GDT: The 2022 NHL Entry Draft Thread

[Jimmy Hoots]

He's looked awesome everywhere else. He's a hugely talented skater and playmaker but those games in the SHL were worrisome. Yes, it is a small sample size. And yes, his minutes were limited. But even if he didn't get a single point and showed that he was more willing to be involved I'd see some promise there. You can't teach that fear out of someone. They have to break that mental block themselves. If he does it, then there's a good chance he becomes a solid top 6 playmaker at the NHL level. If he doesn't than you wasted a 14th overall pick on another small forward who isn't willing to push the play because he's scared of getting hit.

He could either be an absolute steal or a total bust. There's just so much risk there IMO that I wouldn't touch him until the 2nd round.

Thank you for responding. To start, you're making highly qualitative interpretations from very little quantitative data. Indeed, you are claiming even to known the mental state of the player (he is afraid). The very limited dataset does not support these conclusions. But an anti-size positioning (a bias which is betrayed by language such as "just another small forward who is afraid of getting hit") does.

In point of fact, the vast majority of age-17 draft eligibles do not even play against grown men; the fact that Ostlund has should actually be a consideration in his favour. Ostlund has driven play, gotten "involved," and been dominant is all areas of the ice against his own age group, for years, which is pretty much the best you can ask for from a prospect.

My main concerns with Ostlund was the games he played in the SHL this year. When things got more physical and he started playing against bigger and faster player he completely disappeared. Though his minutes were limited. He basically stuck to the perimiter and wasn't effective in really any way. He is a very similar player to Marner. Great edgework, very elusive, great playmaker and although his shot isn't a muffin it certainly isn't great. If he makes it to a high enough level he likely will score but he isn't going to be a major shooting threat. My biggest concern with him is although he displays a similar skill set to Marner, he doesn't have nearly the same mentality in attacking the ice and pushing play when things get tougher. Maybe he gets there. But I'm always going to air on the side of caution because not all players like this do. Marner is the exception, not the rule. He could just as easily be another Nic Petan. Who oozes offensive talent but skates around with his tail between his legs against men.

I'm not saying I wouldn't be okay with a player like him in the system but he's not someone I would take the risk on at 14.

Comparables are largely fan service and are usually deployed to further a narrative. Ostlund is not Marner, he is not Petan. He is himself, and no one else, which is enough to draft at 14.

 

[Daximus]

Thank you for responding. To start, you're making highly qualitative interpretations from very little quantitative data. Indeed, you are claiming even to known the mental state of the player (he is afraid). The very limited dataset does not support these conclusions. But an anti-size positioning (a bias which is betrayed by language such as "just another small forward who is afraid of getting hit") does.

In point of fact, the vast majority of age-17 draft eligibles do not even play against grown men; the fact that Ostlund has should actually be a consideration be in his favour. Ostlund has driven play, gotten "involved," and been dominant is all areas of the ice against his own age group, for years, which is pretty much the best you can ask for from a prospect.

No I'm equating his lack of compete as being afraid there's a big difference, otherwise why would he shy away? His size is only a minor factor. Plenty of other smaller players than him have made a difference at the same age in the SHL against the same kind of competition. So it ends up just being an excuse.

The only reason Ostlund gets to compete against men is because of where he plays. If CHL players could make the jump mid season to the AHL, many of them would get exposed quicker too.

 

[Daximus]

Comparables are largely fan service and are usually deployed to further a narrative. Ostlund is not Marner, he is not Petan. He is himself, and no one else, which is enough to draft at 14.

Well he himself, did not compete. He tucked tail and stayed to the perimeter.

I get it, we all have our pet prospects. And he is yours. You are entitled to have whatever opinion you have about a player and I'm entitled to mine. Let's just agree to disagree. But I seriously doubt the Jets will be taking him at 14. So if that is who you are hooking your wagon to and will be dissapointed with anything else. Prepare to be disappointed.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

No I'm equating his lack of compete as being afraid there's a big difference, otherwise why would he shy away? His size is only a minor factor. Plenty of other smaller players than him have made a difference at the same age in the SHL against the same kind of competition. So it ends up just being an excuse.

