It’s time to look back over the draft and assess my prognostication as well as that of the draft guides I used (I’m not interested in the declared intentions of the guides, but rather how they function as predictors).  Without further ado, here are the numbers (this isn’t about Player X at position X, so what’s below is simply the correct player by round).  Acronyms: EOTS (Eye on the Sens), FC (Future Considerations), HP (Hockey Prospects), RLR (Red Line Report), and ISS (International Scouting Service).

First Round
HP: 26/30
EOTS/ISS: 25/30
FC/RLR: 22/30
The easiest round to pick (Bob McKenzie was 27/30), it went fairly well for me.  Of the five players picked that I missed three (Cholowski, Johansen, and Steel) were slotted in the first-half of the second round, so only Borgstrom and Frederic were true surprises (I had them in the third; no one had anyone other than Cholowski slotted in the first).

Second Round
EOTS/HP: 18/31
FC: 17/31
RLR/ISS: 15/31
Virtually identical numbers across the board (the third straight year of such consistency).

Third Round
HP: 8/30
EOTS/FC: 7/30
RLR/ISS: 5/30
Here’s where publication consensus starts to diverge with individual team scouting.  The first players not from my list were taken here (Peeters, Ingram, and Nassen).

Fourth Round
FC: 8/30
HP: 7/30
EOTS: 4/30
RLR/ 2/30
ISS: 1/30
The first unranked players (those appearing in no publication) were taken in this round (Golyshev, Aktell, Noel, Dostie, and Ryan Jones–the middle three were listed by CS, but not highly; three are overage).

Fifth Round
FC: 6/30
HP: 3/30
EOTS/ISS: 2/30
RLR: 0/30
Six more unranked players were taken here, including four overagers.

Sixth Round
HP: 4/30
EOTS/RLR/FC:2/30
ISS: 1/30
Ten unranked players were selected (with four overage).

Seventh Round
EOTS: 4/30
FC/HP: 2/30
RLR/ISS: 1/30
Eleven unranked players were drafted (six overagers).

Total (changes from last year noted)
HP: 68/211 (32.2%) (-1)
FC: 64/211 (30.3%) (+11)
EOTS: 62/211 (29.3%) (-4)
ISS: 50/200* (25%) (-7)
RLR: 47/211 (22.2%) (-10)
* because ISS doesn’t designate goaltenders by round they’re excluded

For the third year in a row HP was the most accurate (by round) of all the sources, although it’s worth noting if you eliminate the first round it’s still less than a quarter of all the players picked.  The more important number is how many players selected were actually taken in the draft, and here’s how we all did (with variance from last year noted):

HP: 158/211 (74.8%) (even)
EOTS: 153/211 (72.5%) (-5.5%)
FC: 148/211 (70.1%) (+1%)
RLR: 141/211 (66.8%) (-5.5%)
ISS: 140/220* (63.6%) (-4.5%)
* because of ISS’ weird goaltending listing they’re compared to a larger number

I slipped back to my average pick percentage for this draft (regressing to the mean–neither Travis Yost or Dmitri Filipovic read this blog, so that reference is wasted).  HP had their third strong year of predictions, just ever so slightly lower than last year (160 in 2015).  The other three publications are all near their usual batting average.

The highest ranked player left hanging was Maxime Fortier (#83 for me)–he was listed by all sources, but perhaps his size (5’10) played against him.  Other players universally slotted who were left out: Vladimir Kuznetsov (#93–listed as a 3rd or 4th rounder in all sources, but perhaps the Russian factor kept him out), Simon Stransky (#94), defenseman Benjamin Gleason (#96), William Knierim (#100; a second-round pick for one publication), undersized Brayden Burke (#140), Patrick Bajkov (#154), Ondrej Vala (#161), and Alan Lyszczarczyk (#165).  This tally of 9 players is slightly lower than last year (where 11 weren’t picked).  As for the publications themselves two players listed as second-rounders were left on the outside (the aforementioned Knierim as well as Russian defenseman Ilya Karpukhin).

