Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[StoicSensFan]

He'll fit right in

 

[Ouroboros]

Finally got his flippers up, eh? He'll need to fight to be a pro.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

 

[Icelevel]

Pretty good lefts and rights there.

 

[SquidNasty]

Our good buddy Scott Wheeler was in town and caught Boucher in action.


Boucher’s game was a bit of a mixed bag. There were a couple of careless turnovers. I thought he cheated up ice to the offensive zone blue line early a lot. There was lots of stick tapping and some frustration/bad body language. But he also flashed his effortless and powerful catch and release, he looked good on the bumper on PP1, he rattled the glass with hits a few times, and I know that he’s not 100 percent healthy and is nursing some bumps and bruises.

Here’s 67’s general manager James Boyd on Boucher: “He’s getting more comfortable as we move along. His fitness is improving. I’d like to see him shoot the puck a little bit more and I think he’s finding that fine line between physical play and staying out of the penalty box, which comes with the territory with him. But we’ve been happy with him. He adds that element that we don’t have.”

 

[Larionov]

I still think this was a reach and a bad pick overall, but I'm quite happy to have him prove me wrong. Let's see how he looks in his D+2 year with the 67's in 2022-23. He should be a dominant force in that league next year - no excuses. His ceiling, to me, is Chris Neil with a little more offensive upside - if we can get that, and he becomes an NHL regular, that would be a pretty good outcome...

 

[cudi]

I still think this was a reach and a bad pick overall, but I'm quite happy to have him prove me wrong. Let's see how he looks in his D+2 year with the 67's in 2022-23. He should be a dominant force in that league next year - no excuses. His ceiling, to me, is Chris Neil with a little more offensive upside - if we can get that, and he becomes an NHL regular, that would be a pretty good outcome...

basically how i feel:

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I know we should move on from his draft position by now.

But it's hilarious how the Senators got spooked into taking Boucher at 10 by the Rangers, while the Rangers ended up taking Brennan Othmann at 16. Othmann has 46 goals and 93 points this year and was actually slated to be a high pick in his draft.

Could it be that Rangers knew the Senators really really liked Boucher and put it out that they were gonna draft him? Perhaps Dorion wanted to take Boucher with his 2nd pick but Rangers interest made them panic and take him 10. Meanwhile the Rangers are laughing to the bank cuz if we weren't going to take Boucher we were going to take Othmann who also plays prototypical Senators hockey. + I think Mann basically said in an interview that they took Boucher high because he wasn't going to make it to the next pick.

Wouldn't be the first time something like this happened to Dorion.

 

[BondraTime]

I know we should move on from his draft position by now.

But it's hilarious how the Senators got spooked into taking Boucher at 10 by the Rangers, while the Rangers ended up taking Brennan Othmann at 16. Othmann has 46 goals and 93 points this year and was actually slated to be a high pick in his draft.

Could it be that Rangers knew the Senators really really liked Boucher and put it out that they were gonna draft him? Perhaps Dorion wanted to take Boucher with his 2nd pick but Rangers interest made them panic and take him 10. Meanwhile the Rangers are laughing to the bank cuz if we weren't going to take Boucher we were going to take Othmann who also plays prototypical Senators hockey. + I think Mann basically said in an interview that they took Boucher high because he wasn't going to make it to the next pick.

Wouldn't be the first time something like this happened to Dorion.

Don’t think it had anything to do with what other teams were thinking, Sens just had a hard on for his style of play, and the lack of actual seasons from some guys spooked them off others. Was just a very bad year from our end at the draft.

They just ranked Boucher significantly, significantly, significantly higher than he should have been, and took the guy they had in their sights.

One of those times where right now you can use both foresight and hindsight and say, yeah, that was a bad call.

He’ll get better, that’s obvious.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Don’t think it had anything to do with what other teams were thinking, Sens just had a hard on for his style of play, and the lack of actual seasons from some guys spooked them off others. Was just a very bad year from our end at the draft.

They just ranked Boucher significantly, significantly, significantly higher than he should have been, and took the guy they had in their sights.

One of those times where right now you can use both foresight and hindsight and say, yeah, that was a bad call.

He’ll get better, that’s obvious.