The only reason Ostlund gets to compete against men is because of where he plays. If CHL players could make the jump mid season to the AHL, many of them would get exposed quicker too.

Almost every player takes a period to adjust to a new level of competition. That is not uncommon, and for many reasons. Why are you so quick to attribute this to his size and being "afraid", then, especially in such a small sample size? This reads like a case of "you'll see it when you believe it", rather than "you'll believe it when you see it".

Well he himself, did not compete. He tucked tail and stayed to the perimeter.

I get it, we all have our pet prospects. And he is yours. You are entitled to have whatever opinion you have about a player and I'm entitled to mine. Let's just agree to disagree. But I seriously doubt the Jets will be taking him at 14. So if that is who you are hooking your wagon to and will be dissapointed with anything else. Prepare to be disappointed.

I am a Jets fan. Disappointment is the water I swim in!

 

[Daximus]

Almost every player takes a period to adjust to a new level of competition. That is not uncommon, and for many reasons. Why are you so quick to attribute this to his size and being "afraid", then, especially in such a small sample size? This reads like a case of "you'll see it when you believe it", rather than "you'll believe it when you see it".

I just see what I see. There's a risk there and obviously many others see it to because he's ranked quite low by quite a few different publications despite playing well this year against his own age competition.

I am a Jets fan. Disappointment is the water I swim in!

Touché.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

I just see what I see. There's a risk there and obviously many others see it to because he's ranked quite low by quite a few different publications despite playing well this year against his own age competition.



Touché.

The reason is two words : size bias. "Undersized" players are consistently underscouted, underranked, and underdrafted in relation to their production levels, as meta-analyses of these processes have shown. Your own scant analysis here reproduces and re-inscribes this bias, so I understand it is hard to see something you are so inside of.

 

[Romang67]

The reason is two words : size bias. "Undersized" players are consistently underscouted, underranked, and underdrafted in relation to their production levels, as meta-analyses of these processes have shown. Your own scant analysis here reproduces and re-inscribes this bias, so I understand it is hard to see something you are so inside of.

You might want to go back 2 drafts and look at Daximus's 2020 draft ranking before digging too much of a hole about his size bias.

Here is my current and ever evolving top 31 for anyone interested. I've moved Sanderson up and Lappiere is still in there but hard to get a read on this year. I have Foudy at 21, not 20 like I said earlier.

1. Alexis Lafrenière
2. Quinton Byfield
3. Tim Stützle
4. Lucas Raymond
5. Cole Perfetti
6. Jake Sanderson
7. Marco Rossi
8. Alexander Holtz
9. Jamie Drysdale
10. Seth Jarvis
11. Connor Zary
12. Kaiden Guhle
13. Jack Quinn
14. Braden Schneider
15. Dawson Mercer
16. Anton Lundell
17. Dylan Holloway
18. Hendrix Lappiere
19. Noel Gunler
20. Jacob Perreault
21. Jean-Luc Foudy
22. Martin Chromiak
23. Jan Mysak
24. Helge Grans
25. William Wallinder
26. Zion Nybeck
27. Yaroslav Askarov
28. Rodion Amirov
29. Lukas Reichel
30. Justin Barron
31. Ridly Greig

I'm not sure it's his final draft ranking, but Perfetti and Rossi didn't exactly grow between August 12th and the draft.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

You might want to go back 2 drafts and look at Daximus's 2020 draft ranking before digging too much of a hole about his size bias.


I'm not sure it's his final draft ranking, but Perfetti and Rossi didn't exactly grow between August 12th and the draft.

Looks like a fairly standard list for the time, thanks for that. My point about his analysis re : Ostlund, as well as broader biases in hockey scouting, still absolutely stand.

