Prospect Info: Steve Dangle: The Prospect Pyramid

[BayStreetBully]

It's a nice concept, but the flaw lies in arbitrary cut offs for tiers. You could safely put Matthews in tier 1, and Marner and Nylander in tier 2, but after that, you can make an argument for anything.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Pro scouting has become much more analytical, much less eye test. As some of the same stats become freely available for minor leagues or European pro leagues, amateur scouting will go the same way I expect.

The eye test can be extremely misleading - ie, Roman Polak looks like a pretty good defensive dman (blocks shots..sometimes with his face, throws his weight around, clears the front of the net, all the stuff that we love defensemen to do) but his advanced stats show that he actually lets up a ton of shots, doesn't affect possession in a positive way at all, and drags down anyone he plays with - the outcomes with Polak on the ice are worse than without him.

Jake Gardiner is the opposite - soft, floating defenseman that plays with the puck too much and causes giveaways by the eye test - his advanced stats show that the outcomes with him on the ice are WAY better than without, he keeps shots from the opposition down, helps his team to possess the puck and improves the results for the guys he's on the ice with

I actually watch games with an NHL pro scout and have some insight into his job (my brother in law with over 15 years NHL experience and a Cup ring). He spends very little time timing things or data crunching. This isn't to say there are not some people employed to do just that but a lot of scouting is eye test.

 

[ErnieLeafs]

I actually watch games with an NHL pro scout and have some insight into his job (my brother in law with over 15 years NHL experience and a Cup ring). He spends very little time timing things or data crunching. This isn't to say there are not some people employed to do just that but a lot of scouting is eye test.

As I said above, the process has remained the same for the actual scouts on the ground. The parameters of what they're looking for may be adjusted, but numbers are for people who sit in comfy chairs and have offices with a view. Actual scouting is about being in the stands, carefully watching and breaking down a player's game.

 

[Mess]

It's a nice concept, but the flaw lies in arbitrary cut offs for tiers. You could safely put Matthews in tier 1, and Marner and Nylander in tier 2, but after that, you can make an argument for anything.

If the goal is to rank similar prospects on the same tier then its actually more accurately representative of a prospect pool then listing then arbitrarily 4, 5, 6, 7 when #4 thru #7 are really able to numbered in any order.

Or its really like doing this.

1) Matthews
2) Nylander, Marner
4) Brown, Zaitsev, Kapanen
7) Johnson, Soshnikov, Dermott, Rychel
11) etc.

 

[Randy Randerson]

You can literally see a player who is positive to possession. You can also see a player's defensive impact when it comes ro suppressing attack.

Do you people watch football? It's the same, except hockey is faster. You can tell who has the ball longer, same in soccer. Much like in football, you can see what side of the ice/field the opposition attacks, and whether or not those attacks are successful. Teams will put certain defenders on an island in all 3 sports, and pick on them, knowing that the opposite defender is a more difficult match-up.

I see scouts all the time at games, and I assure you, none of them are carrying a stopwatch or calculator. Numbers provide a little depth to what you see, and can both confirm and provide insight to what you're looking at. Scouting is, and always will be, for those with an eye for talent.

I think you're taking the scouting inclusion of stats a little too literally, that inclusion would be done not while at the rink watching games, but the stats people operate in the background (there's actual stat collectors in the rink who are collecting but not processing the data and new technologies that are looking to automate collection and processing). I'm saying that scouting as a function (not necessarily the scouts themselves while in the rink) will become more inclusive of deeper metrics, not less.

Does projectability play in? of course, especially with young players. But again the validation of players will include metrics more and more, and there's a real possibility that physical scouts are less relied on in the future: http://sportlogiq.com/ , as an example

 

[Randy Randerson]

I actually watch games with an NHL pro scout and have some insight into his job (my brother in law with over 15 years NHL experience and a Cup ring). He spends very little time timing things or data crunching. This isn't to say there are not some people employed to do just that but a lot of scouting is eye test.

I meant to say that the scouting process will include more metrics, not necessarily that the scouts would do it themselves. Makes sense that stats people would be operating in the back end doing rather than hockey ops people.