A couple of highly ranked players passed over in the 2015 draft were taken this year (Soy and Noel), while others (like Salituro) remained on the outside looking in.  Speaking of highly ranked, Central Scouting’s Europeans were again largely ignored (of those not appearing in the aforementioned publications only Oleg Sosunov (#25) and goaltender Filip Larsson (#8) were taken among the top selections (leaving players like #35 Artur Shepelkov and #3 Veini Vehvilainen on the shelf, among others)).  Conversely the highest NA player left out from CS’ rankings were Brogan O’Brien (#97) and Zach Sawchenko (#6)–perhaps we can say their goaltending picks are as ignored as their European selections.

Of the 32 players picked that weren’t on any list (a slight increase from 29 last year), 15 were from Europe (8 from Sweden, 5 from Russia, 1 from Finland and 1 from the Czech Republic), 8 are from the various US systems (3 from the NCAA), and the remaining 9 from Canadian leagues (1 from tier-2).  This group includes 15 defensemen and 4 goalies.  There are also 24 players from just one publication: 7 from Europe (4 from Sweden and 1 each from Russia, Switzerland, and Denmark), 8 from US systems (5 NCAA), and the remaining 9 from the CHL (1 from tier-2); with 8 defenseman and 2 goalies in the group.  Combined the 56 players are heavily composed of Europeans and prospects from the US (38, or 67% of the total), with a heavy emphasis on position players (23 D and 6 G, more than half the total).  There are also a lot of older players (21), most (18) from the unranked group.

Conclusions from the draft remain much as they’ve been since I’ve started doing this: there’s a very broad consensus on the top-90 or so players, with growing eccentricity the later the draft gets.  Scouting in Europe continues to lag behind (thus the wider variety of rankings and greater number of off-the-board picks).  There’s clear uncertainty behind what makes for a good goaltender, creating a lot of eccentricity in the selections; the draft also indicates a difference of opinion between NHL teams and scouting publications over what makes for an NHL blueliner once you get beyond the top-30 prospects (a lot of the late pick defenseman were big men, so taking risks on size continues to be a factor rather than skill).  As for the predictions themselves, I’m content with how this year went, although the goal remains beating the publications consistently.

[One correction from my big analysis article prior to the draft, I missed mentioning one player from two sources–as Patrick Harper–who ultimately wasn’t drafted.]

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

June 27, 2016
Categories: NHL Draft . . Author: Eye on the Sens . Comments: 7 Comments

The 2016 NHL draft is around the corner so it’s time to put on my prediction hat and take a look at who will be selected.  What follows is a long preamble, so for those simply interested in the list just scroll down.  It’s worth noting that I am not a scout, simply someone who enjoys the draft (a part of the NHL system that lacks good comparative data; it’s also fun to make predictions).  Before we get into my list I’ll explain my methodology.

With the advent of the salary cap in the NHL (2005) it became paramount for all organisations to invest in their scouting operations and draft well. Teams could no longer simply buy their way out of trouble or plug holes with expensive free agents. That change has helped drive the cottage industry that is draft prediction.  The wide variety of sources covering the draft are not created equal and few of those who provide their opinions will reflect on their subsequent accuracy. My purpose is to collate the best sources and provide insight into who will be selected.

