Hanifin Or Marner?

[BlueBaron]

First line centers are more valuable than top pairing defensemen, if they weren't, Seth Jones would not have gone 4th.

The thing is....no one in the draft is either though some are a high probability (McD/Eichel)

Also a good number of D have gone 1 or 2 over the years

Ekblad-first
EJ-first
Doughty-2nd (that year was 4 d in a row)
Jovo-first
Hedman-2nd
Pronger-2nd

Just to name the ones off the top of my head. One cannot make the conclusion Jones fell because centers were more valuable or Ekblad would also have fallen considering the C available that year.

You could argue the most important position is Goalie yet they are much rarer as top picks.

It's all about talent and who projects to be the best NHL players, though sometimes NHL ready is a quality that can trump upside.

 

[Menzinger]

First line centers are more valuable than top pairing defensemen, if they weren't, Seth Jones would not have gone 4th.

This is very, very much up for debate. I'd argue a true #1 defencemen is just as important, if not more so than that topline centre. Boston had Chara, and thus didn't need a Stamkos to win the cup.

And a couple of those other teams may be kicking themselves in a few years for passing on Jones. It's all about the merits of the individual players, not 1 position > than another. For example, I certainly value centres more than wingers, but i'd rather have a first line winger than a second line centre.

 

[Menzinger]

So you're incapable of observing trends?

Small and creative point producers in the CHL have historically been taken low because they don't project well into the NHL.

There are also very real dangers on valuing size too much
http://thehockeywriters.com/the-nhl-has-a-scouting-problem/

 

[KPower]

Should've been Strome vs. Hanifin.

Strome is going 3rd unfortunately.

Big #1 center with elite passing similar to Thornton is what Arizona needs.

 

[BlueBaron]

Strome is going 3rd unfortunately.

Big #1 center with elite passing similar to Thornton is what Arizona needs.

It is still speculation but I suspect you are right.

 

[Bernier the Boats]

How many times do I have to mention that by making it top 10 picks you're really skewed the data. Marner isn't a top 10 pick because of his points, he's a top 10 pick because of what is as a player in general.

Your reliance on that chart is astounding. You're clearly smart enough to understand what I'm saying when I say making it top 10's eliminate the usefulness of that chart to demonstrate a player's potential as correlating to his CHL production.

I dont understand what you think my thesis is.

To clarify, my thesis is that Marner is a very high scoring top 10 draft pick (2.03PPG), and other top 10 draft picks that have scored at rates similar to him have on average gone on to have great NHL careers.

If you would like to refute this thesis in some way, shape, or form, I invite you to. I would prefer you to do so quantitatively, if possible.

 

[BlueBaron]

There are also very real dangers on valuing size too much
http://thehockeywriters.com/the-nhl-has-a-scouting-problem/

I often wonder about the champions of the little guy. A good many seem oblivious to the disadvantages. How many 5 foot players have there been in the NHL ?

 

[ACC1224]

I often wonder about the champions of the little guy. A good many seem oblivious to the disadvantages. How many 5 foot players have there been in the NHL ?

As many as there are in this draft?

 

[NotSince67*]

I dont understand what you think my thesis is.

To clarify, my thesis is that Marner is a very high scoring top 10 draft pick (2.03PPG), and other top 10 draft picks that have scored at rates similar to him have on average gone on to have great NHL careers.

If you would like to refute this thesis in some way, shape, or form, I invite you to. I would prefer you to do so quantitatively, if possible.

Well to break it down logically...

If a player is a Top 10 prospect (premise #1), and displays a superior production rate (premise #2), he must be a superior prospect (conclusion)

But at the same time you seem to believe:

If a player is NOT a top 10 prospect (premise #1), and displays a superior point production (premise two), he is still not a superior prospect (conclusion).

Problem is now we get into for conclusion #2: Point production is significant in this player's evaluation (Argument #1) and Point production is not significant in this players evaluation (Argument #2)

So for me, why the disjunct? I feel that we're talking too much about point production, and not what makes him a top 10 prospect and the other top producers NOT top 10 prospects.

