Prospect Info: The 2024-2025 Prospect Thread: Part 1: Skate or Die!

[Yultron]

Yes sir , Riley Patterson with 2 goals today for the Barrie Colts , still not quite at PPG but hopefully he has a huge second half

 

[kanucks25]

i do understand "possible odds" are being claimed and the fact the claim is based on "stats". it's an illusion. from the list of comparisons, the guy is tracking players in the same position who scored a similar amount of points in their career in the same league at the same age and is not even including score adjusted comparisons to other leagues. given the disparities in physical size and playing style among his top reported comparables, that seems likely to be the whole model.

now there is a rough correlation between points scored in lowerleagues and nhl success as melvin's potato drafting model demonstrates much better than this infographic. if you look at the infographic above the year to year possible success is also maybe helpful to show a prospect getting stronger or weaker compared to how other players progress, but i think the rest is over-embellished bumf.

i say the odds in particular are total nonsense because they are based on a stats model that considers that out of thousands of dman prospects drafted over the last 30 years, his very closest comparitors include a 6' 6" 230 lb dman and a 5' 9" (on a good day with a tailwind) dman who is kind of lowkey famous among canucks fans for not playing defence and trying to outscore that deficiency.

i am comfortable in saying these are not players who succeeded or failed based on factors relevant to assessing kudreyetsov's chances of making or not making the nhl. the fact they show up in the top ten of all comparable prospects tells you either the data pool is too small or the model is too crude to generate meaningful comparisons.

i am sure there is a way to build (or train )a model to assess prospects with enough certainty to provide meaningful possible odds for success for late round draft picks. in my view, this is not it.

My dude you are way too invested in "debunking" an obviously very rudimentary infographic that nobody, including the creator, is arguing is much more than that.

The bolded in your post is all that is relevant. If you want to claim that it's completely meaningless due to whatever missing context, fine, but that doesn't change what is, again, a very simple rudimentary calculation.

 

[ManVanFan]

funny you should relate it to experience with these models because my initial reaction was "not this shit again". those models have been around for too long without getting any better.

i just think they are, by and large, too crude, given to bold unsustained assertions and generally puffed up to generate clicks of the sort this one generated. the notion that kudryatsev is productive enough to track as a conventional nhl dman is really all you can take from that infographic. the rest is to me unhelpful if not misleading. the odds and possibilities to me might as well be pulled out of someone's ass.

for example, look at the "odds progression" chart that supposedly tracks his odds of making the nhl. we are to believe he has only increased those odds by 2% since he was 16. in other words, this model implies the development of this player has been static if not stunted.

in reality, kudryatsev is a seventh rounder playing in the ahl at 20 taking a regular shift in most situations as a rookie after coming off a solid season in the chl. he's pushed a number of older ahl dmen down the depth chart. his development is miles ahead of your average 7th rounder. it's respectable for a second rounder.

post draft development is, by far, the best indicator of eventual nhl success, especially, for obvious reasons, in later round picks. i would say a player showing this kind of development is more likely to succeed than a respectable second rounder he is currently caught up to.

so a suggestion for your friend would be to track relative development better and in more interesting and sophisticated ways, and to relate that better to success.

kudryatsev is also blessed with the physical size and tools to play the game as an nhl regular without compensating. in particular he has shown a strong 2 way defender hockey iq that has allowed him to learn and step into a significant ahl role very quickly. he also does not have to compensate for a deficiency in size, style of play or glaring mobility issues.

these are basic indicators of eventual nhl success that ought to be used to filter odds in any model if possible. the fact these kinds of models do not consider them is a weakness that causes them to confuse a kudryatsev with a jordan subban. while not all data is available to track those indicators, it's not difficult to use a size filter to handicap and adjust nhl normative results and to adjust and weight prospect comparisons (no pun intended).

all of which to say is that these models can and should do better.

This was a nice conversation, I can see you still don't even remotely understand the models. By the end of the season, I hope there is an update and we will see how after a full season in the AHL whether or not he's any different.

 

[krutovsdonut]

My dude you are way too invested in "debunking" an obviously very rudimentary infographic that nobody, including the creator, is arguing is much more than that.

The bolded in your post is all that is relevant. If you want to claim that it's completely meaningless due to whatever missing context, fine, but that doesn't change what is, again, a very simple rudimentary calculation.

i completely agree with you on the simple rudimentary calculation part. if you look at my original post you'll see i am not overinvested in the topic.

i have been overinvested in trying to reason with the poster who was making irrational arguments challenging that take. not sure who, but i won't waste my time with him further. thanks.

