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

[cc]

Not to completely explain alriksson's lack of production but prior to his last 6 games or so, he was on the third line with grinders with limited ice time.

From the select games I've watched, he would set up players only to have them not convert or lose the puck on the cycle. It was actually mentioned on the last Guelph broadcast so I wasn't the only one who noticed.

He's now playing on the top line and the plays he's making are turning into points. He looks pretty good so far but mostly as a complimentary set up guy. It looks like he wants to score but he's far from a natural goal scorer.

If he can stay on the top line, I think he'll get at least a point per game. The biased broadcasters mentioned it was probably the best line in the OHL right now right before that line got shut out last game.

All that being said, I think his upside is at best a Jordan Greenway type of player. He wont be a top six level point producer but there are some intangibles there that can add some value to a team on a bottom six role.

I've only watched a handful of games of his and I'm not a scout, but I've tried to focus on his game very closely. I find he's an interesting player to follow development-wise because there seems to be something there.

 

[VanJack]

All I see is that the beatings will continue until his ppg improves.
wheres the fun in that

and Why is Patterson not receiving the same treatment?

For context, Dakota Joshua was a fifth round pick of the Leafs, 128th overall, in the 2014 draft. And he averaged 25 points a season at that NCAA juggernaut, Ohio State University. And his first year in pro hockey--split between the ECHL and AHL-- he had 18 points in 50 games.

When following a team's prospects' 'optimism' is far more interesting than 'cynicism'. I mean sometimes it does 'happen;.....just sayin'.

 

[ChilliBilly]

OP was responding to a poster saying that Alriksson was likely to play in the NHL next season.

I haven't seen anyone say they think he will in the NHL next season. I said something like I expect Alriksson to play in the AHL next year, and there's a good chance he will get a cup of coffee in the NHL next season. It will depend on his play in Abby. The team may decide it's better for him to go back to Guelph next year in which case this is all academic.

 

[MS]

We are all here to hope

Of course. Everyone is here hoping for the best and cheering for these guys to succeed. But you can still do that while understanding the odds and the reality of the situation.

Like, hit rates for 3rd round picks :

2015 6/30 guys have had some sort of NHL career (~200 GP, 2 full seasons on an NHL roster) 3/30 are a top-6/top-4/#1 type asset that actually carries value.

2016 4/30 NHLers. 1/30 top-6/top-4

2017 6/31 NHLers. 3/31 top-6/top-4

2018 5/31 NHLers. 1/31 top-6/top-4

2019 3/31 NHLers. 2/31 top-6/top-4

Over a 5-year stretch the hit rate to get any sort of NHL asset from a 3rd round pick is 15%. The chances of getting an actual valuable contributing asset are 6%.

And I'm being generous here and calling Stuart Skinner a #1 goalie and Pavel Dorofeyev and Aleksei Protas top-6 guys based on very small sample sizes this year. And a guy like Mackenzie Entwhistle an 'NHL player'.

 

[Blue and Green]

For context, Dakota Joshua was a fifth round pick of the Leafs, 128th overall, in the 2014 draft. And he averaged 25 points a season at that NCAA juggernaut, Ohio State University. And his first year in pro hockey--split between the ECHL and AHL-- he had 18 points in 50 games.

When following a team's prospects' 'optimism' is far more interesting than 'cynicism'. I mean sometimes it does 'happen;.....just sayin'.

Optimistic takes on prospects might be more interesting but the relatively pessimistic ones are significantly more accurate on the whole. Just sayin'.

 

[Ernie]

Of course. Everyone is here hoping for the best and cheering for these guys to succeed. But you can still do that while understanding the odds and the reality of the situation.

Like, hit rates for 3rd round picks :

2015 6/30 guys have had some sort of NHL career (~200 GP, 2 full seasons on an NHL roster) 3/30 are a top-6/top-4/#1 type asset that actually carries value.