This is my seventh year predicting the draft (beginning with the now defunct Hockey Herald back in 2010). That year I picked 72% of the entire class.  When I talk about predicting the draft class, I don’t mean player X went in X round at X position–that kind of precision simply isn’t practical (in the years I tracked it the number was a little higher than a quarter and when you subtracted the first round it bottomed out completely).  These numbers and percentages reflect which players were selected in the draft, period.  Back to the totals: in 2011 I picked 70%; 75% in 2012 (two points up on Red Line Report); 69% in 2013 (tied with Hockey Prospect‘s); 2014 71% (again tied with HP), then hitting a high of 78% in 2015 (ahead of HP by three points).  Overall I’m batting 72%.  Here’s the average of sources used over those years (excluding 2010 when I didn’t track it):
Me: 70%, 75%, 69%, 71%, 78% (avg 72%)
HP: 47%, 72%, 69%, 71%, 75% (avg 66%)
ISS: 60%, 70%, 65%, 62%, 68% (avg 65%)
FC: 44%, 71%, 68%, 69%, 69% (avg 64%)
RLR: 44%, 74%, 67%, 64%, 72% (avg 64%)

My method is to take the sum of reliable sources and produce a number (player X is ranked 15, 24, and 32, those numbers are then averaged to create his aggregate total). This gives me a number I can use for comparison. I then engage in comparative analysis—for instance, if player X has a higher aggregate score, but player Y wins the head-to-head comparison, the latter is given the higher position (so 11, 30, 31, 38 loses to 12, 13, 16, 69, because the latter’s number is sunk by one bad score). It’s worth noting that there is a difference between trying to assess who is the best player versus who will be drafted.  My interest is in figuring out who will be taken given the available data draft guides provide–the percentages above aren’t critiques of the guides (that’s a separate proposition), instead simply showing how closely their assessments match those of NHL teams.

Determining my Sources of Data

A wide variety of media and bloggers produce draft predictions (especially for the first round), but not all are created equal. My preference is for guides covering the entire draft (as that’s my purpose here), but otherwise simply based on results. For that purpose I use the International Scouting Service (ISS), Red Line Report (RLR), Future Considerations (FC), Hockey Prospect‘s (HP), and Central Scouting (CS). I have used other sources in the past (Corey Pronman, McKeen’s, The Hockey Writers, The Hockey News, etc), but due to their limitations I no longer do so.

An important note: both ISS and CS have inherent comparative problems. Central Scouting does not create a master list—players are divided into North American and European regions, then further subdivided into skaters and goaltenders.  As such I don’t integrate CS into the aggregate number (it’s simply not possible), instead it’s simply a point of reference (it’s also worth noting NHL teams and draft guides show little interest in CS’ European assessments). ISS, on the other hand, separates only their goaltenders into a separate ranking. This separation used to have draft positions associated with them (by round), but for whatever reason ISS no longer provides that, making it impossible to include them in the aggregate score.

Notes

-Acronyms: ISS (International Scouting Service), CS (Central Scouting), RLR (Red Line Report), HP (Hockey Prospect), and FC (Future Considerations)
-For convenience I’ve identified goaltenders (G) and defenseman (D); any player listed as “undersized” means they are officially listed as 5’9 or shorter; players with an asterisk (*) are overage