I would think that the scouts "eye test" is also becoming more inclusive of things like how a player uses spacing to suppress shots and how well they keep the puck than they used to, like a fast handed guy who generates chances off the rush but doesn't help to sustain pressure down low probably used to rank higher than he does now because of the effect of Corsi/Fenwick/etc - I think scouts would start to have Corsi-vision. I'd be interested to know what your brother in law thinks about my suspicion here

 

[FlareKnight]

It's a nice concept, but the flaw lies in arbitrary cut offs for tiers. You could safely put Matthews in tier 1, and Marner and Nylander in tier 2, but after that, you can make an argument for anything.

I tend to agree. Not a bad idea, but it's just as arbitrary as sticking a number by a guy's name.

Since that's basically still what a person would still be doing. Just replacing "2. Marner" with "2-3 Marner". You are still number ranking them, just adding a range to it. Still have to decide if a guy is a top 5 prospect or not. And if you are still doing that then might as well just stick a number. It makes no real difference either way.

 

[BayStreetBully]

If the goal is to rank similar prospects on the same tier then its actually more accurately representative of a prospect pool then listing then arbitrarily 4, 5, 6, 7 when #4 thru #7 are really able to numbered in any order.

Or its really like doing this.

1) Matthews
2) Nylander, Marner
4) Brown, Zaitsev, Kapanen
7) Johnson, Soshnikov, Dermott, Rychel
11) etc.

I understand that, and I get what he's trying to do, but it's still flawed. For example, now you're just making players at the top of their tier look bad, and players at the bottom of their tier look good. Dangle has 9 players in one tier. The best player in that tier is probably closer to the worst player in the tier above than he is with the worst player in his own tier. But the pyramid is forced to cut a line somewhere.

The prospect pyramid works if there are clear dividing lines between prospects, but as much as it's human nature for people to want to categorize things for easy compartmentalization, there are really never any clear dividing lines when discussing 30 prospects of roughly little separation from one player to the next. For Matthews or Marner or Nylander yes, but not once you get into the 7th or 10th or 15th best player range.

Not that I have a better idea.

 

[Club]

Good to see Bracco getting A BIT of love.. he's probably my favorite prospect behind Marner

 

[Menzinger]

Good to see Bracco getting A BIT of love.. he's probably my favorite prospect behind Marner

I'd rank him and Dermott as the tier just below the bluechips myself.

 

[Randy Randerson]

I'd rank him and Dermott as the tier just below the bluechips myself.

where do you have Timashov? I put him and Bracco in the same category, surprised they aren't already in the Brown/Johnson class

 

[diceman934]

Good luck to him. 1st step would be to stop making videos from his bedroom.

LOL.....Right!

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

Anyway you put it, we need a blue chip D-man.

 

[diceman934]

Anyway you put it, we need a blue chip D-man.

Going into this season we may.....after this season we may not. We have a few who maybe that D man we require.

 

[Menzinger]

where do you have Timashov? I put him and Bracco in the same category, surprised they aren't already in the Brown/Johnson class

I would too. I value prospects first and foremost for their potential - and he's got tons of that

 

[McMatthews]

I didn't like the video because Steve starts of saying how much he hates making top prospects lists.

Then the presentation was garbage.

Steve Dangle is the best but that was terrible. I know you don't like doing lists but make the video enjoyable to watch.

As for my rebuttal to his list...

1. Auston Matthews
   ------------------
   
2. Mitchell Marner
3. William Nylander
   ------------------
4. Travis Dermott
5. Kasperi Kapanen
6. Rinat Valiev
7. Yegor Korshkov
8. Andrew Nielsen
9. Carl Grundstrom
10. Nikita Soshnikov
11. Connor Carrick
12. Joseph Woll
13. Martins Dzierkals
14. Connor Brown
15. Andreas Johnson
16. Jeremy Bracco
17. Dmytro Timashov
    ------------------
18. Zach Hyman
19. Frederik Gauthier
20. Kerby Rychel
21. JD Greenway
22. Antoine Bibeau
23. Tobias Lindberg
24. Brendan Leipsic
25. Josh Leivo
26. Adam Brooks
27. Jesper Lindgren
28. Garret Sparks
    ------------------
29. Justin Holl
30. Viktor Loov
31. Kasimir Kaskisuo
32. Dominic Toninato
33. Jack Walker
34. Trevor Moore
35. Keaton Middleton
36. Dakota Joshua
37. Pierre Engvall
38. Vladimir Bobylev
39. Nikolai Chebykin
40. Nikita Korostelev
41. Stephen Desrocher
42. Nicolas Mattinen

 

[SnizzMitch]

I had to shut down the video at the 3 seconds mark.