2016 4/30 NHLers. 1/30 top-6/top-4

2017 6/31 NHLers. 3/31 top-6/top-4

2018 5/31 NHLers. 1/31 top-6/top-4

2019 3/31 NHLers. 2/31 top-6/top-4

Over a 5-year stretch the hit rate to get any sort of NHL asset from a 3rd round pick is 15%. The chances of getting an actual valuable contributing asset are 6%.

And I'm being generous here and calling Stuart Skinner a #1 goalie and Pavel Dorofeyev and Aleksei Protas top-6 guys based on very small sample sizes this year. And a guy like Mackenzie Entwhistle an 'NHL player'.

This is the one thing that most fans just don't understand.

This is a useful post for people to understand draft pick value from the former Coyotes analytics director: https://puckpedia.com/PerriPickValue

But can be summed up in this one image:

Basically, a 10th overall pick has about half the value of a 1st overall pick. A 20th overall pick has about half the value of a 10th overall pick (and a quarter of a 1st overall pick). A 30th overall pick has half the value of a 20th overall pick (and 1/8th the value of a 1st overall pick).

By the time you get to the 3rd round, picks have basically no value. If you're a contender and you can upgrade your roster even in a minuscule way with a 3rd round + pick, you do it in a heartbeat.

 

[VanJack]

Optimistic takes on prospects might be more interesting but the relatively pessimistic ones are significantly more accurate on the whole. Just sayin'.

I agree that in rounds 3-7 only a handful of guys ever play in one NHL game. So most will fall short.

But every once and awhile some late-round flyer comes out of nowhere. And a kid like Arliksson at 6'6" and 234, who can skate like he can, already has a 'leg-up' in the optimism department.

But a lot of kids go to the AHL where their career stalls. So with Arliksson, the proof will be what happens when he hits Abbotsford next March.

 

[MS]

This is the one thing that most fans just don't understand.

This is a useful post for people to understand draft pick value from the former Coyotes analytics director: https://puckpedia.com/PerriPickValue

But can be summed up in this one image: View attachment 932333

Basically, a 10th overall pick has about half the value of a 1st overall pick. A 20th overall pick has about half the value of a 10th overall pick (and a quarter of a 1st overall pick). A 30th overall pick has half the value of a 20th overall pick (and 1/8th the value of a 1st overall pick).

By the time you get to the 3rd round, picks have basically no value. If you're a contender and you can upgrade your roster even in a minuscule way with a 3rd round + pick, you do it in a heartbeat.

Yeah, I've mentioned similar stuff before - a top-5 pick, to me, is worth 3-4 picks in the 25-30 range. But fans talk about '1st rounders' like they're all the same and Jim Benning was treated like he was a genius by a segment of the fanbase because he (sometimes) got better players at #5 overall than Mike Gillis got at #29 overall.

Rounds 2-3 are fighting the odds from the start. Rounds 5-7 are basically worthless. I'd trade every pick in the late rounds for whatever I could get.

 

[RobertKron]

This is the one thing that most fans just don't understand.

This is a useful post for people to understand draft pick value from the former Coyotes analytics director: https://puckpedia.com/PerriPickValue

But can be summed up in this one image: View attachment 932333

Basically, a 10th overall pick has about half the value of a 1st overall pick. A 20th overall pick has about half the value of a 10th overall pick (and a quarter of a 1st overall pick). A 30th overall pick has half the value of a 20th overall pick (and 1/8th the value of a 1st overall pick).

By the time you get to the 3rd round, picks have basically no value. If you're a contender and you can upgrade your roster even in a minuscule way with a 3rd round + pick, you do it in a heartbeat.

I don't get how folks don't tend to understand this. Like, there are X number of total NHL jobs. Given that we can all think of X-minus-not-many players who have and will continue to have multi-year NHL careers, that means that very few picks at any given moment will go on to have a significant NHL career.

 

[Ernie]

Rounds 2-3 are fighting the odds from the start. Rounds 5-7 are basically worthless. I'd trade every pick in the late rounds for whatever I could get.

