Prospect Info: The 2024-2025 Prospects Thread

[RobsonStreet]

Fair enough. Which is why I used the 300+ games played as a measure of success. It's not a perfect number but it's better than the 100 games played that is often used. Your range of 4-6 out of 32 is basically the same as the 17% of 3rd round picks that play more than 300 games.

What I find interesting is what happens when you get stricter on what “success” is. It makes intuitive sense that the more you value impact players, the less a late pick is worth. When I wrote a crappy web app a few years ago to visualize this, it was pretty stark.

“What are my chances of drafting a forward that plays a handful of games in the NHL like former Vancouver Giant Mario Bliznak?” (Note: y-axis is probability - multiply by 100 for percent)

What are the odds of drafting a forward that plays more than 500 NHL games and puts up about .45 points per game (aka: Mason Raymond)?”

 

[me2]

I was also curious about late round pick value vs undrafted FAs. It's difficult to track all undrafted FA signings over the years, so I just quickly looked up the number of UDFAs signed to NHL contracts this past season and how many played >41 games as a rough benchmark for being an NHL regular. Obviously there's a lot of error in the results from prospects signed and developing elsewhere, injuries, players with inflated GP on tanking teams, etc. But just to satisfy my curiosity:
Undrafted: 67/221 (30.3%)
Round 1: 270/405 (66.7%)
Round 2: 98/233 (42.1%)
Round 3: 51/161 (31.7%)
Round 4: 46/117 (39.3%)
Round 5: 24/91 (26.4%)
Round 6: 20/76 (26.3%)
Round 7: 13/49 (26.5%)

It seems like rounds 5+ have little to no advantage over undrafted FAs that play well enough to earn an NHL contract. Obviously, there are also decreasing odds of players earning contracts in the later rounds.

There are many thousands of kids in "Round 8 to 80" (the undrafted pool) every year and only 32 per round in the draft. GMs get to sit and watch who stands out as they mature.

Rounds 5 to 7 produced 57/216 and rounds "8 to 80 produced" 67/221

 

[iRageWin]

There are many thousands of kids in "Round 8 to 80" (the undrafted pool) every year and only 32 per round in the draft. GMs get to sit and watch who stands out as they nature.

Rounds 5 to 7 produced 57/216 and rounds "8 to 80 produced" 67/221

Of course, there's almost infinitely more undrafted free agents vs. drafted players. Hell, technically everyone on this board could count as an undrafted free agent, we just aren't good enough at hockey to get a contract offer. However, there are a limited number of NHL contract slots and roster spots, so what really matters is those that play well enough (regardless of draft status) to get signed to an NHL contract. As you said, it appears rounds 5-7 offer little to no benefit to producing an NHL regular, provided the player is skilled enough to earn the contract. It might be because most late-round picks develop so slowly that they don't really gain anything by being in the system early

 

[credulous]

late round picks are valuable because you don't need to use a contract slot to lock them up for some time to see how they develop. they just go on your reserve list instead of requiring you sign them to a pro deal

if you draft a kid out of the chl you get two years to decide whether they are worth a slot, four years for ncaa draftees and basically indefinitely for european draftees (and i don't actually know how it works for jrb and ushl draftees. depends whether they go ncaa or chl maybe?)

if there's a prospect you like but they're not ready for the pro game you either use a late pick on them to secure their rights or hope no one else signs them before you can

 

[Tables of Stats]

You guys should hop over here and give comments on the work I'm doing. It's easier for me to measure things now than it will be to go back back do it when somebody asks for something later.

 

[Jerry the great]

late round picks are valuable because you don't need to use a contract slot to lock them up for some time to see how they develop. they just go on your reserve list instead of requiring you sign them to a pro deal

if you draft a kid out of the chl you get two years to decide whether they are worth a slot, four years for ncaa draftees and basically indefinitely for european draftees (and i don't actually know how it works for jrb and ushl draftees. depends whether they go ncaa or chl maybe?)

if there's a prospect you like but they're not ready for the pro game you either use a late pick on them to secure their rights or hope no one else signs them before you can

or focus on guys in their 2nd year of draft eligibility as the Canucks did with Romani.

 

[pitseleh]

What I find interesting is what happens when you get stricter on what “success” is. It makes intuitive sense that the more you value impact players, the less a late pick is worth. When I wrote a crappy web app a few years ago to visualize this, it was pretty stark.

