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

[shottasasa]

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.

Can you add any colour to that? I can’t find any sort of scouting report on this guy

 

[ManVanFan]

Can you add any colour to that? I can’t find any sort of scouting report on this guy

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.

 

[ManVanFan]

Dorrington catches the other team trying to change

 

[VanJack]

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.

Didn't Chris Tanev play a year at R.I.T? You never know.

 

[Yultron]

Let’s see what Mynio can do in this game

 

[ManVanFan]

Didn't Chris Tanev play a year at R.I.T? You never know.

He did yes. Program doesn't have a very NHL rich history. Quite a few AHL/ECHL guys though haha.

 

[Diversification]

He did yes. Program doesn't have a very NHL rich history. Quite a few AHL/ECHL guys though haha.

I vaguely remember and then googled it. Joe Juneau went there! He famously earned a degree in aeronautical engineering with a 4.0 GPA from RIT before embarking on a very successful NHL career.

 

[Vector]

I vaguely remember and then googled it. Joe Juneau went there! He famously earned a degree in aeronautical engineering with a 4.0 GPA from RIT before embarking on a very successful NHL career.

Juneau went to RPI. Both New York schools, though.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I vaguely remember and then googled it. Joe Juneau went there! He famously earned a degree in aeronautical engineering with a 4.0 GPA from RIT before embarking on a very successful NHL career.

Which is especially weird because he looked and dressed like a Quebecois headbanger redneck and also fronted a bar band while he played.

 

[lawrence]

Already grateful that team Canada thinks he’s among the top dmans under 20 in Canada.

 

[Diversification]

Juneau went to RPI. Both New York schools, though.

Ah yes. My mistake. In fairness, they’re both polytechnic institutions based in Upstate New York cities starting with the letter R.

 

[Diversification]

Which is especially weird because he looked and dressed like a Quebecois headbanger redneck and also fronted a bar band while he played.

Joe Juneau is one of a kind. He was also a pioneer in advocating for player’s rights going so far as to hold out for a 1-way contract before his rookie season.

 

[ManVanFan]

 

[krutovsdonut]

i am doubting the robustness of any model that concludes the 5th most comparable prospect to kudryatsev is jordan subban. he's not even the 5th most comparable former canuck prospect.

 

[ManVanFan]

i am doubting the robustness of any model that concludes the 5th most comparable prospect to kudryatsev is jordan subban. he's not even the 5th most comparable former canuck prospect.

Might be the funniest thing to dispute on the page is their stats that have already happened.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Might be the funniest thing to dispute on the page is their stats that have already happened.

i think maybe you fail to see the forest for the trees. the stats they are using that tell them jordan subban is a close comparable are useless stats for the purposes of comparing prospects whether or not they are accurately recorded. or, to put it another way, if someone is using astrology to generate comparisons between players it does not follow that i am questioning whether they got the star charts correct when i suggest their analysis is complete garbage. and that applies even though those star charts have "already happened". you get me?

 

[ManVanFan]

i think maybe you fail to see the forest for the trees. the stats they are using that tell them jordan subban is a close comparable are useless stats for the purposes of comparing prospects whether or not they are accurately recorded. or, to put it another way, if someone is using astrology to generate comparisons between players it does not follow that i am questioning whether they got the star charts correct when i suggest their analysis is complete garbage. and that applies even though those star charts have "already happened". you get me?

Oh so you are just an old man screaming at clouds because. You could have just said that.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Oh so you are just an old man screaming at clouds because. You could have just said that.

if you want to die on the hill of defending a stats model that suggest kudryatsev is meaningfully similar to jordan subban, you're kind of barking at the moon yourself there bub.

and it's yelling at clouds. get your cultural references right.

 

[ManVanFan]

if you want to die on the hill of defending a stats model that suggest kudryatsev is meaningfully similar to jordan subban, you're kind of barking at the moon yourself there bub.

and it's yelling at clouds. get your cultural references right.

Where on that page does it says he is "meaningfully similar"?

It's says "statistical comparison". They had similar stats. Comparing stats not players.

All that is, is saying that out of 10 players that had similar stats, 2 out of 10 made the NHL.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Where on that page does it says he is "meaningfully similar"?

It's says "statistical comparison". They had similar stats. Comparing stats not players.