 

[Romang67]

I wouldn't be opposed to taking a later-round swing at Hävelid. The NHL has shown a willingness to make large, stationary goalie less effective in recent years, and I wonder if smaller goalies will become a bit more viable in the future.

Looks like a fairly standard list for the time, thanks for that. My point about his analysis re : Ostlund, as well as broader biases in hockey scouting, still absolutely stand.

Does it? If he ranked small skilled players highly before (higher than they ended up going, as teams opted to go for Quinn, Holtz, and Drysdale over them), but doesn't want Östlund at #14, doesn't that indicate that it's not actually the size he's iffy about? But his lack of willingness/ability to get anything done against men?

I'm not opposed to taking a swing at Östlund at #14, but I've seen enough from Daximus over the years to sincerely doubt that an extreme size bias all of a sudden reared its head.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

Ostlund was pretty good at the u18s but Lekkermaki was on another level there as well. I am always hesitant to base any rankings off that tournament in particular.

At 14 would I take him? Depends on who is there. He seems more like a late 1st/2nd round pick as he likely needs a few years to get stronger before you could really tell what you have. His lack of doing anything in the SEL is concerning but its very likely that he just isn't ready physically to be in those leagues.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

I wouldn't be opposed to taking a later-round swing at Hävelid. The NHL has shown a willingness to make large, stationary goalie less effective in recent years, and I wonder if smaller goalies will become a bit more viable in the future.

Does it? If he ranked small skilled players highly before (higher than they ended up going, as teams opted to go for Quinn, Holtz, and Drysdale over them), but doesn't want Östlund at #14, doesn't that indicate that it's not actually the size he's iffy about? But his lack of willingness/ability to get anything done against men?

Um, "small" was literally the first criticism he had out of the gate :

I want a higher swing for the fences than a small playmaking potential 1C. Potential is the key. He's not an NHL 1C yet and he's not guaranteed to be either. There's also some questions I have about his game based on the games I've seen in the SHL that have me questioning whether he will actually get there.

I'm literally just responding to the words he has said, my man. I don't even have to get into the subtext, though there is plenty of that, as well.

As for your example, in which he ranked other "undersized" players in line with consensus rankings on one specific occasion, it proves, well... not much. Especially in trends. A bias against something does not only mean you preclude everything, all the time. In fact, most often, it means establishing trends and patterns, that, over time, have an observable effect.

 

[Romang67]

Ostlund was pretty good at the u18s but Lekkermaki was on another level there as well. I am always hesitant to base any rankings off that tournament in particular.

At 14 would I take him? Depends on who is there. He seems more like a late 1st/2nd round pick as he likely needs a few years to get stronger before you could really tell what you have. His lack of doing anything in the SEL is concerning but its very likely that he just isn't ready physically to be in those leagues.

He's about half a year younger than Eklund, who failed to do anything of note in the SHL in his draft-1 year too. It's pretty common that a young player seemingly just "gets it" in the SHL the year after they're drafted and makes everyone look stupid.

Then again, we probably don't remember the ones that kept on not producing after the draft.

I'm iffy with Östlund. He could be a great pick at #14. I would 100% be in favor of drafting him with our 2nd 1st rounder if the Rangers somehow beat the Canes. But there might be better value available at #14.

Um, "small" was literally the first criticism he had out of the gate :



I'm literally just responding to the words he has said, my man. I don't even have to get into the subtext, though there is plenty of that, as well.

As for your example, in which he ranked other "undersized" players in line with consensus rankings on one specific occasion, it proves, well... not much. Especially in trends. A bias against something does not only mean you preclude everything, all the time. In fact, most often, it means establishing trends and patterns, that, over time, have an observable effect.

Good thing he has multiple years of pre-draft rankings available on here that you can look at then.

That would help back up this claim of size bias.

To get you started, here he is ranking Eklund #1 among forwards for the 2021 NHL draft:

Just purely forwards?