“What are my chances of drafting a forward that plays a handful of games in the NHL like former Vancouver Giant Mario Bliznak?” (Note: y-axis is probability - multiply by 100 for percent)

View attachment 1032263

What are the odds of drafting a forward that plays more than 500 NHL games and puts up about .45 points per game (aka: Mason Raymond)?”

View attachment 1032265

Good work pulling that together. Two things I’d add.

First, probabilities for the later picks have always been poor but historically there were really obvious guys that were available at those picks who should have been selected earlier - the Points, the Garlands, as well as the Timonens and Markovs etc. There was for a long period a legitimate opportunity if you stocked up on those picks to cherry pick the best players and kill every other team at drafting.

That’s largely evaporated after the third round or so as teams have gotten better at taking those guys earlier, though there still occasionally opportunities in the second or third round.

Second, high end forward talent is basically impossible to get outside the first round at this point, but there may still be opportunities for getting good defencemen if you keep those picks, but ones that may be tough to value based on hockey card stats outside GP. For instance, I haven’t seen numbers but i expect a team could have killed drafts if they had just taken American defenders with their second, third and maybe fourth round picks for the last 10-15 years.

 

[MS]

late round picks are valuable because you don't need to use a contract slot to lock them up for some time to see how they develop. they just go on your reserve list instead of requiring you sign them to a pro deal

if you draft a kid out of the chl you get two years to decide whether they are worth a slot, four years for ncaa draftees and basically indefinitely for european draftees (and i don't actually know how it works for jrb and ushl draftees. depends whether they go ncaa or chl maybe?)

if there's a prospect you like but they're not ready for the pro game you either use a late pick on them to secure their rights or hope no one else signs them before you can

But the thing is that very few of these guys end up being worth a shot (especially as scouting improves) and that teams end up getting Stockholm Syndrome with mediocre prospects and giving them contracts anyway.

You're drafting essentially the 'worst' 18-19 year old players with those late round picks and hoping to get lucky with a breakout whereas when you're signing 21-22 year old guys out of the CHL/Europe/NCAA you're actually signing the guys who *have* had a breakout and are the best unattached guys of their age. And this is why the hit rates are better on FA signings than on late picks.

If you traded every single 5th-7th round pick every year you'd be losing essentially nothing because you can just replace whatever assets you lose with at-least-equal prospects a couple years later when you would have been signing them, by signing UFA players instead.

 

[wetcoast]

or focus on guys in their 2nd year of draft eligibility as the Canucks did with Romani.

Sure but the track with these kind of picks is iffy at best going off memory.

 

[ManVanFan]

But the thing is that very few of these guys end up being worth a shot (especially as scouting improves) and that teams end up getting Stockholm Syndrome with mediocre prospects and giving them contracts anyway.

You're drafting essentially the 'worst' 18-19 year old players with those late round picks and hoping to get lucky with a breakout whereas when you're signing 21-22 year old guys out of the CHL/Europe/NCAA you're actually signing the guys who *have* had a breakout and are the best unattached guys of their age. And this is why the hit rates are better on FA signings than on late picks.

If you traded every single 5th-7th round pick every year you'd be losing essentially nothing because you can just replace whatever assets you lose with at-least-equal prospects a couple years later when you would have been signing them, by signing UFA players instead.

Scouting is improving or drafting is improving?

 

[Tables of Stats]

Scouting is improving or drafting is improving?

The two are inexorably linked. If you can't scout, you're at a huge disadvantage at the draft. Looking at the initial data I've gleaned from the 2000 to 2015 drafts, I'll confidently say that scouting and draft savvy - things like not drafting goalies in the first round/early second and not taking sluggish D with no puck skills - are much improved now compared to the early and mid 2000s.

 

[ManVanFan]

The two are inexorably linked. If you can't scout, you're at a huge disadvantage at the draft. Looking at the initial data I've gleaned from the 2000 to 2015 drafts, I'll confidently say that scouting and draft savvy - things like not drafting goalies in the first round/early second and not taking sluggish D with no puck skills - are much improved now compared to the early and mid 2000s.

So what's the big change in scouting that drafting has improved?

 

[Tables of Stats]

So what's the big change in scouting that drafting has improved?