But I remember Mann saying something like (paraphrasing) "while Boucher wasn't a high ranked prospects on any lists, our lists are different because they take into account things that fans don't know. Things like Boucher was the target of another team and wasn't going to make it out of the top 20" and that making trades isn't easy, so even if they wanted to trade back they would need a partner.


I will try and find the interview but I remember reading that and getting the impression that they made the pick in part due to their knowledge that Boucher wouldn't be available where the fans would have been okay taking him.

 

[BondraTime]

But I remember Mann saying something like (paraphrasing) "while Boucher wasn't a high ranked prospects on any lists, our lists are different because they take into account things that fans don't know. Things like Boucher was the target of another team and wasn't going to make it out of the top 20" and that making trades isn't easy, so even if they wanted to trade back they would need a partner.


I will try and find the interview but I remember reading that and getting the impression that they made the pick in part due to their knowledge that Boucher wouldn't be available where the fans would have been okay taking him.

I’m sure they had discussions to move back to grab Boucher, they knew full well that they had him ranked much higher than pretty much every team. They likely never moved back because they were afraid of NY taking him, or offers weren’t there.

There’s zero chance they drafted him at 10 because they were afraid he wouldn’t be there in the 2nd, he was a guy they had ranked at 10, and were going to take him one way or another. Ideally they could move back and get him at a somewhat more respectable spot, but they decided to take him and be sure they got him.

This isn’t a point in the draft you’re taking a player ranked lower and hoping you get a higher ranked guy later like L.A with Simmonds and Moller, Sens never picked again for 30 picks, they were always going to take the guy they had ranked the highest. They had Boucher ranked where he was taken, he was always the guy they wanted whether they picked at 10 or 30.

 

[jbeck5]

More than anything in those days we were out-goaltended. Simple as that.

I also think that Jacques Martin was not the best at adapting his team's game when things weren't going their way.

Even the goaltending is a bit of a red herring as we had some pretty incredible numbers from that position.

I guess in the end that is it though...Cujo, Belfour, Hasek and Marty Brodeur did us in...pretty solid list of all timers there.

Even the goaltending is a bit of a red herring as we had some pretty incredible numbers from that position.

I guess in the end that is it though...Cujo, Belfour, Hasek and Marty Brodeur did us in...pretty solid list of all timers there.

We simply couldn't score. Whether that's their goalie getting hot, or our guys not crashing the net enough, we simply couldn't score.

We'd have 30-40 shots against Toronto and a bunch of 2 on 1s and open net chances and we couldn't put the puck in the net. At all. Every year.

Regular season? Sure, win 5-0...who cares...

Playoffs? Outchance them at a 3-1 pace and outshoot them 35-25 and lose 2-1 in OT.

Go look at our top 6 forwards production in the regular season to the playoffs. Sure, most players see a slight dip, but we had a bunch of 20+ goal scorers, and near ppg players lay eggs every year. All our top guys had brutal career playoff numbers at one point.

 

[JD1]

But I remember Mann saying something like (paraphrasing) "while Boucher wasn't a high ranked prospects on any lists, our lists are different because they take into account things that fans don't know. Things like Boucher was the target of another team and wasn't going to make it out of the top 20" and that making trades isn't easy, so even if they wanted to trade back they would need a partner.


I will try and find the interview but I remember reading that and getting the impression that they made the pick in part due to their knowledge that Boucher wouldn't be available where the fans would have been okay taking him.

I remember that interview and your paraphrase is a pretty good reflection of it. Fans don't know what we know I'm pretty sure is an exact phrase he used.

 

[Sens Vader]

Clearly all the matters between Boucher and his draft class is who would win in a fight

Boucher 1st ova

 

[Larionov]

Things like Boucher was the target of another team and wasn't going to make it out of the top 20" and that making trades isn't easy, so even if they wanted to trade back they would need a partner.

How about trading up? Man, when Dylan Guenther fell to ninth, I would have made a VERY generous offer to Arizona to swap picks. We had the resources to do it - multiple second round picks, etc. Now Guenther has had a huge year with the Oil Kings, and showed up at 14th on Craig Button's prospect list.

 

[Butchy Dakkar]

I remember that interview and your paraphrase is a pretty good reflection of it. Fans don't know what we know I'm pretty sure is an exact phrase he used.