This was a nice conversation, I can see you still don't even remotely understand the models. By the end of the season, I hope there is an update and we will see how after a full season in the AHL whether or not he's any different.

another bad faith patronizing argument totally unresponsive to what i said. you go on ignore. have a nice life.

 

[wetcoast]

You gotta have fun , us Canucks fans have suffered for a long time , and a lot of other commenters commented and went along with it and made some pretty funny remarks and I really like the NBA center remark ,

I’m not sure why you mad about this or have reacted the way you have and are being negative about Alriksson.

Toropchenko has found meaningful ways to contribute at the NHL level , what makes you think Alriksson can’t reach that same contribution,

Especially when he will potentially outproduce Toropchenko’s junior point production,

And his size can absolutely contribute meaningfully in the NHL you can’t teach his size

I'm not being negative just realistic and sometimes I wish I could be that blind faith type of fan that sees everything good in Canuckland.

But hey part of that comes with being a fan of this team since it's inception.

We have a couple of potentially really good prospects and then a whole lot of projects.

 

[wetcoast]

Not sure if this should go in here but

Matthew Wilde - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Matthew Wilde, 2002-04-30 Mississauga, ON, CAN Canada. Most recently in the NCAA with RIT (Rochester Inst. of Tech.). Complete player biography and stats.

www.eliteprospects.com

22 year old that Van should look at as a college free agent.

Any particular reason why?

I can't find much info on him.

 

[wetcoast]

I was watching R.I.T. highlights from their past few games. Almost a complete nobody that is 10th in PPG in the NCAA this year. Barely noticed him, then he's on the scoresheet. There wasn't anything lacking in his game. It's kind of like how a lot have viewed Riley Paterson, except not wasting a 6th round pick on him. He'd be free and he's doing it against better competition.

I get the free part but he would still take a protection list spot.

Any word on his skating, intensity ect...?

 

[wetcoast]

Hockey DB lists Kudryavtsev at 5'11" and 200....which probably hasn't been updated since his draft profile year. He must be built like a block of granite.

Haven't watched any Abby Canuck games in real-time this year, but curious as to how he handles the heavy forecheck in his own zone. From what little I've seen, he's holding his own. And course his offensive game has been top-notch--even earning him PP time as a 20-year old rookie.

As a 7th round draft pick, he's already soared by any expectations the Canucks might have had when they took flyer on him.

Not stylistically but he reminds me a bit of Troy Stecher as a guy who can hold his own out there 5 on 5 but probably doesn't project as a top 4 guy.

 

[ManVanFan]

i completely agree with you on the simple rudimentary calculation part. if you look at my original post you'll see i am not overinvested in the topic.

i have been overinvested in trying to reason with the poster who was making irrational arguments challenging that take. not sure who, but i won't waste my time with him further. thanks.


another bad faith patronizing argument totally unresponsive to what i said. you go on ignore. have a nice life.

I tried to explain it to you many times. I've answered all your questions but you aren't really reading what I'm writing. You've got your own answers to your own questions.

 

[ManVanFan]

I get the free part but he would still take a protection list spot.

Any word on his skating, intensity ect...?

I had said that I didn't see anything noticeable that was lacking in terms of skating, shooting, board plays. Although limited viewings. During the viewings, his skills were noticeable enough for me to warrant looking into him more in the future.

 

[Yultron]

Two assists for Alriksson today , playing at a point per game pace on his new team

 

[ManVanFan]

Two assists for Alriksson today , playing at a point per game pace on his new team

Net front PP it seems

 

[MS]

funny you should relate it to experience with these models because my initial reaction was "not this shit again". those models have been around for too long without getting any better.

i just think they are, by and large, too crude, given to bold unsustained assertions and generally puffed up to generate clicks of the sort this one generated. the notion that kudryatsev is productive enough to track as a conventional nhl dman is really all you can take from that infographic. the rest is to me unhelpful if not misleading. the odds and possibilities to me might as well be pulled out of someone's ass.

for example, look at the "odds progression" chart that supposedly tracks his odds of making the nhl. we are to believe he has only increased those odds by 2% since he was 16. in other words, this model implies the development of this player has been static if not stunted.

in reality, kudryatsev is a seventh rounder playing in the ahl at 20 taking a regular shift in most situations as a rookie after coming off a solid season in the chl. he's pushed a number of older ahl dmen down the depth chart. his development is miles ahead of your average 7th rounder. it's respectable for a second rounder.

post draft development is, by far, the best indicator of eventual nhl success, especially, for obvious reasons, in later round picks. i would say a player showing this kind of development is more likely to succeed than a respectable second rounder he is currently caught up to.