Did you mean to ask what scouting changes I think have impacted the drafting improvements we've seen since the early 2000s? If so, there are a few obvious ones.

1) More and better quality video of rookies. Back in the day, if you wanted to see a kid play, you had to be there or you had to send a guy with a bulky video camera to record the game in grainy standard-def footage. Now, games are far more likely to be recorded, so you can at least get broadcast footage, even if you can't get access to all the angles that were shot at multi-camera rinks. Cameras are also finally small enough that recording is easy, so it's not hard to get somebody to record games for you.

2) The use of player tracking. This is very new, and might not apply to all levels of play in all leagues, but tracking things like player speed, where they like to go on the ice, where they shoot from, how often and how far they carry the puck, where they successfully pass to, etc., is huge.

3) Combining the eye test with analytics. Neither alone is enough to make a call on a player, but as analytics started to rise in the last 2000s into the 2010s, teams had another tool in their kit to elevate a player or drop them from their lists.

4) The draft strategies and player type targeting have improved. Teams don't waste picks on goalies and unskilled players with size in the first round nearly as often now as they did two decades ago.

5) Players themselves are better. Coaching, nutrition, physical fitness, and general player skating and puckhandling skills have all vastly improved over the decades. When choosing from a better pool of players, your chances of outright blowing the pick naturally decrease.

6) The league is set up to allow more types of players to succeed. Smaller, skilled players have much better chances of being stars now than they ever did in the dead puck era. This also vastly increases your options when drafting players.

Notably, the number of NHL players drafted who hit 200, 300, 400, and 500 games played doesn't seem to change much over the years. I chalk this up to teams needing to replace roughly one key player every season, which means that, almost by default, players will get chances to succeed merely by being "good enough" to take those minutes.

Looking at the data I've gathered and counting the top-picks - picks 1 through 32 to 36 to account for teams drafting goalies - the year-over-year bust rate is:

2000 - 17 busts from 34 players
2001 - 16 busts from 36 players
2002 - 15 busts from 36 players
2003 - 8 busts from 33 players - A well above average draft class all around
2004 - 16 busts from 36 players
2005 - 16 busts from 35 players
2006 - 16 busts from 36 players
2007 - 14 busts from 32 players
2008 - 17 busts from 35 players
2009 - 14 busts from 33 players
2010 - 12 busts from 34 players
2011 - 12 busts from 32 players
2012 - 13 busts from 35 players
2013 - 10 busts from 32 players
2014 - 8 busts from 32 players
2015 - 9 busts from 33 players

Even if you want to quibble about what constitutes a bust and think that 10 years isn't enough time to catch all the busts in a draft, the trend is very clearly towards fewer wasted picks. You also see vastly fewer players taken in the early rounds who never see the NHL.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UTjeav-RqH1ZKMkApHPkp6nH79l_PNkzF1lC-XXNJJc/edit?gid=1553796047#gid=1553796047

Feel free to look at the data - and dank memes - for yourself to see what trends you can find.

 

[MS]

Scouting is improving or drafting is improving?

Both? I mean, one is dictated by the other.

There were some huge gaps that happened 15 or 20 years ago both in terms of small talented players falling way down in the draft in a way that they don't anymore to anywhere near the extent, and in terms of older Euros who used to get missed (see guys like Markov and Alfredsson during the 1990s).

Post-2015 or so the number of 'big hits' in the late rounds has really dropped off. From 2016-2020 out of nearly 500 picks in rounds 5-7 the only two guys of any real note who carry any real value are Jesper Bratt and Dustin Wolf, and one of those guys was a weird outlier undersized goalie. Also Brandon Hagel, but he's a weird case as a late draft pick who wasn't signed and then succeeded after being an overage UFA signing, so he goes in both categories but to me moreso as a UFA success.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Both? I mean, one is dictated by the other.

There were some huge gaps that happened 15 or 20 years ago both in terms of small talented players falling way down in the draft in a way that they don't anymore to anywhere near the extent, and in terms of older Euros who used to get missed (see guys like Markov and Alfredsson during the 1990s).

Post-2015 or so the number of 'big hits' in the late rounds has really dropped off. From 2016-2020 out of nearly 500 picks in rounds 5-7 the only two guys of any real note who carry any real value are Jesper Bratt and Dustin Wolf, and one of those guys was a weird outlier undersized goalie. Also Brandon Hagel, but he's a weird case as a late draft pick who wasn't signed and then succeeded after being an overage UFA signing, so he goes in both categories but to me moreso as a UFA success.