Yep, you're better off plucking players from the waiver wire, signing un-drafted college players etc. At least you're potentially getting a player that is closer to contributing. Teams also tend to sign their late round draft picks when they really shouldn't and waste a contract slot.

 

[ChilliBilly]

This is the one thing that most fans just don't understand.

This is a useful post for people to understand draft pick value from the former Coyotes analytics director: https://puckpedia.com/PerriPickValue

But can be summed up in this one image: View attachment 932333

Basically, a 10th overall pick has about half the value of a 1st overall pick. A 20th overall pick has about half the value of a 10th overall pick (and a quarter of a 1st overall pick). A 30th overall pick has half the value of a 20th overall pick (and 1/8th the value of a 1st overall pick).

By the time you get to the 3rd round, picks have basically no value. If you're a contender and you can upgrade your roster even in a minuscule way with a 3rd round + pick, you do it in a heartbeat.

This is value of the pick. This is overly negative. Dobber did a great simple summary, using 100 games. I hope this shows up. I have used this before. The numbers are still not encouraging, but no where near as negative as the above chart.

 

[RobsonStreet]

This is value of the pick. This is overly negative. Dobber did a great simple summary, using 100 games. I hope this shows up. I have used this before. The numbers are still not encouraging, but no where near as negative as the above chart.

View attachment 932496

They are measuring two very different things. The first chart is essentially “how much is a given pick worth relative to first overall” and the second chart is “what percentage of picks in this range go on to play 100 games in the NHL”. A top 5 pick is worth more than three second rounders.

In other words, watch what happens when we go from forwards that play 100 games:

…to forwards that play 100 games and average half a point per game:

 

[Ernie]

This is value of the pick. This is overly negative. Dobber did a great simple summary, using 100 games. I hope this shows up. I have used this before. The numbers are still not encouraging, but no where near as negative as the above chart.

View attachment 932496

100 games is a crap metric, far worse than the analysis that MS put together above. By this logic some scrub who eaks out 100 games brings the same value as Connor McDavid. Someone who only plays 100 games is not any sort of asset to the team that drafted them.

 

[ChilliBilly]

100 games is a crap metric, far worse than the analysis that MS put together above. By this logic some scrub who eaks out 100 games brings the same value as Connor McDavid. Someone who only plays 100 games is not any sort of asset to the team that drafted them.

That is not the point of the argument. The odds of getting Bure in the 6th round are so minuscule as to be nonsense. It is a reasonable metric for a totally different argument.

What is a reasonable metric for a "NHL career"? I think 100 games is a good minimum basis.

As to what is the value of a pick, well the chart I posted makes I abundantly clear that a 1st OA pick vs a top 5 pick vx a top 15 etc etc is way more valuable. No one is trading the 1st overall for 10 firsts from the top team in the league. Even though one of them might end up to be 1st overall, it wouldn't be for years, and GM's don't think that way.

Curious. Do you think if Alriksson plays just 100 games for the Canucks, that it was a good pick?

I do note that I have seen 100, 200 and 300 games used as a "minimum" for an NHL career. Just like draft value vs likelihood of a career is sort of silly as they are two totally different metrics, deciding on a base number of career games as a "career" is purely an academic discussion.

 

[LemonSauceD]

That is not the point of the argument. The odds of getting Bure in the 6th round are so minuscule as to be nonsense. It is a reasonable metric for a totally different argument.

What is a reasonable metric for a "NHL career"? I think 100 games is a good minimum basis.

As to what is the value of a pick, well the chart I posted makes I abundantly clear that a 1st OA pick vs a top 5 pick vx a top 15 etc etc is way more valuable. No one is trading the 1st overall for 10 firsts from the top team in the league. Even though one of them might end up to be 1st overall, it wouldn't be for years, and GM's don't think that way.

Curious. Do you think if Alriksson plays just 100 games for the Canucks, that it was a good pick?

