Prospect Info: The 2024-2025 Prospects Thread

[ManVanFan]

i'm on your side but this forum is extremely hostile to anything that isn't conventional wisdom when it comes to prospects. anything approaching a minority view is basically shouted down. it's basically pointless to try to engage in good faith if you aren't just parroting eliteprospects

it sucks because it means there's no real discussion except for only the most specific things (is this skater's puck handling great or only good? is atchenson a better prospect than jackson?)

I will be the first to admit, I love a good discussion. I believe in every opinion. Whether it aligns with mine or not. I am an adult that can have a fiery discussion and it won't bother me a bit. I like to know what others are thinking because it will give me a different perspective to look at things in not always my own way. I used to make rankings and I would drop a prospect 20 places because I wasn't high on him. Some other person gives their opinion and maybe I was too harsh and will slide the guy back up 10 spots.

We talked about Hensler this morning and I'm not that high on him but when you mentioned he was a mid round pick, I took a harder look at the mid round and I can't deny he's not in that area. He's not someone I'm sprinting to the podium for, for Van but he's def a worth while pick in the range for some team, not named Van Lol.

 

[ManVanFan]

You brought up THN in defence of this model that apparently made exactly one pick that worked out. You tried to slip in a false equivalence, you can't laugh at this because this other thing is worse, so I stated how I believe scouting should be done. Rather than being defensive about people not liking Bader's model, perhaps you could look for more picks that it's made and argue with actual evidence behind your words.

I'm not writing you a book because you don't like what I say. Gezz christ man.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I'm not writing you a book because you don't like what I say. Gezz christ man.

You're talking to the guy who runs two stats threads and has taken to making GDTs for the farm team's playoff run. I expect an equal effort from people who want to debate me.

 

[ManVanFan]

You brought up THN in defence of this model that apparently made exactly one pick that worked out. You tried to slip in a false equivalence, you can't laugh at this because this other thing is worse, so I stated how I believe scouting should be done. Rather than being defensive about people not liking Bader's model, perhaps you could look for more picks that it's made and argue with actual evidence behind your words.

If I wanted to clown on you, I'd point out that you're posting in a thread where I collect the stats of our prospects and provide a service to the forum and its users and then ask what exactly it is that you do around here. It's only one of several things I do around here, BTW.

You copy and pasting stats on a forum is pretty much the same as my copy and pasting a tweet. If you think otherwise, I could care less.

 

[ManVanFan]

You're talking to the guy who runs two stats threads and has taken to making GDTs for the farm team's playoff run. I expect an equal effort from people who want to debate me.

I'd like to see the quality of competition in the playoffs for Abbotsford.

 

[Tables of Stats]

You copy and pasting stats on a forum is pretty much the same as my copy and pasting a tweet. If you think otherwise, I could care less.

It seems as if you indeed could care less (you might have wanted to use couldn't there to make the phrase make sense, but hey, free country).

 

[Josepho]

The main issue with virtually every prospect model is that they're all entirely based on points and are disguised as this genius-level math. It's like having an NHL player model that tells you Sven Baertschi is a better player than Chris Tanev.

Most B-List websites are also pretty terrible. IMO Button is basically the only person in the prospect circle whose opinion is actually valuable.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I'd like to see the quality of competition in the playoffs for Abbotsford.

That's not really my area of expertise. I didn't start fully following the Abby Canucks outside of tracking the prospect stats until the big club was out of contention and I certainly don't know the entire AHL well enough to do anything that looking at the AHL website and sorting by stats couldn't already tell you. I'm not going to pretend to be able to do something I can't, which a lot of the sources you cite could learn to do themselves.

 

[ManVanFan]

It seems as if you indeed could care less (you might have wanted to use couldn't there to make the phrase make sense, but hey, free country).