In regards to Hanifin/Strome/Marner: Let's evaluate these guys, not on the slim shave they outscored or outpaced each other etc but by their individual merits as players which make them prospects. I can't sit here and say that one being better than the other is factually correct, but personally my observations I feel one is better than the other. It'd be nice to hear observation and reasoning of the players themselve rather than citing point production.

I mean... if you saw a Director of Amateur Scouting comparing two players stats on HockeyDB at a draft table I'd cringe.......

 

[Bernier the Boats]

I often wonder about the champions of the little guy. A good many seem oblivious to the disadvantages. How many 5 foot players have there been in the NHL ?

Nobody "champions the little guy". I want to take the best hockey player, period. I don't care if a player is big or small, as size does not make somebody a good hockey player. Plenty of good hockey players have been 5'11, and plenty of good players have been 6'4. Picking somebody based on their size, as opposed to how good they actually are at hockey, is just stupid.

 

[I Believe]

Not so sure Arizona takes Strome. I've been surprised plenty of times before.

Thought for sure Seth Jones was going 2nd overall for instance.

 

[ACC1224]

Nobody "champions the little guy". I want to take the best hockey player, period. I don't care if a player is big or small, as size does not make somebody a good hockey player. Plenty of good hockey players have been 5'11, and plenty of good players have been 6'4. Picking somebody based on their size, as opposed to how good they actually are at hockey, is just stupid.

I can't imagine anyone else not having the same view.

 

[NotSince67*]

I often wonder about the champions of the little guy. A good many seem oblivious to the disadvantages. How many 5 foot players have there been in the NHL ?

Well, conversely, some many seem very hung up on being big.

The truth of the matter is size can be an advantage or disadvantage. For instance if Andrew Shaw were 6'2 and 190 on draft day, he's a guy a lot of team would like. But on the flip side, if Jamie Oleksiak were 5'11, would he even be a first rounder?

Size is just one thing to consider about a prospect but it doesn't guarantee or disqualify any sort of potential success.

 

[NotSince67*]

Nobody "champions the little guy". I want to take the best hockey player, period. I don't care if a player is big or small, as size does not make somebody a good hockey player. Plenty of good hockey players have been 5'11, and plenty of good players have been 6'4. Picking somebody based on their size, as opposed to how good they actually are at hockey, is just stupid.

Size is an advantage though, just as exceptional skating or exceptional hockey smarts.

 

[BlueBaron]

Size is an advantage though, just as exceptional skating or exceptional hockey smarts.

Exactly.

 

[Bernier the Boats]

Well to break it down logically...

If a player is a Top 10 prospect (premise #1), and displays a superior production rate (premise #2), he must be a superior prospect (conclusion)

But at the same time you seem to believe:

If a player is NOT a top 10 prospect (premise #1), and displays a superior point production (premise two), he is still not a superior prospect (conclusion).

Problem is now we get into for conclusion #2: Point production is significant in this player's evaluation (Argument #1) and Point production is not significant in this players evaluation (Argument #2)

So for me, why the disjunct? I feel that we're talking too much about point production, and not what makes him a top 10 prospect and the other top producers NOT top 10 prospects.

In regards to Hanifin/Strome/Marner: Let's evaluate these guys, not on the slim shave they outscored or outpaced each other etc but by their individual merits as players which make them prospects. I can't sit here and say that one being better than the other is factually correct, but personally my observations I feel one is better than the other. It'd be nice to hear observation and reasoning of the players themselve rather than citing point production.

I mean... if you saw a Director of Amateur Scouting comparing two players stats on HockeyDB at a draft table I'd cringe.......

You have to look at production in respect to draft position. I'm not saying production doesn't matter for players outside the top 10, I'm saying its not fair to compare somebody drafted in the top 10 to somebody drafted in the 3rd round (ie. Johansen vs. Weal).

Obviously, there are other attributes that determine the success of a hockey player. Due to size bias, it is likely that a player producing at a higher rate than his peers in the same draft region will be a better prospect. To illustrate this, I'll use your favourite example:

Kyle wellwood, drafted in the 5th round of 2001.

The 5 players drafted before him were:

Miroslav Blatak
Colt King
Ben Eaves
Dusan Salficky
Jussi Markkanen

The 5 players drafted after him were:

Colin Stuart
Billy Thompson
Joel Perrault
Paul Lynch
Shawn Collymore

Kyle Wellwood played 489 NHL games, scoring 235 point in the NHL. The other guys had a combined 280 games, and 39 points.