so a suggestion for your friend would be to track relative development better and in more interesting and sophisticated ways, and to relate that better to success.

kudryatsev is also blessed with the physical size and tools to play the game as an nhl regular without compensating. in particular he has shown a strong 2 way defender hockey iq that has allowed him to learn and step into a significant ahl role very quickly. he also does not have to compensate for a deficiency in size, style of play or glaring mobility issues.

these are basic indicators of eventual nhl success that ought to be used to filter odds in any model if possible. the fact these kinds of models do not consider them is a weakness that causes them to confuse a kudryatsev with a jordan subban. while not all data is available to track those indicators, it's not difficult to use a size filter to handicap and adjust nhl normative results and to adjust and weight prospect comparisons (no pun intended).

all of which to say is that these models can and should do better.

These models are consistently worthless garbage made by some guy who has taken a 1st year Statistics course, in his mom’s basement.

My favourite was when Canucks Army wrote a dedicated article about how terrible the Zack MacEwen signing was because they put 20 years of overage CHL production into a graph and didn’t understand that they were comparing mostly 5’10 guys in their 5th CHL season to a 6’4 guy in his 2nd CHL season on a heater of a development curve.

 

[ManVanFan]

These models are consistently worthless garbage made by some guy who has taken a 1st year Statistics course, in his mom’s basement.

My favourite was when Canucks Army wrote a dedicated article about how terrible the Zack MacEwen signing was because they put 20 years of overage CHL production into a graph and didn’t understand that they were comparing mostly 5’10 guys in their 5th CHL season to a 6’4 guy in his 2nd CHL season on a heater of a development curve.

Are you really pretending as if a player in his draft plus 11 year that has 235 NHL games and 34 career points was and is a great signing? He's an NHL punching bag.

 

[MS]

Are you really pretending as if a player in his draft plus 11 year that has 235 NHL games and 34 career points was and is a great signing? He's an NHL punching bag.

Seriously?

Yes, an overage CHL signing who is still in the NHL 7 years later is a very good signing. Just like a 7th round pick who played 235 NHL games would be a fantastic draft pick.

If you had a prospect in the WHL right now who you could somehow know that Zack MacEwen was a 50th percentile outcome for, there would be 32 teams offering that guy a contract.

 

[ManVanFan]

Seriously?

Yes, an overage CHL signing who is still in the NHL 7 years later is a very good signing. Just like a 7th round pick who played 235 NHL games would be a fantastic draft pick.

If you had a prospect in the WHL right now who you could somehow know that Zack MacEwen was a 50th percentile outcome for, there would be 32 teams offering that guy a contract.

Is Vincent Deshairnais a good NHL defender?

Zack MacEwen as an overager was a 3% chance. That included all the guys that were 6'4" like him. Who blossomed in the AHL to a 24% chance at playing 200 NHL games. 1 in 4. He succeeded in doing that as a face puncher. It wasn't a waste signing but it wasn't good.

 

[MS]

Is Vincent Deshairnais a good NHL defender?

Zack MacEwen as an overager was a 3% chance. That included all the guys that were 6'4" like him. Who blossomed in the AHL to a 24% chance at playing 200 NHL games. 1 in 4. He succeeded in doing that as a face puncher. It wasn't a waste signing but it wasn't good.

Ha, did you write the crappy article with the bad math that I’m referring to?

Getting a useful asset for free as an OA UFA signing is a very good result. It was a good signing. One of the very best NCAA/CHL UFA signings from that year.

And the reason it turned out well was because those ‘3%’ numbers you’re referring to are contextless rubbish.

 

[ManVanFan]

Ha, did you write the crappy article with the bad math that I’m referring to?

Getting a useful asset for free as an OA UFA signing is a very good result. It was a good signing. One of the very best NCAA/CHL UFA signings from that year.

And the reason it turned out well was because those ‘3%’ numbers you’re referring to are contextless rubbish.

I had no idea that they are rubbish and that's why NHL teams keep adding employees that do this kind of work. Sorry I forgot, that NHL teams employees are signed up to view this type of work. That's how rubbish the work is.

You should write a letter to let NHL teams know that they are spending money for rubbish. Let's pretend that you are better than professionals employed by NHL teams for a moment.

 

[MS]

I had no idea that they are rubbish and that's why NHL teams keep adding employees that do this kind of work.

You should write a letter to let NHL teams know that they are spending money for rubbish. Let's pretend that you are better than professionals employed by NHL teams for a moment.

Thank you for your appeal to authority.

And I’m pretty sure NHL teams don’t use the sort of crap cited in that article.