First Round
1. Auston Matthews (1.0) – the consensus pick across the board
2. Patrik Laine (2.0) – picked #2 across the board
3. Jesse Puljujarvi (3.0) – as above
4. Pierre-Luc Dubois (4.5) – opinion between he and Tkachuk is split, but CS provides the tiebreaker
5. Matthew Tkachuk (4.5) – son of the former NHL star
6. Alexander Nylander (8.5) – although his aggregate is close to four other players, he beats them all head-to-head; son of the former NHLer
7. Jakob Chychrun (D) (9.25) – hurt by his HP rating, he beats Jost and Sergachev head-to-head; he’s the son of former NHLer and the highest defenseman listed
8. Tyson Jost (9.0) – it’s rare for a BCHL player to be so highly touted, but everyone has him in their top-10
9. Logan Brown (9.75) – it’s essentially a wash between he and Sergachev, but his threshold is higher giving him the edge; his father is former NHL defenseman Jeff Brown
10. Mikhail Sergachev/Sergachyov (D) (9.5) – perhaps hurt by the Russian factor, his ratings are in a very tight band
11. Olli Juolevi (D) (10.0) – HP has him higher, but on aggregate he comfortably slots here
12. Clayton Keller (11.5) – undersized; FC and HP put him in the top-ten
13. Dante Fabbro (D) (13.25) – another BCHL player
14. Jake Bean (D) (13.75) – very close between he and McLeod below
15. Michael McLeod (D) (15.25)
16. German Rubstov (18.5) – beats Bellows head-to-head, although the Russian factor could slip him further down
17. Kieffer Bellows (17.5) – son of the former NHLer
18. Luke Kunin (19.25) – beats Jones head-to-head and has a very tight range of rankings
19. Charlie McAvoy (D) (20.5) – the comparison to Jones is a bit of a toss-up, but he’s given a higher ceiling
20. Max Jones (18.75)
21. Riley Tufte (20.5)
22. Julien Gauthier (20.75)
23. Vitali Abramov (25.75) – undersized; Russian factor a consideration
24. Alex DeBrincat (26.0) – undersized
25. Brett Howden (27.0)
26. Boris Katchouk (28.75)
27. Rasmus Asplund (29.75)
28. Pascal Laberge (31.5)
29. Tage Thompson (38.25) – his number is sunk by one bad ranking; son of former NHLer Brent Thompson
30. Logan Stanley (D) (31.75)

Eleven other players are slotted in the first round, but none by more than one source (which I believe is a first since I’ve done this–there’s usually one or two players with a couple of first-round picks that fall out by the ratings).

Second Round

31. Kale Clague (D) (37.75)
32. Libor Hajek (D) (38.0)
33. Nathans Bastien (39.0)
34. Adam Mascherin (40.75) – undersized; number hurt by a single ranking
35. William Bitten (44.0) – undersized; as above (from the same source as well)
36. Dennis Cholowski (D) (39.75) – another BCHLer
37. Carl Grundstrom (41.0) – Swede beats Hart head-to-head
38. Filip Gustavsson (G) (42.66) – also beats Hart head-to-head; top-ranked goaltender
39. Carter Hart (G) (40.66)
40. Tyler Benson (44.25) – opinions are split over whether he’s a borderline first-rounder or a late second-rounder
41. Jonathan Dahlen (68.5) – his number is tanked by one rating; he’s the last player on this list with a first-round selection; son of the former NHLer
42. Lucas Johansen (D) (44.25)
43. Taylor Raddysh (44.25)
44. Samuel Girard (D) (45.5) – as an undersized defenseman this is high ranking
45. Sam Steel (48.0)
46. Ryan Lindgren (D) (50.0) – score sunk by one rating
47. Markus Niemelainen (D) (48.5) – very split opinions on him
48. Adam Fox (D) (49.0)
49. Dillon Dube (50.75) – beats Parsons head-to-head
50. Tyler Parsons (G) (50.0)
51. Janne Kuokkanen (73.25) – his number sunk by one ranking
52. Jordan Kyrou (56.5)
53. Cameron Morrison (53.5) – wildly divergent opinions on him
54. Noah Gregor (61.0) – far more consistent rankings than Moverare
55. Jacob Moverare (D) (57.25) – floated by one ranking
56. Cameron Dineen (D) (62.5) – split opinions on him
57. Evan Fitzpatrick (G) (64.66)
58. Tim Gettinger (64.75) – beats Pu and Anderson head-to-head
59. Cliff Pu (62.5)
60. Joseph (Joey) Anderson (63.5)
61. Frederic Allard (80.75) – number wrecked by one ranking

Three players with two second-round picks do not appear above.