 

[613Leafer]

Size is an advantage though, just as exceptional skating or exceptional hockey smarts.

Size is an advantage, but often there's an inverse relationship between size and skating/agility.

A 5'11 guy with elite skating vs a 6'2 guy with average or worse skating is a bit of a wash IMO.

Guys like Eichel/Hanifin look like the total package, having both size and great skating, but that's rare.

 

[Bernier the Boats]

Size is an advantage though, just as exceptional skating or exceptional hockey smarts.

Yes, it factors into how good of a hockey player you are for sure. Look at the end result, which is how good at hockey a player is. Not at the size specifically. Which is why I'm not against size, I'm just size agnostic.

I can't imagine anyone else not having the same view.

I agree, but for whatever reason we still have to have this discussion. At least our scouting staff sees it this way.

 

[LaPlante94]

Edmonton winning the lottery not only pissed off all hockey fans, but it'll piss off most of the top 5 rated picks. McDavid because he has to go way out west, Strome because now Arizona will most likely take him, and Marner because Hanifin will drop to us now.

 

[Bernier the Boats]

Edmonton winning the lottery not only pissed off all hockey fans, but it'll piss off most of the top 5 rated picks. McDavid because he has to go way out west, Strome because now Arizona will most likely take him, and Marner because Hanifin will drop to us now.

These guys are just happy to get a chance to go play hockey somewhere. None of the prospects are "pissed" at the lottery results, I can guarantee that. This isn't the NBA.

 

[NotSince67*]

See, The thing is with regards to Strome v. Marner is that the point production is really getting into a negligible territory. Strome himself is at 1.89, which is a difference of a point almost every 5 games or so. It's the player's makeup which really comes down to how you seperate these two.

And to apply it to Hanifin is really unjust given he's a defenceman given that point production is a by-product of good play but by no means are gaudy numbers a necessity in a good defensive prospect.

Note, actually 1.897, so it would round up to 1.9. Difference of .13, or a point every 8 games roughly.

 

[NotSince67*]

Edmonton winning the lottery not only pissed off all hockey fans, but it'll piss off most of the top 5 rated picks. McDavid because he has to go way out west, Strome because now Arizona will most likely take him, and Marner because Hanifin will drop to us now.

I think you can say McD is disappointed, but pissed is far too strong. I don't think Strome is upset about anything, he wants to prove himself to be a great NHLer and is happy to start his career. I also think he views Arizona and the weather as a nice perk. I think Marner might be slightly disappointed not to join his boyhood team but the desire to become a top NHLer and the starting of their NHL journey is really all these kids are going to care about.

I mean growing up do you think these kids would have passed up playing int he NHL or pissed if they had to play in a particular city? No, they just wanted to play one day in the NHL.

 

[Bernier the Boats]

See, The thing is with regards to Strome v. Marner is that the point production is really getting into a negligible territory. Strome himself is at 1.89, which is a difference of a point almost every 5 games or so. It's the player's makeup which really comes down to how you seperate these two.

And to apply it to Hanifin is really unjust given he's a defenceman given that point production is a by-product of good play but by no means are gaudy numbers a necessity in a good defensive prospect.

Exactly! I love both Strome and Marner as prospects. No issue with either of them, think both project as sure-fire first line talents. I think of them interchangeably.

With Hanifin, I have some question marks, none of which are related to production. I think his production is more than fine, my only question marks pertain to my actual viewings of him, which I have previously said is only 7-10 games. I question his offensive upside, from personal viewings, and see a player similar to Bouwmeester or Vlasic. You can feel free to disagree with me, this is my opinion based on my viewings, and I know lots of scouts have opinions contradictory to mine.

I have no data to support this outside of personal viewings, so any ensuing debate is largely conjecture, which I would rather not partake in.

 

[schnee11]

i say if hani falls trade down 1-3 picks (3 picks MAX) and then we still get like barzal / provorov or someone like that and whatever else a team is willing to give us

 

[Confucius]

I often wonder about the champions of the little guy. A good many seem oblivious to the disadvantages. How many 5 foot players have there been in the NHL ?

How many 7 footers?