I haven't been specifically looking for huge hits in later rounds, but at a glance, I'd agree with you that teams are both missing fewer players early and at the same time avoiding no-upside picks. Not taking goalies early is also a huge plus in my opinion. It's not uncommon to see over half of all goalies taken early bust, and even the best goalies are far more likely to have an equivalent you can take later than a similarly excellent skater would.

 

[MS]

I haven't been specifically looking for huge hits in later rounds, but at a glance, I'd agree with you that teams are both missing fewer players early and at the same time avoiding no-upside picks. Not taking goalies early is also a huge plus in my opinion. It's not uncommon to see over half of all goalies taken early bust, and even the best goalies are far more likely to have an equivalent you can take later than a similarly excellent skater would.

Things are cyclical and change over time. As someone who has posted on the Prospects Board here for 25 years (WTF) I used to be someone banging the drum about how drafting goalies high was stupid and how teams should just draft small skill players in round 2 and beyond because the value there was so exponentially better. But the league has adjusted and small players that used to go in the 4th round now go in the late 1st. I've mentioned before here as a WHL watcher that Brayden Point and Zach Benson were essentially the same 18 year old player and one of those guys went in the 3rd round in 2015 and the other went 12th overall in 2023 - there has been a really big change in terms of how small skill players are viewed.

Going back through the 'big late round steals' of the 1990s and 2000s they fall almost entirely into two categories : 1) small skill players who fell too far, and 2) Europeans who were missed/under-scouted. Both of those have now been largely closed off and even when there is a small player who gets undervalued, a guy like Lane Hutson went in the top half of the 2nd round and not the 5th-6th round like he would have 20 years ago.

Conversely, most of the hits in the late rounds recently (and they're hits of the smaller variety) seem to be bigger project-type players and this goes completely against the conventional thinking of 'smart' draft watchers from 10-15 years ago when everyone would just LOL at a team taking a 6'7 low-producing player.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Things are cyclical and change over time. As someone who has posted on the Prospects Board here for 25 years (WTF) I used to be someone banging the drum about how drafting goalies high was stupid and how teams should just draft small skill players in round 2 and beyond because the value there was so exponentially better. But the league has adjusted and small players that used to go in the 4th round now go in the late 1st. I've mentioned before here as a WHL watcher that Brayden Point and Zach Benson were essentially the same 18 year old player and one of those guys went in the 3rd round in 2015 and the other went 12th overall in 2023 - there has been a really big change in terms of how small skill players are viewed.

Going back through the 'big late round steals' of the 1990s and 2000s they fall almost entirely into two categories : 1) small skill players who fell too far, and 2) Europeans who were missed/under-scouted. Both of those have now been largely closed off and even when there is a small player who gets undervalued, a guy like Lane Hutson went in the top half of the 2nd round and not the 5th-6th round like he would have 20 years ago.

Conversely, most of the hits in the late rounds recently (and they're hits of the smaller variety) seem to be bigger project-type players and this goes completely against the conventional thinking of 'smart' draft watchers from 10-15 years ago when everyone would just LOL at a team taking a 6'7 low-producing player.

I would argue that the late-round hits are players with one or two exceptional traits and a lot of serious question marks, rather than just being guys with size. That said, I'd agree that big guys held back by skating issues are where you'll find the best value, because of how valued skating is currently and how much better skating coaching has become over the years.

 

[ahmon]

For a while the smaller players were way underrated. GMs in the 90s especially overrated size and placed too much of an emphasis on it.

Ill say the last 10-15 years are so the american prospects were quite underrated. A strategy to focus on drafting american prospects would have yielded alpha results.

For the longest time scouts consider the USHL a significant weaker league than the CHL, and also don't understand the quality of the NTDP and the NCAA.

 

[MS]

I would argue that the late-round hits are players with one or two exceptional traits and a lot of serious question marks, rather than just being guys with size. That said, I'd agree that big guys held back by skating issues are where you'll find the best value, because of how valued skating is currently and how much better skating coaching has become over the years.

Size is really hard to find in today's game and yeah - I think the hope now in the late rounds is that you take a guy with size and a bit of either skating or skill or grit and you can mold him into something.