Understanding hit rates and percentages generally can be useful. But you can’t just blindly put players into graphs without understanding the context in which their numbers were generated for each individual player.

MacEwen was not even remotely the same as the bulk of the players he was being compared to.

And on the flipside, you have guys like Brayden Tracey who are statistically in a ‘likely’ pile but when you actually watched the guy play and understood the context in which his numbers were generated, should have been considered a marginal prospect.

 

[ManVanFan]

Thank you for your appeal to authority.

And I’m pretty sure NHL teams don’t use the sort of crap cited in that article.

Understanding hit rates and percentages generally can be useful. But you can’t just blindly put players into graphs without understanding the context in which their numbers were generated for each individual player.

MacEwen was not even remotely the same as the bulk of the players he was being compared to.

And on the flipside, you have guys like Brayden Tracey who are statistically in a ‘likely’ pile but when you actually watched the guy play and understood the context in which his numbers were generated, should have been considered a marginal prospect.

Last I remember one guy said 29 out of 32 NHL teams had a scout employee paying a yearly subscription.

The funny part is that it's a useful tool to someone that hasn't just degraded it because it doesn't tell them what they think is right, is right.
Obviously you watch players play. At no point have I said you don't or that these graphs are set in stone even.

Brayden Tracey in his draft year had a 9% chance of becoming a star. 14% impact player. 13% replaceable and 65% of becoming a bust. So the model said that players that looked like Tracey over 2 years pre and draft years, 65% of them busted. His draft plus 1 season, those numbers stayed relatively the same. Currently, in "graph draft rankings" so far that would be someone in the 24-34 range.

 

[VanJack]

Not stylistically but he reminds me a bit of Troy Stecher as a guy who can hold his own out there 5 on 5 but probably doesn't project as a top 4 guy.

Nothing against Troy Stecher, who was a gamer for the Canucks and is still contributing for the Oilers.

But Hockey DB lists Stecher at 5'10" and 184. Kudryavtsev is obviously bigger and heavier, and brings a lot more offense to the table. If he were to morph into someone like Matt Dumba, then that would be a 'win' for the Canucks.

 

[shottasasa]

Nothing against Troy Stecher, who was a gamer for the Canucks and is still contributing for the Oilers.

But Hockey DB lists Stecher at 5'10" and 184. Kudryavtsev is obviously bigger and heavier, and brings a lot more offense to the table. If he were to morph into someone like Matt Dumba, then that would be a 'win' for the Canucks.

That would be one hell of a metamorphosis from what I can tell

 

[wetcoast]

Nothing against Troy Stecher, who was a gamer for the Canucks and is still contributing for the Oilers.

But Hockey DB lists Stecher at 5'10" and 184. Kudryavtsev is obviously bigger and heavier, and brings a lot more offense to the table. If he were to morph into someone like Matt Dumba, then that would be a 'win' for the Canucks.

That's why I wasn't comparing them stylistically but rather on value and sure Kudryavtsev is a bit heavier and probably brings more offense but his offense also probably won't translate to the NHL either and he becomes a Jordan Spence type of guy which may be a slightly better version of Stecher.

If he ever gets to the value of a Spence then the Canucks would have a win here.

 

[MS]

Last I remember one guy said 29 out of 32 NHL teams had a scout employee paying a yearly subscription.

The funny part is that it's a useful tool to someone that hasn't just degraded it because it doesn't tell them what they think is right, is right.
Obviously you watch players play. At no point have I said you don't or that these graphs are set in stone even.

Brayden Tracey in his draft year had a 9% chance of becoming a star. 14% impact player. 13% replaceable and 65% of becoming a bust. So the model said that players that looked like Tracey over 2 years pre and draft years, 65% of them busted. His draft plus 1 season, those numbers stayed relatively the same. Currently, in "graph draft rankings" so far that would be someone in the 24-34 range.

Those crappy numbers said that Tracey had a 40% chance of being an NHL regular when it was nothing of the sort. Dude was a 5th-6th round type who got inflated due to elite linemates and PP usage.

These numbers are shit. Again : it’s worth understanding baseline percentages as a general thing - understanding that on a very macro level production=good, understanding hit rates per round to understand trade values of picks. But trying to apply them to specific players without any sort of context is dumb as f*** and anyone trying to do it understands neither math nor hockey.

 

[VanJack]

That would be one hell of a metamorphosis from what I can tell

Granted. For a seventh round draft pick to morph into a Matt Dumba, it's a leap too far. But after all the bad news in Canuckland to start the new year, there's always room for some hopeless optimism.