“I live in reality” I think

I think they gambled on Boucher and early indications are it’s not paying off. If it went the other way I’m sure we would all be thrilled.

Im still holding out hope he turns into something special.

 

[JD1]

Our good buddy Scott Wheeler was in town and caught Boucher in action.


Boucher’s game was a bit of a mixed bag. There were a couple of careless turnovers. I thought he cheated up ice to the offensive zone blue line early a lot. There was lots of stick tapping and some frustration/bad body language. But he also flashed his effortless and powerful catch and release, he looked good on the bumper on PP1, he rattled the glass with hits a few times, and I know that he’s not 100 percent healthy and is nursing some bumps and bruises.

Here’s 67’s general manager James Boyd on Boucher: “He’s getting more comfortable as we move along. His fitness is improving. I’d like to see him shoot the puck a little bit more and I think he’s finding that fine line between physical play and staying out of the penalty box, which comes with the territory with him. But we’ve been happy with him. He adds that element that we don’t have.”

I'm a little surprised about the fitness comment

 

[RAFI BOMB]

This is the only research I have come across that has actually analyzed the outcomes of draft picks. The research was done from 1990 to 2014.
Statistically Speaking: NHL Draft Pick Values - TSN.ca
They claim the average rating for a 10th overall pick is 4.65. A player ranking of 4 equals 200+ games in the NHL. A player ranking of 5 equals an NHL regular with 350+ games. According to their research a 10th overall pick has the following probabilities out upside:
83.3% to play 100 games, 8.3% to be a top 6 f, top 4 d or 1 goalie, and a 64% chance of being 4th line or worse.

Looking at the 10 to 20 range, the lowest average ranking is 3.78 and the highest average ranking is 5.34. A player ranking of 3 equals 50-200 NHL games. A player ranking of 6 equals a top 9 forward/top 6 d. The percentage of players to play 100 games ranges from as low as 48% to as high as 84%, with most picks in that range hovering around 60-75%. The percentage of players to become top 6 F/Top 4 D/1 G ranges from as low as 8.3% to as high as 44%, with the most pick in that range hovering around 20-36%. The percentage of players to be a 4th line or worse ranges from as low as 36% to as high as 68%, with the majority of picks in that range hovering around 50-60%.

Looking at the 1 to 9 range, the highest average rating is 7.82 and the lowest average rating is 5.08. A ranking of 7 equals a top 6 F/top 4 d and a ranking of 8 equals a first line forward/ top pair d. The percentage of players to play 100 games ranges from as low a 76% to as high as 100%, with most picks in the 84-100% range. The percentage of players to become a top 6 F/top 4 D/ 1 G ranges from as low as 32% to as high as 88%,, with there not really being a close cluster of percentages outside the top 3. The percentage of players to end up as a 4th line or worse range from as low a 0% to as high as 44%.

Has anyone come across any updates on this or other research that breaks down the success of draft picks?

This thread is filled with claims that the Boucher pick was way too high, but this research seems to challenge that claim. Boucher could still become a top six forward so only time will tell that. The people that are very critical of this pick seem to expect at minimum a top six forward or a first liner from a 10th overall pick. This research seems to suggest that the average outcome for a 1st overall pick isn't even a 1st line forward and that the only picks whose average outcome is a top 6 forward our better is the first 3 picks. Looking at the probabilities the majority of picks after 3rd overall have less than a 50% chance of being a top 6 F.

Is this research just flawed or has someone come across research that makes different claims?

 

[Butchy Dakkar]

This is the only research I have come across that has actually analyzed the outcomes of draft picks. The research was done from 1990 to 2014.
Statistically Speaking: NHL Draft Pick Values - TSN.ca
They claim the average rating for a 10th overall pick is 4.65. A player ranking of 4 equals 200+ games in the NHL. A player ranking of 5 equals an NHL regular with 350+ games. According to their research a 10th overall pick has the following probabilities out upside:
83.3% to play 100 games, 8.3% to be a top 6 f, top 4 d or 1 goalie, and a 64% chance of being 4th line or worse.