1. Eklund
2. Beniers
3. Guenther
4. McTavish
5. Sillinger
6. Svechkov
7. Lysell
8. Johnson
9. Lucius
10. Stankoven


Edit: completely forgot about Svechkov. Just going through my list in my head. Went to double check and realized I forgot about him. Updated now.

I'm procrastinating from editing a paper on algorithmic bias on my other monitor though, so I appreciate the clarification of what bias is.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

I'm procrastinating from editing a paper on algorithmic bias on my other monitor though, so I appreciate the clarification of what bias is.

Hey man, no problem. And I appreciate the on-the-fly cherry picking of any counter-example you can dig up!

I hope my clarification of bias helps you get an A+ on your paper, which, based on what I've seen here, might be a bit of an... outlier.

 

[Romang67]

Hey man, no problem. And I appreciate the on-the-fly cherry picking of any counter-example you can dig up!

I hope my clarification of bias helps you get an A+ on your paper, which, based on what I've seen here, might be a bit of an... outlier.

I mean, I'm still waiting for some evidence supporting your claim of Daximus's size bias.

And . If someone ended up grading this on an A-F scale, I would be very confused.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

I mean, I'm still waiting for some evidence supporting your claim of Daximus's size bias.

And . If someone ended up grading this on an A-F scale, I would be very confused.

Well, again, he said it. I'm not sure why I should be accountable for his words?

Then, when pressed, he deferred to rankings of other publications, which do have demonstrable evidence of size bias, and brought that larger lens into the foreground of this conversation.

 

[Daximus]

The reason is two words : size bias. "Undersized" players are consistently underscouted, underranked, and underdrafted in relation to their production levels, as meta-analyses of these processes have shown. Your own scant analysis here reproduces and re-inscribes this bias, so I understand it is hard to see something you are so inside of.

Your agrument would make sense if guys like Logan Cooley, Matt Savoie, Lekkerimaki, Nazar, Howard, Mesar, and many more weren't ranked higher by most lists, including bob's which is made by actual scouts, while being the same size or shorter.

Size bias only works if it factors into every ranking. You can't just pick one kid you like and then accuse everyone else who isn't as high on him of size bias when they have kids the same size or smaller ranked ahead of him.

No offence but that's a garbage argument.

You might want to go back 2 drafts and look at Daximus's 2020 draft ranking before digging too much of a hole about his size bias.


I'm not sure it's his final draft ranking, but Perfetti and Rossi didn't exactly grow between August 12th and the draft.

I was also super high on Seth Jarvis that year despite him measuring 5'9.

 

[Daximus]

Well, again, he said it. I'm not sure why I should be accountable for his words?

Then, when pressed, he deferred to rankings of other publications, which do have demonstrable evidence of size bias, and brought that larger lens into the foreground of this conversation.

You're grasping at straws now bud. I made a passing remark on him being small and when asked to elaborate I told you why I think he's a risky pick based on him being completely ineffective in the SHL against men. Accuse me of having a size bias all you want. Literally anyone else on this forum will know that I have never been deterred by size when ranking players. I don't have to impress you, frankly it really doesn't matter what you think.

 

[Daximus]

He's about half a year younger than Eklund, who failed to do anything of note in the SHL in his draft-1 year too. It's pretty common that a young player seemingly just "gets it" in the SHL the year after they're drafted and makes everyone look stupid.

Then again, we probably don't remember the ones that kept on not producing after the draft.

I'm iffy with Östlund. He could be a great pick at #14. I would 100% be in favor of drafting him with our 2nd 1st rounder if the Rangers somehow beat the Canes. But there might be better value available at #14.


Good thing he has multiple years of pre-draft rankings available on here that you can look at then.

That would help back up this claim of size bias.

To get you started, here he is ranking Eklund #1 among forwards for the 2021 NHL draft:



I'm procrastinating from editing a paper on algorithmic bias on my other monitor though, so I appreciate the clarification of what bias is.