Outside of goalies, you have Kastelic/Soderblom/Edstrom/Lee/Parssinen as most of the best guys from 2019 and Rempe/Crevier from 2020 and they're all huge project players. Victor Mancini is probably the best 5th-7th rounder from 21 or 22 and he's, again, a big project guy.

KK kind of bucks the trend a bit but I suspect his falling to the 7th round was largely due to uncertainty around Russians post-2022 Ukraine invasion (KK was drafted 4 months later) and that he would have gone much higher 2021 and earlier.

 

[Vector]

KK kind of bucks the trend a bit but I suspect his falling to the 7th round was largely due to uncertainty around Russians post-2022 Ukraine invasion (KK was drafted 4 months later) and that he would have gone much higher 2021 and earlier.

According to Cam Robinson, and I heard it from another prospect guy in an interview, KK kind of just got lost in the shuffle. There was a thing going on where teams liked him but no one scout was willing to push for him. When the Canucks took him a bunch of teams assumed he had already been drafted.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Size is really hard to find in today's game and yeah - I think the hope now in the late rounds is that you take a guy with size and a bit of either skating or skill or grit and you can mold him into something.

Outside of goalies, you have Kastelic/Soderblom/Edstrom/Lee/Parssinen as most of the best guys from 2019 and Rempe/Crevier from 2020 and they're all huge project players. Victor Mancini is probably the best 5th-7th rounder from 21 or 22 and he's, again, a big project guy.

KK kind of bucks the trend a bit but I suspect his falling to the 7th round was largely due to uncertainty around Russians post-2022 Ukraine invasion (KK was drafted 4 months later) and that he would have gone much higher 2021 and earlier.

I didn't scout him, but KK's stats don't speak to him being anything special either. I wonder if one of the next scouting optimisations will be doing a better job of identifying players who can't thrive in the chaos that is lower leagues, but who will thrive as the players around them get more skilled and systems play becomes a far bigger factor.

 

[MS]

According to Cam Robinson, and I heard it from another prospect guy in an interview, KK kind of just got lost in the shuffle. There was a thing going on where teams liked him but no one scout was willing to push for him. When the Canucks took him a bunch of teams assumed he had already been drafted.

I remember that quote and it was a weird one to me because if he was a guy teams liked he would have been on their draft list and unless you crossed him off by accident he wouldn't have disappeared ... and if he wasn't on your draft list than you were never going to take him anyway.

 

[Tables of Stats]

What I find interesting is what happens when you get stricter on what “success” is. It makes intuitive sense that the more you value impact players, the less a late pick is worth. When I wrote a crappy web app a few years ago to visualize this, it was pretty stark.

“What are my chances of drafting a forward that plays a handful of games in the NHL like former Vancouver Giant Mario Bliznak?” (Note: y-axis is probability - multiply by 100 for percent)

View attachment 1032263

What are the odds of drafting a forward that plays more than 500 NHL games and puts up about .45 points per game (aka: Mason Raymond)?”

View attachment 1032265

I liked this, but I should say that this post is why I added the 300, 400, and 500 game buckets to my recent draft analysis project. Watching as the numbers go from ~55 players at 200 games to ~30 players at 500 games helps show what makes a start versus what makes a middle to bottom-6 filler type.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I remember that quote and it was a weird one to me because if he was a guy teams liked he would have been on their draft list and unless you crossed him off by accident he wouldn't have disappeared ... and if he wasn't on your draft list than you were never going to take him anyway.

It might make more sense that instead of being literally lost, he was just never at the top of anybody's list. He might have been second or third whenever people compared him to another prospect, and nobody felt strongly enough to push for him.

 

[MS]

I didn't scout him, but KK's stats don't speak to him being anything special either. I wonder if one of the next scouting optimisations will be doing a better job of identifying players who can't thrive in the chaos that is lower leagues, but who will thrive as the players around them get more skilled and systems play becomes a far bigger factor.

His production and ES production was pretty good and combined with a good defensive reputation his profile to me would have looked 3rd-4th round-ish if his name was, like, Cole Smith or something.

I'm still trying to figure out trends etc. in terms of the drafting/scouting for the new regime and honestly their picks are all over the place. They've definitely gone for size a fair bit in the later rounds, which is in line with the general NHL trend.