Good luck to him. 1st step would be to stop making videos from his bedroom.

Dangle clearly knows nothing except how to yell at the camera. Terrible list. Get him off 590.

LOL.....Right!

lol HATER alert!

 

[LV*]

lol HATER alert!

Lol they're mad hes making money off being obsessed with the leafs while these guys spend all their time (mike) posting for free

 

[Randy Randerson]

I would too. I value prospects first and foremost for their potential - and he's got tons of that

it ended up being a real shame for him getting traded from Quebec last year, he was on a 120ish point pace that I think really would have gotten him some recognition on the map and showed no signs of slowing down. Not sure what happened in Shawinigan but I think he could have a real breakout year on the marlies that will bump his value nicely. Ditto for Bracco, great playoff performance and I could see him breaking the 100pt mark in Kitchener

 

[Mr Hockey*]

lol HATER alert!

thinking you maybe this dangle guy?

 

[LeafingTheWay]

• TIER ONE: Auston Matthews,William Nylander
  
• TIER TWO: Mitch Marner,
  
• TIER THREE: Niktia Soshnikov, Connor Brown, Kasperi Kapanen, Andreas Johnson, Travis Dermott, Dmytro Timashov, Martins Dzierkals, Tobias Lindberg, Andrew Nielson
  
• TIER - : EVERYONE ELSE

I guess this is what Dangle was talking about but IMO Marner is clearly above Nylander. Also, I also like that tier 3 but aren't you missing Bracco?

 

[Mr Hockey*]

I guess this is what Dangle was talking about but IMO Marner is clearly above Nylander. Also, I also like that tier 3 but aren't you missing Bracco?

Video was pretty much click on click off I have seen bracco play 5 or 6 rangers games, he has a up hill battle for sure! Super skilled from the top of the circles to the net though!

 

[Leaf Lander]

TIER ONE: 1a: Auston Matthews 1b:mitch Marner 1c: William nylander

TIER TWO: Connor Brown, Kasperi Kapanen, Andreas Johnson, Travis Dermott


TIER THREE: Jeremy Bracco, Dmytro Timashov, Tobias Lindberg, Andrew Nielson, Carl Grundstrom,Rinat Valiev, Yegor Korshkov,

TIER FOUR: Niktia Soshnikov, Brendan Leipsic, Kerby Rychel, Zach Hyman, Frederick Gauthier

TIER FIVE: Adam Brooks, Martins Dzierkals, JD Greenway, Viktor Loov, JJ Piccinich, Jesper Lindgren

TIER SIX: EVERYONE ELSE

 

[BigBlu]

TIER ONE: 1a: Auston Matthews 1b:mitch Marner 1c: William nylander

TIER TWO: Connor Brown, Kasperi Kapanen, Andreas Johnson, Travis Dermott


TIER THREE: Jeremy Bracco, Dmytro Timashov, Tobias Lindberg, Andrew Nielson, Carl Grundstrom,Rinat Valiev, Yegor Korshkov,

TIER FOUR: Niktia Soshnikov, Brendan Leipsic, Kerby Rychel, Zach Hyman

TIER FIVE: Frederik Gauthier,, Adam Brooks, Martins Dzierkals, JD Greenway, Viktor Loov, JJ Piccinich, Jesper Lindgren

TIER SIX: EVERYONE ELSE

yup!

 

[LeafErikson]

It's one of the more reasonable lists I've seen. I'd rank Nielsen in the 3rd tier, but otherwise I really have no issue with it. I like it better than most of the other lists by fans, bloggers etc.