You're right, I couldn't. Ha

 

[credulous]

Fwiw- I looked up Bader when his ranking was first posted here. I came across his 2023 top 32. Willander wasn't a 1st rounder according to his model. I'm guessing his 'model' is just some version of a points based NHLe. His opinion isn't worth getting worked up about. All these team prospect rankings are fairly meaningless, even the best ones. imo.

he missed on willander and simashev (who both played in inferior leagues and were penalized by the model for it) and i guess molendyk, bonk and lindstein who all are pretty good prospects but he hit big on cristall, gulyayev, benson, musty, bertucci and dragecevic imo

 

[Tables of Stats]

he missed on willander and simashev (who both played in inferior leagues and were penalized by the model for it) and i guess molendyk, bonk and lindstein who all are pretty good prospects but he hit big on cristall, gulyayev, benson, musty, bertucci and dragecevic imo

How is that any better than chance?

 

[credulous]

How is that any better than chance?

are you kidding? find me a model that did better. even your "consensus of scouts" model

edit: i also missed that he had cagnoni in his top 32. that's a great result all by itself

 

[ManVanFan]

he missed on willander and simashev (who both played in inferior leagues and were penalized by the model for it) and i guess molendyk, bonk and lindstein who all are pretty good prospects but he hit big on cristall, gulyayev, benson, musty, bertucci and dragecevic imo

Mofo had Lane Hutson way up there. I'm still pretty baffled at how Lane Hutson did it this year. I knew the offence was there for him but he actually looked like he made attempts to play defence this year. Remarkable considering what he was doing in college last year.

 

[arttk]

If the Canucks have such stud D players that no other teams have, why the hell does the GM feel the need to add so many D.

you know the definition of prospects is that they are not NHL players right now. We add D because we need D now.

 

[credulous]

Mofo had Lane Hutson way up there. I'm still pretty baffled at how Lane Hutson did it this year. I knew the offence was there for him but he actually looked like he made attempts to play defence this year. Remarkable considering what he was doing in college last year.

hutson is a great example of how you can't have a minority view on prospects. i got so much shit for saying lane hutson was going to be an nhl star after watching him at bu last year. all i heard in response was that his game wasn't going to translate and that he was going to get destroyed in his own end. anyone who watched him objectively for more than a couple of games could tell he was going to be a special player

same goes for zeev buium who people claimed was too one dimensional to make an impact in the nhl. he's going to win rookie of the year next season (well okay, if demidov doesn't)

edit: i just looked up his 2022 draft list and it's even better than 2023. yurov at #4, hutson at #8, howard at #15, firkus at #20, casey at #30, slafkovsky at #16...

 

[Tables of Stats]

are you kidding? find me a model that did better. even your "consensus of scouts" model

edit: i also missed that he had cagnoni in his top 32. that's a great result all by itself

You can't just cherry-pick a few good hits and write off the misses and call a model good. You need to look at the entire draft, who hit, who busted, why a player busted (injuries, lack of skill, poorly coached, just not given chances), upside relative to the average for players taken at that draft position, etc. I'm harsh on the people crowing about models doing amazingly, because in most cases, the people saying it have no idea if the model did well or not, because they haven't done the work.

This said, pick a model you like from 5 years ago - we need to see NHL impact while being respectful of the fact that these models are evolving and 5 years gives picks a chance to stand out while keeping the model as current as possible - and I'll put it up against lists made by traditional media guys and we'll see what shakes out.

 

[ManVanFan]

you know the definition of prospects is that they are not NHL players right now. We add D because we need D now.

Yeah I get that but they paid a premium for a couple guys. When the time comes and the prospects are ready, do you think teams are going to pay a premium when Van is going to need to get rid of some to make room. If I was a GM, Id be saying you're getting "75 cents on the dollar". Not our problem you backed yourself into a corner.

 

[bobbyb2009]

You copy and pasting stats on a forum is pretty much the same as my copy and pasting a tweet. If you think otherwise, I could care less.

Is this sarcasm or are you being serious, because, come on man. I really appreciate the people who put in the time to keep all informed here. I don't always have the time to look up each individual prospect and want to make sure those that do are supported. Thank to those peeps; you know who you are

 

[Tables of Stats]

The main issue with virtually every prospect model is that they're all entirely based on points and are disguised as this genius-level math. It's like having an NHL player model that tells you Sven Baertschi is a better player than Chris Tanev.

Most B-List websites are also pretty terrible. IMO Button is basically the only person in the prospect circle whose opinion is actually valuable.

I haven't followed prospects pre-draft as much as I used to. Has McKenzie fallen off that much, or do you just prefer Button's approach?