All that is, is saying that out of 10 players that had similar stats, 2 out of 10 made the NHL.

no, it says "best statistical comparison". and they listed the player names on the infographic not their stats so pretty obviously they were implying the stat similarities were sufficiently meaningful to justify actually naming and comparing the players. if they were making a bare statistical projection based on a theory that the statistical comparison is meaningful on a macro scale even if the individual player to player comparisons are not, as you seem to claim, then they obviously should not have put the individual player names there at all because that would be misleading and they definitely should not have put them under a header implying the statistical comparisons were somehow the "best" because that word sure as hell implies they are meaningful.

and really you continue to completely miss the point. yannick tremblay is on that list and is 29 years older than kudryatsev, so the model goes back at least 29 years. any statistical comparison that ends up suggesting jordan subban is one of the ten best prospect comparisons to kudryatsev in the last 29 years is complete and utter junk.

or let me break it down further. the first player in that comparison list is kyle wood. kyle is 6' 6" 236 lb. do you think he's a useful comparison?

 

[ManVanFan]

no, it says "best statistical comparison". and they listed the player names on the infographic not their stats so pretty obviously they were implying the stat similarities were sufficiently meaningful to justify actually naming and comparing the players. if they were making a bare statistical projection based on a theory that the statistical comparison is meaningful on a macro scale even if the individual player to player comparisons are not, as you seem to claim, then they obviously should not have put the individual player names there at all because that would be misleading and they definitely should not have put them under a header implying the statistical comparisons were somehow the "best" because that word sure as hell implies they are meaningful.

and really you continue to completely miss the point. yannick tremblay is on that list and is 29 years older than kudryatsev, so the model goes back at least 29 years. any statistical comparison that ends up suggesting jordan subban is one of the ten best prospect comparisons to kudryatsev in the last 29 years is complete and utter junk.

or let me break it down further. the first player in that comparison list is kyle wood. kyle is 6' 6" 236 lb. do you think he's a useful comparison?

So I sent the guy a message and his answer was "it's purely based on stats and not a meaningful player comparison."

I'm struggling to help you get unstuck here.

From those 10 players and more that weren't named, you look at their careers and take those numbers and can see the possible odds of what Kudryastev's closet comparables became.

As it says that 57% of the comparable players are busts. 16% became a 3rd pair defender. 21% became an Impact defender. There is a current 6% chance that he will score over .45 PPG in the NHL.

You can look at say Wood is not a comparable player or Subban. You going to filter with an inch or two of the players size? What if they grow? You going to filter how well the player skates? How would you do that, it's pretty subjective. You going to filter how hard they shoot? How you going to do that.

It is possible to look at that list and make your own assessments on who would be the most meaningful comparable style wise. That's not up to him on how you decide and think who is the most comparable style. He's just giving you the most likely outcomes from stats.

I should also add that when his stats change, so would his most comparables.

 

[VanJack]

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.

 

[krutovsdonut]

As it says that 57% of the comparable players are busts. 16% became a 3rd pair defender. 21% became an Impact defender. There is a current 6% chance that he will score over .45 PPG in the NHL.

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.

 

[ManVanFan]

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.

You might want to learn more about it before you make a few more inaccurate claims. You must not be that old. I had the same questions about it more than half a decade ago and then seeing results over time and learning about it more. It is a very useful tool to use and much more accurate if you understand and aren't fixated on certain things.


I believe it was Bader that went through a decade of drafts that were 5 to 15 years past and his rate of NHL success of first rounds was 70 something percent and the NHL's was 56%. The models have improved since then.

As Nick even showed how he changed and eleborated on Patrick Bacon's and Chatel's models. McCallum also had a recent updated model.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You might want to learn more about it before you make a few more inaccurate claims. You must not be that old. I had the same questions about it more than half a decade ago and then seeing results over time and learning about it more. It is a very useful tool to use and much more accurate if you understand and aren't fixated on certain things.


I believe it was Bader that went through a decade of drafts that were 5 to 15 years past and his rate of NHL success of first rounds was 70 something percent and the NHL's was 56%. The models have improved since then.

As Nick even showed how he changed and eleborated on Patrick Bacon's and Chatel's models. McCallum also had a recent updated model.

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.