole when the artillery strikes, but the excuse train and cheering of blocked shots and faceoffs usually drown them out. The Habs board with Reinbacher ranks up there as an all-time great. The ones who shit on Michkov have been dying a slow death for almost two years lmfao. I am genuinely hoping for Demidov to hit because I think they're starting to realize it's been a while since they last set St. Catherine's Street on fire.

 

[4thline]

What, Hagens analysis doesn't fundamentally change that much either way if you "account" for it or not. He's a PPG center on a number 1 team who was also a top performer for the best team at the world juniors after previously being a record holder at the NTDP level. His pedigree is elite in what you account for anyways but perhaps with current year production that is far short of "generational" which nobody has called him sans your strawman.

This whole sidebar was initiated by this assessment,

"but he's a damn good prospect, and I think it's pretty hard to argue against him having top line upside. Is that enough to go number 1 in this draft? Maybe, I don't know. But if my team were drafting anywhere in the top 5 and got him I'd be super happy"

based on comparing primarily to Smith and Cooley. Is that the position of hater looking to "dock" him?

A lot has been made by some about how he is a much better prospect than Smith/Cooley he is because has done what he has done in D-2, D-1, D whereas they did it as D-1, D, D+1. That he's better than than the other contenders for 1st overall because he was dominant as an 06 at a tournament for 06's, while they were 07's playing ahead.

I agree, scouts aren't getting into argument on either side- they're projecting based on his game, tools, and skills, and how they project them. And by most reports- they have him a dead heat with the others.

As to NHL readiness being dictated by draft position and the extra year of development not mattering- looking at USNDP F grads, top 7 picks

(Edit to reorganize)

1st Overall - Ready: Matthews (LB), Kane (LB), Hughes
2nd Overalk - Ready: Eichel (LB), Beniers (LB) / Not Ready: JVR
3rd - 7th Overall - Ready: Tkachuk (LB), Kessel (LB), Tkachuk (LB) / Not Ready: Cooley, Smith, Gauthier, Skille, Keller, Wilson (LB)

Pretty stark difference no?

 

[wickedwitch]

And I can tell you that the "NHL mentor process" involves a monthly or bi monthly meeting with a person from the organization, usually someone in player development. And it’s usually a checkup rather than any sort of instruction that would supersede anything that that player’s current coaching staff is telling him.

So I don't know about all teams, but I know the Caps are giving guys like Cristall and Leonard instructions/advice during the season. Both players have talked about this. Cristall, for example, said his workout plan was from the Caps. Neither mentioned specifically how that was coordinated with their current coaches.