Looking at the 10 to 20 range, the lowest average ranking is 3.78 and the highest average ranking is 5.34. A player ranking of 3 equals 50-200 NHL games. A player ranking of 6 equals a top 9 forward/top 6 d. The percentage of players to play 100 games ranges from as low as 48% to as high as 84%, with most picks in that range hovering around 60-75%. The percentage of players to become top 6 F/Top 4 D/1 G ranges from as low as 8.3% to as high as 44%, with the most pick in that range hovering around 20-36%. The percentage of players to be a 4th line or worse ranges from as low as 36% to as high as 68%, with the majority of picks in that range hovering around 50-60%.

Looking at the 1 to 9 range, the highest average rating is 7.82 and the lowest average rating is 5.08. A ranking of 7 equals a top 6 F/top 4 d and a ranking of 8 equals a first line forward/ top pair d. The percentage of players to play 100 games ranges from as low a 76% to as high as 100%, with most picks in the 84-100% range. The percentage of players to become a top 6 F/top 4 D/ 1 G ranges from as low as 32% to as high as 88%,, with there not really being a close cluster of percentages outside the top 3. The percentage of players to end up as a 4th line or worse range from as low a 0% to as high as 44%.

Has anyone come across any updates on this or other research that breaks down the success of draft picks?

This thread is filled with claims that the Boucher pick was way too high, but this research seems to challenge that claim. Boucher could still become a top six forward so only time will tell that. The people that are very critical of this pick seem to expect at minimum a top six forward or a first liner from a 10th overall pick. This research seems to suggest that the average outcome for a 1st overall pick isn't even a 1st line forward and that the only picks whose average outcome is a top 6 forward our better is the first 3 picks. Looking at the probabilities the majority of picks after 3rd overall have less than a 50% chance of being a top 6 F.

Is this research just flawed or has someone come across research that makes different claims?

When “doing your own research” actually resembles research

I have nothing useful to add, just appreciate the thought process

 

[Micklebot]

This is the only research I have come across that has actually analyzed the outcomes of draft picks. The research was done from 1990 to 2014.
Statistically Speaking: NHL Draft Pick Values - TSN.ca
They claim the average rating for a 10th overall pick is 4.65. A player ranking of 4 equals 200+ games in the NHL. A player ranking of 5 equals an NHL regular with 350+ games. According to their research a 10th overall pick has the following probabilities out upside:
83.3% to play 100 games, 8.3% to be a top 6 f, top 4 d or 1 goalie, and a 64% chance of being 4th line or worse.

Looking at the 10 to 20 range, the lowest average ranking is 3.78 and the highest average ranking is 5.34. A player ranking of 3 equals 50-200 NHL games. A player ranking of 6 equals a top 9 forward/top 6 d. The percentage of players to play 100 games ranges from as low as 48% to as high as 84%, with most picks in that range hovering around 60-75%. The percentage of players to become top 6 F/Top 4 D/1 G ranges from as low as 8.3% to as high as 44%, with the most pick in that range hovering around 20-36%. The percentage of players to be a 4th line or worse ranges from as low as 36% to as high as 68%, with the majority of picks in that range hovering around 50-60%.

Looking at the 1 to 9 range, the highest average rating is 7.82 and the lowest average rating is 5.08. A ranking of 7 equals a top 6 F/top 4 d and a ranking of 8 equals a first line forward/ top pair d. The percentage of players to play 100 games ranges from as low a 76% to as high as 100%, with most picks in the 84-100% range. The percentage of players to become a top 6 F/top 4 D/ 1 G ranges from as low as 32% to as high as 88%,, with there not really being a close cluster of percentages outside the top 3. The percentage of players to end up as a 4th line or worse range from as low a 0% to as high as 44%.

Has anyone come across any updates on this or other research that breaks down the success of draft picks?

This thread is filled with claims that the Boucher pick was way too high, but this research seems to challenge that claim. Boucher could still become a top six forward so only time will tell that. The people that are very critical of this pick seem to expect at minimum a top six forward or a first liner from a 10th overall pick. This research seems to suggest that the average outcome for a 1st overall pick isn't even a 1st line forward and that the only picks whose average outcome is a top 6 forward our better is the first 3 picks. Looking at the probabilities the majority of picks after 3rd overall have less than a 50% chance of being a top 6 F.

Is this research just flawed or has someone come across research that makes different claims?