Careful. I might start getting accused of having a size bias against tall players.

 

[Daximus]

Ostlund was pretty good at the u18s but Lekkermaki was on another level there as well. I am always hesitant to base any rankings off that tournament in particular.

At 14 would I take him? Depends on who is there. He seems more like a late 1st/2nd round pick as he likely needs a few years to get stronger before you could really tell what you have. His lack of doing anything in the SEL is concerning but its very likely that he just isn't ready physically to be in those leagues.

Yeah I always try to temper my rankings when it comes to tournaments. People get so reactive when they see a kid blow the doors off the U18's or Hlinka and then they end up busting 4 years down the road. I try to stick to what they are doing in their respective leagues day in and day out.

 

[MardyBum]

A conversation with Marco Kasper, who is already very close to being an NHLer: Scouting with Faber

The Vancouver Canucks are set to select 15th overall in the first roun...

canucksarmy.com

A possibility around our pick.

 

[Jimmy Hoots]

You're grasping at straws now bud. I made a passing remark on him being small and when asked to elaborate I told you why I think he's a risky pick based on him being completely ineffective in the SHL against men. Accuse me of having a size bias all you want. Literally anyone else on this forum will know that I have never been deterred by size when ranking players don't have to impress you, frankly it really doesn't matter what you think.

Size bias exists, demonstrably.

Moreover, attributing a perceived psychological state to a player, based on a statistically insignificant sample size, is just shoddy research, and I'm not sure I take you seriously as a talent evaluator, but that's my journey.

 

[Daximus]

Size bias exists, demonstrably - even if it appears to be hard for you to hear that - and you might consider how your actual words contribute to, perpetuate, and embody that... or you can not own up to your words and write them off as a "passing remark". It's a matter of maturity, being accountable for what you say, and that's your journey.

Moreover, attributing a perceived psychological state to a player, based on a statistically insignificant sample size, is just shoddy research, and I'm not sure I take you seriously as a talent evaluator, but that's my journey.

It's really not hard to hear.

You sit here on your holier than thou throne and make assumptions about some perceived bias I have. A bias that has been proven to be false, no matter how hard that is for you to read. And then accuse me of making assumptions.

Edit: I should also add that I own everything I say on this site and stand by every ranking I make. You're not the first poster to get angry over remarks I've made about a player and accuse me of some sort of bias and you won't be the last. I've been accused of having a bias against small players, tall players, thin players, heavy players, Canadians, Russians, Swedes, Americans, Finns, Euros in general, North American players in general, fast players, slow players. You name it. If that's your only argument to make than it's pretty flimsy and obviously every other frequent poster around here isn't buying it either.

 

[Snot Rocket]

The reason is two words : size bias. "Undersized" players are consistently underscouted, underranked, and underdrafted in relation to their production levels, as meta-analyses of these processes have shown. Your own scant analysis here reproduces and re-inscribes this bias, so I understand it is hard to see something you are so inside of.

Is there a compilation of underscouted, underranked and underdrafted players, like an actual data set you can point to or reference to support this claim?

I see lot's of smaller high skill players drafted and like a good portion of all nhl draft picks, many don't pan out regardless of size. Petan, DeLeo, McKenzie for example.
When it comes to size, maybe that big guy you drafted can at least grind on the 4th line, contribute maybe 10 goals a year and be a meat cushion on the PK if his game doesn't translate well in the show.

I do believe there was a size bias 20 years ago, but now with HD video available on every player or the modern smartphone with high end camera and lenses in scouts hands, I think that era has passed.

 

[Jets]

Rangers beat Carolina. Jets have 2 1sts. Trade NYR 1st and Heinola to Detroit for 8th. Draft Savoie at 8 and one of Geekie or Mateychuk at 14.

 

[Gil Fisher]

Jimmy Hoots trying to drive Dax back into retirement imo.