Neither, just remember the reports and arguments on why he should be drafted higher.
Just like analytics is flawed and that's why they have personnel in every organization front office dedicated to analytics and the NHL tracks every movement of every player and tracks everything else because it's flawed to throw millions of dollars into something every year that is so very flawed.
Even if players net out on a similar level, equivalency-wise, in their draft year, having a strong pre-draft year makes a world of difference.
Let's take all F from 1990 on (removing the ones still developing) who had an equivalency of 40 or more in their draft year but split them up into 3 groups:
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency
The results are very different!
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency: 6/23 became stars (26%); 16/23 played 200+ NHL games (70%)
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency: 14/28 became stars (50%); 24/28 played 200+ NHL games (86%)
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency: 18/29 became stars (62%); 27/29 played 200+ NHL games (93%)
Even if players net out on a similar level, equivalency-wise, in their draft year, having a strong pre-draft year makes a world of difference.
Let's take all F from 1990 on (removing the ones still developing) who had an equivalency of 40 or more in their draft year but split them up into 3 groups:
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency: 6/23 became stars (26%); 16/23 played 200+ NHL games (70%)
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency: 14/28 became stars (50%); 24/28 played 200+ NHL games (86%)
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency: 18/29 became stars (62%); 27/29 played 200+ NHL games (93%)
Even if players net out on a similar level, equivalency-wise, in their draft year, having a strong pre-draft year makes a world of difference.
Let's take all F from 1990 on (removing the ones still developing) who had an equivalency of 40 or more in their draft year but split them up into 3 groups:
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency: 6/23 became stars (26%); 16/23 played 200+ NHL games (70%)
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency: 14/28 became stars (50%); 24/28 played 200+ NHL games (86%)
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency: 18/29 became stars (62%); 27/29 played 200+ NHL games (93%)
Location: Be Calm n Swede On, BC Joined: 09.23.2015
Jun 12 @ 10:49 PM ET
Neither, just remember the reports and arguments on why he should be drafted higher.
Just like analytics is flawed and that's why they have personnel in every organization front office dedicated to analytics and the NHL tracks every movement of every player and tracks everything else because it's flawed to throw millions of dollars into something every year that is so very flawed. - manvanfan
According to analytics, Brock is a 30 GOAL scorer...lol, cause in watching him , I've never seen him score 30 goals in an NHL season
Location: Be Calm n Swede On, BC Joined: 09.23.2015
Jun 12 @ 10:54 PM ET
Byron Bader
Even if players net out on a similar level, equivalency-wise, in their draft year, having a strong pre-draft year makes a world of difference.
Let's take all F from 1990 on (removing the ones still developing) who had an equivalency of 40 or more in their draft year but split them up into 3 groups:
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency: 6/23 became stars (26%); 16/23 played 200+ NHL games (70%)
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency: 14/28 became stars (50%); 24/28 played 200+ NHL games (86%)
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency: 18/29 became stars (62%); 27/29 played 200+ NHL games (93%) - manvanfan
What is your criteria for a "STAR" ? I think the term superstar and star are thrown around flippantly by media and fans
I’ve read high-end 2C and top out at a 1C. Projections are wide and varied though. There are so many factors that play into how good a 17 year old kid will become at the NHL level. Unless you’re extremely talented, your talent level is only a part of that because there’s a lot of people who are very good hockey players but they don’t fit into a certain situation. Look at William Karlsson on Vegas, 23/24 year old with a career high 9 goals, gets picked by Vegas and is given a role way over and above what he’s ever been given and he scores 43 goals. He might win the Conn Smythe this year. - LeftCoaster
Nice this kid has what Canucks need. Let’s see what happens as it’s so hard to know how they will develop.
Even if players net out on a similar level, equivalency-wise, in their draft year, having a strong pre-draft year makes a world of difference.
Let's take all F from 1990 on (removing the ones still developing) who had an equivalency of 40 or more in their draft year but split them up into 3 groups:
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency
A. 0 to 19 pre-dy equivalency: 6/23 became stars (26%); 16/23 played 200+ NHL games (70%)
B. 20 to 29 pre-dy equivalency: 14/28 became stars (50%); 24/28 played 200+ NHL games (86%)
C. 30+ pre-dy equivalency: 18/29 became stars (62%); 27/29 played 200+ NHL games (93%) - manvanfan
Did that nerd you are quoting mention that Daniellson plays with trash teammates? Advanced stats are so terribly flawed in hockey. He didn’t have enough primary assists! Well his wingers (frank)ing suck at hockey - CanuckDon
Isn't it obvious?.....Mini hasn't seen Danielson play much.
Isn't it obvious?.....Mini hasn't seen Danielson play much. - Load Management
I’m not sure if I’d take him at 11 but he is certainly a fine choice. This is going to be a really
Tough choice for Allvin. It’s remarkable how bad his teammates are lol. One draw back is he was only 12 days too young to be selected in last years draft but he doesn’t look physically mature yet. Have to imagine he would have scored 90 points on a playoff team
I’m not sure if I’d take him at 11 but he is certainly a fine choice. This is going to be a really
Tough choice for Allvin. It’s remarkable how bad his teammates are lol. One draw back is he was only 12 days too young to be selected in last years draft but he doesn’t look physically mature yet. Have to imagine he would have scored 90 points on a playoff team - CanuckDon
I'd take him at 11. I don't think it's a reach taking him there. But as I've mentioned before, I like his style of play.