Search up Michael Schuckers draft pick value and Blue bullet draft pick value, both do updates fairly regularly. Not sure if either is what you're looking for but they give another perspective on where the quality tapers off in a typical draft.

 

[BondraTime]

You’re never likely to get a top 6 forward at 10. But you should never lay a bunt that high in the draft. We bunted with nobody on base, and unsurprisingly it isn’t working out.

We bought very high on a lower valued prospect.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I am not sure whether this is an indication of anything but it is interesting to compare the U17 production of Tyler Boucher to both that of Josh Norris and Brady Tkachuk.

Tyler Boucher 2019-20
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 43 GP 9 G 17 A 26 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 24 GP 4 G 7 A 11 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 6 GP 1 G 3 A 4 PTS
Tyler Boucher at eliteprospects.com

Josh Norris 2015-16
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 44 GP 14 G 13 A 27 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 24 GP 2 G 5 A 7 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 5 GP 2 G 3 A 5 PTS
Josh Norris at eliteprospects.com

Brady Tkachuk 2015-16
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 55 GP 9 G 16 A 25 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 32 GP 4 G 4 A 8 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 5 GP 2 G 3 A 5 PTS
Brady Tkachuk at eliteprospects.com

The production is pretty comparable. The U18 seasons would be more difficult to compare as Boucher was injured so there would be a smaller sample size and more of a reliance on projections based on his production per game to make a comparable estimate based on games played.

Boucher has certainly struggled to produce this season but these comparisons do make me wonder what his production might look like in the future. Maybe his production would be higher if he didn't miss so many games. It is also interesting that both Norris and Tkachuk only scored 8 goals each in their first NCAA season (Norris 8G 37 GP and Tkachuk 8G 40 GP) and at 22 years old one has broken the 30 goal mark and the other one might break the 30 goal mark this season. It will be interesting to see if Boucher's production at the NHL level surprises the same way it has for both Norris and Tkachuk.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I am not sure whether this is an indication of anything but it is interesting to compare the U17 production of Tyler Boucher to both that of Josh Norris and Brady Tkachuk.

Tyler Boucher 2019-20
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 43 GP 9 G 17 A 26 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 24 GP 4 G 7 A 11 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 6 GP 1 G 3 A 4 PTS
Tyler Boucher at eliteprospects.com

Josh Norris 2015-16
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 44 GP 14 G 13 A 27 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 24 GP 2 G 5 A 7 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 5 GP 2 G 3 A 5 PTS
Josh Norris at eliteprospects.com

Brady Tkachuk 2015-16
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 55 GP 9 G 16 A 25 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 32 GP 4 G 4 A 8 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 5 GP 2 G 3 A 5 PTS
Brady Tkachuk at eliteprospects.com

The production is pretty comparable. The U18 seasons would be more difficult to compare as Boucher was injured so there would be a smaller sample size and more of a reliance on projections based on his production per game to make a comparable estimate based on games played.

Boucher has certainly struggled to produce this season but these comparisons do make me wonder what his production might look like in the future. Maybe his production would be higher if he didn't miss so many games. It is also interesting that both Norris and Tkachuk only scored 8 goals each in their first NCAA season (Norris 8G 37 GP and Tkachuk 8G 40 GP) and at 22 years old one has broken the 30 goal mark and the other one might break the 30 goal mark this season. It will be interesting to see if Boucher's production at the NHL level surprises the same way it has for both Norris and Tkachuk.

Look at Colin White's U17 production
US National U17 team USDP 47GP 33 G 31 A 64 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 35GP 14G 14A 28 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 6 GP 10G 8A 18 PTS

 

[aragorn]

We now know he won't back down, that's good to see.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Look at Colin White's U17 production
US National U17 team USDP 47GP 33 G 31 A 64 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 35GP 14G 14A 28 PTS
USA U17 WHC-17 6 GP 10G 8A 18 PTS

DJ Smith broke Colin White either that or he's in here reading Sweatered's posts

Well one explanation would be the quality of players he was playing with. His teams included Jack Eichel, Alex Tuch, Dylan Larkin, Auston Matthews, Matthew Tkachuk, Noah Hanfinin, Zach Werenski and Charlie McAvoy among others.