 

[credulous]

You can't just cherry-pick a few good hits and write off the misses and call a model good. You need to look at the entire draft, who hit, who busted, why a player busted (injuries, lack of skill, poorly coached, just not given chances), upside relative to the average for players taken at that draft position, etc. I'm harsh on the people crowing about models doing amazingly, because in most cases, the people saying it have no idea if the model did well or not, because they haven't done the work.

This said, pick a model you like from 5 years ago - we need to see NHL impact while being respectful of the fact that these models are evolving and 5 years gives picks a chance to stand out while keeping the model as current as possible - and I'll put it up against lists made by traditional media guys and we'll see what shakes out.

here's bader's 2020 list. i haven't really looked at it yet but post your "best" 2020 list and let's compare

The Hockey Prospecting Top 32 (2020)

We introduce the final Hockey Prospecting rankings of the top 32 for the 2020 draft! The rankings factor in the probabilities from the model, but also age, runway left to improve, league-specific p…

hockeyprospecting.com

 

[Tables of Stats]

here's bader's 2020 list. i haven't really looked at it yet but post your "best" 2020 list and let's compare

The Hockey Prospecting Top 32 (2020)

We introduce the final Hockey Prospecting rankings of the top 32 for the 2020 draft! The rankings factor in the probabilities from the model, but also age, runway left to improve, league-specific p…

hockeyprospecting.com

I'm not cherry-picking a best list to go against this. I'm going to compare this to Button's list, McKenzie's list, and, for a laugh, The Hockey News.

I'd also prefer a model that goes down to the final round of picks, but I'm aware that most analysts don't go much past the first round either, so I'll deal with it.

 

[ManVanFan]

hutson is a great example of how you can't have a minority view on prospects. i got so much shit for saying lane hutson was going to be an nhl star after watching him at bu last year. all i heard in response was that his game wasn't going to translate and that he was going to get destroyed in his own end. anyone who watched him objectively for more than a couple of games could tell he was going to be a special player

same goes for zeev buium who people claimed was too one dimensional to make an impact in the nhl. he's going to win rookie of the year next season (well okay, if demidov doesn't)

edit: i just looked up his 2022 draft list and it's even better than 2023. yurov at #4, hutson at #8, howard at #15, firkus at #20, casey at #30, slafkovsky at #16...

Slaf at 16 was kind of a geez man, that's a little far down. Lane Hutson 15th most goals against 5v5 is not good. His offence obviously can cancel out his defence. Like Erik Karlsson and any other high octane offensive defencemen, the better D they play, the better the team is.

 

[ManVanFan]

Is this sarcasm or are you being serious, because, come on man. I really appreciate the people who put in the time to keep all informed here. I don't always have the time to look up each individual prospect and want to make sure those that do are supported. Thank to those peeps; you know who you are

You don't have to look up every prospect.

Vancouver Canucks - In the System - Elite Prospects

Statistical overview of all Vancouver Canucks prospects.

www.eliteprospects.com

 

[Josepho]

I haven't followed prospects pre-draft as much as I used to. Has McKenzie fallen off that much, or do you just prefer Button's approach?

I mean, McKenzie's rankings are useful for evaluating what will happen in the draft, but they're just him surveying scouts -- they're not actually his opinion.

Button has worked and had success in the league before, has interesting opinions, and doesn't just post slight tweaks of the same consensus lists like every other journalist. He has his misses but I think he's far more interesting and worthwhile than every other prospect writer.

And I wasn't necessarily referring to draft rankings, just prospect analysis in general.

 

[ManVanFan]

I mean, McKenzie's rankings are useful for evaluating what will happen in the draft, but they're just him surveying scouts -- they're not actually his opinion.

Button has worked and had success in the league before, has interesting opinions, and doesn't just post slight tweaks of the same consensus lists like every other journalist. He has his misses but I think he's far more interesting and worthwhile than every other prospect writer.

And I wasn't necessarily referring to draft rankings, just prospect analysis in general.

Button also had Cody Glass ahead of Heiskanen in 2017 and I think 8 players in his first round that hardly had a sniff of the NHL. Win some you lose some. Lol.

Dang Filip Zadina at 3 and Hughes at 6 in 2018 is not a good look either haha