I do note that I have seen 100, 200 and 300 games used as a "minimum" for an NHL career. Just like draft value vs likelihood of a career is sort of silly as they are two totally different metrics, deciding on a base number of career games as a "career" is purely an academic discussion.

I mean it has to be relative to the round they were taken in the first place.

100 games for a 3rd-7th round pick? Yeah that’s “good”. 100 games for a top 10 pick? There’s less of a chance a top 10 pick plays less than 100 games.

So then question becomes whether you value an asset such as a later round pick that may get you, at the very least, a very minuscule probable chance of a 100 games, which judging by @Eerie ’s graph is already a pretty high enough parameter.

 

[Ernie]

That is not the point of the argument. The odds of getting Bure in the 6th round are so minuscule as to be nonsense. It is a reasonable metric for a totally different argument.

What is a reasonable metric for a "NHL career"? I think 100 games is a good minimum basis.

As to what is the value of a pick, well the chart I posted makes I abundantly clear that a 1st OA pick vs a top 5 pick vx a top 15 etc etc is way more valuable. No one is trading the 1st overall for 10 firsts from the top team in the league. Even though one of them might end up to be 1st overall, it wouldn't be for years, and GM's don't think that way.

Curious. Do you think if c plays just 100 games for the Canucks, that it was a good pick?

I do note that I have seen 100, 200 and 300 games used as a "minimum" for an NHL career. Just like draft value vs likelihood of a career is sort of silly as they are two totally different metrics, deciding on a base number of career games as a "career" is purely an academic discussion.

That's kind of the point, though. 100 games is meaningless - if he's a replacement level player for those games it's a waste of a pick regardless. But I was reacting to MS's post about the overall value of 3rd round picks, not handicapping Alriksson's likelyhood of making the NHL. Statistically speaking though, a player who can't crack a point per game in the OHL in his draft + 1 season is very unlikely to play an NHL game, regardless of his draft position.

 

[ManVanFan]

Talks about shortening the draft for a while because of all that was talked about. As a draft guy, I like the lotto tickets. Issue is not that they aren't ever needed. It's that Van isn't ever getting back what they spend. Contender or not, if you are good at drafting and developing the team should be in and out draft picks.

 

[docbenton]

That's kind of the point, though. 100 games is meaningless - if he's a replacement level player for those games it's a waste of a pick regardless. But I was reacting to MS's post about the overall value of 3rd round picks, not handicapping Alriksson's likelyhood of making the NHL. Statistically speaking though, a player who can't crack a point per game in the OHL in his draft + 1 season is very unlikely to play an NHL game, regardless of his draft position.

Sometimes I think about it like this: it's unlikely for any player outside of the slam-dunk stars that pass both the production and the eye test that they will have a good NHL career. You're always looking for outliers in the draft, in one way or another. The players that produce but don't have special qualities aren't making it either 99 times out 100.

 

[arttk]

That's kind of the point, though. 100 games is meaningless - if he's a replacement level player for those games it's a waste of a pick regardless. But I was reacting to MS's post about the overall value of 3rd round picks, not handicapping Alriksson's likelyhood of making the NHL. Statistically speaking though, a player who can't crack a point per game in the OHL in his draft + 1 season is very unlikely to play an NHL game, regardless of his draft position.

I think generically, players that can't crack a point per game in the OHL in D+1 are probably busts. But I think Alriksson himself is a outlier just by his size alone and we should evaluate outliers like they are outliers.

The data we are have are mostly based on players between 5'11-6'3? A normal size prospect is probably spending majority of their time from age 18-20 working on getting better skill wise while a abnormally large size prospect is probably spending 18-20 adapting to their body and don't get to work on their skills until like 20+ . Not saying just because of that he is less likely to bust but just arguing that prospects like that probably will take more time. Also different people have growth spurts at different time, we know a bunch of basketball guys get huge at like 14 and we know there are people who get growth spurts at like 17. No idea when Alriksson got his spurt but it looks like he was adjusting to his body last year and this year is more about honing in on his skills.