Did that nerd you are quoting mention that Daniellson plays with trash teammates? Advanced stats are so terribly flawed in hockey. He didn’t have enough primary assists! Well his wingers (frank)ing suck at hockey - CanuckDon
Danielson had a nice combine, Moore had a better one. I like both.
symbiosis - the living together of two dissimilar organisms in more or less intimate association or close union.
Big Vee made the suggestion of trading Petey. Normally I might scoff at that idea, but there seemed to be a kind of consensus for third. I was thinking bigger. Lindros trade bigger.
Petey, Garland, Rathbone, Salvos, R2D2, 11th Maybe next years first, for Number 1.
Use "petey produced, this kid hasn't done anything at a NHL level"
What about Laffy from NYR as a 3rd center?
Just a non controversial thought .....or maybe it is.
Good article from Pronman, reading through what the actual hockey minds had to say, it's quite evident this draft is going to be volatile... here's a snippet from the D section:
Today we bring you our annual NHL Draft Confidential. This piece comprises conversations I’ve had with NHL personnel over the past weeks and months about the top names and the biggest questions in the 2023 NHL Draft. We hope this gives you an idea of how the league perceives the top prospects and big debates in the draft this season.
As a note, references to “Scout 1” or “Executive 1” across various questions do not mean those answers came from the same person — meaning “Scout 1” may appear in different questions but may be answered by different people. Scouts and executives were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the prospects in question.
...
Who is the best defense prospect this season? Who’s number two? How high should they go? Anyone people are sleeping on?
Executive 1: “It’s probably Reinbacher or Sandin Pellikka. Depends on the traits you’re seeking, Pellikka is more offensive, but Reinbacher looks more like a prototypical NHL defenseman.”
Scout 1: “It’s Reinbacher for sure at the top. He looks like a legit pro defenseman, shades of Noah Dobson. Don’t be surprised if he goes top five.”
Scout 2: “I think Oliver Bonk is going to surprise people with where he goes. First round for sure, could even see him go comfortably in the top 20, there’s a lot of NHL in his game. You look at the playoffs, all those big, mobile puck-moving defensemen, teams will covet a player like him.”
Scout 3: “Simashev should be the first defenseman picked on pure ability. He has top pair tools. Will someone actually do it, especially with how good Reinbacher looked? I’m guessing unlikely.”
Executive 2: “I don’t think Gulyayev is the best, but he’s close. He has high-end hockey sense, he can create versus men with dynamic skating and skill. There’s a lot of modern-day NHL defenseman in his game.”
Executive 3: “I wouldn’t take any defenseman in the upper half of the first. I think guys like Reinbacher, Sandin Pellikka, etc., are being propped up because of the scarcity of D in this draft.”
Scout 4: “Reinbacher is the clear top defenseman, I think he could go top five. After that on talent, it’s Simashev, but in reality, it will likely be Sandin Pellikka or Tom Willander.”
Scout 5: “I’ll go rogue and say Willander is the best defenseman. He’s such a good skater, I think he’s just going to keep getting better and better.”
Scout 6: “He’s not the best, but Tanner Molendyk is not far from the top of the D group for us. He’s an elite skater, a true competitor. He will have a long NHL career.”
Executive 4: “Reinbacher is the best defenseman. I would take Willander next, but in terms of pure ability I would have Simashev narrowly ahead.”
Scout 7: “Simashev is the best D in the draft. Reinbacher and Willander are good players but Simashev is a 6-4, excellent skating defenseman with skill. You can’t find those guys on the open market.”
Scout 8: “Willander is a stud. Not everyone on our staff agrees but he’s the best D for me and would be comfortably in the top 10.”
Good article from Pronman, reading through what the actual hockey minds had to say, it's quite evident this draft is going to be volatile... here's a snippet from the D section: - NewYorkNuck
So many differing opinions even within peer reviews of professional scouting departments. This is lining up to be a wild first round!!
So many differing opinions even within peer reviews of professional scouting departments. This is lining up to be a wild first round!! - LeftCoaster
It's been that way since January really. It's been talked about that there is a bunch of projected #3 D in this class and no one had really separated themselves. All that has happened is that one or two more have jumped from 4s to 3s and made the waters a bit muddier.
Not overly surprised that the defenders are moving up boards either as lately I've heard that the forward class was a bit overrated from some.
Current PPG of centers in that draft are in order
Pettersson
Hischier
Thomas
Suzuki
Norris
Necas
Vilardi (not a center anymore)
Mittelstadt
Frost
Chytil
Current PPG of centers in that draft are in order
Pettersson
Hischier
Thomas
Suzuki
Norris
Necas Vilardi (not a center anymore)
Mittelstadt
Frost
Chytil - manvanfan
Playing on Kopitar's wing, not a bad job if you can get it!!