Third Round

62. Victor Mete (D) (72.0) – undersized; his number is sunk by a single rating
63. Wade Allison (88.75) – another player whose number is sunk by one rating
64. Luke Green (D) (66.5) – the final prospect with two second-round rankings
65. Filip Hronek (D) (68.25)
66. Josh Mahura (D) (69.5) – beats Lindstrom head-to-head
67. Andrew Peeke (D) (71.0) – as above
68. Linus Lindstrom (69.33) – unlisted by one source
69. Eetu Tuulola (100.0) – his ranking is thrown off by one rating
70. Brandon Gignac (77.66) – beats Krys and Lajoie head-to-head; unlisted by one source
71. Chad Krys (D) (76.66) – not listed by one source
72. Max Lajoie (D) (76.75) – wide ranging rankings for him (second through fourth)
73. Jacob Cederholm (D) (78.75) – split opinions on him (second through fourth)
74. Joseph Woll (G) (84.33) – highest ceiling of those remaining
75. James Greenway (87.75) – his number takes a beating from one ranking
76. Artur Kayumov (91.0) – wide range of opinions; Russian factor could be in play
77. Mitchell Mattson (92.0) – split opinions on him (second through fifth), but beats Borgstrom head-to-head
78. Henrik Borgstrom* (91.5) – split opinions as well (as above)
79. Trent Frederic (84.0)
80. Sean Day (D) (84.75)
81. Jack Kopacka (92.0) – wins head-to-head against the better aggregates below
82. Vojtech Budik (D) (87.25) – beats Middleton head-to-head
83. Maxime Fortier (103.0) – score hurt by one rating
84. Keaton Middleton (D) (83.0) – not listed by one source
85. Jordy Stallard (105.75) – score sunk by one source
86. Otto Somppi (91.0) – has a higher ceiling than Kaspick
87. Tanner Kaspick (89.25)
88. Matt Filipe (92.25)
89. Connor Bunnaman (95.75)
90. Jordan Sambrook (D) (100.75) – wide range of opinion (second to fifth)
91. Dmitri Sokolov (95.25)

Six players with two third-round (or lower) selections don’t make the list (Mathias From in particular is hurt by not being listed by two sources).

Fourth Round

92. Artyom Maltsev (96.75) – rating hurt by one ranking
93. Vladimir Kuznetsov (93.75)
94. Simon Stransky (107.25) – his ranking takes a pounding from one source
95. David Bernhardt (D) (97.75) – a second-rounder according to one source
96. Benjamin Gleason (D) (98.0)
97. Mathias From (80.0) – being listed by just two sources makes him hard to slot
98. Connor Hall (D) (99.5) – a second-rounder via one source
99. Matthew Cairns (D) (100.66) – not listed by one source; OJHLer
100. William Knierim (117.5) – ranked all over the place (second to seventh)
101. Ty Ronning (114.75) – undersized; number is thrown off by one rating, but otherwise has the tightest ranking; son of the former NHLer
102. Yegor Korshkov (104.75) – one second-round nod
103. Beck Malenstyn (105.25) – one second-round nod
104. Hudson Elynuik (116.75) – score hurt by one ranking; son of the former NHLer
105. Jesper Bratt (110.5)
106. Dylan Wells (G) (104.33)
107. Michael Pezzetta (110.0) – rankings are all over the place (third to sixth)
108. Josh Anderson (120.25) – ranked everywhere (third to seventh)
109. Max Zimmer (114.0) – tight rankings
110. Tim Wahlgreen (107.33)
111. Zach Sawchenko (G) (109.66)
112. Mikhail Berdin (G) (103.0) – not listed by one source
113. Marco Miranda (103.5) – not listed by two sources
114. Lucas Carlsson* (D) (119.0) – has a higher threshold than Candella
115. Cole Candella (D) (117.75)
116. Brett Murray (128.75) – number hurt by a single ranking; CCHLer
117. David Quenneville (D) (120.25) – undersized
118. Dylan Coghlan (D) (122.0) – not ranked by one source
119. Rem Pitlick* (121.75) – undersized; son of the former NHLer
120. Nicholas Caamano (123.66) – not ranked by one source
121. Carsen Twarynski (126.5)

Four players with two-fourth round selections do not appear above.

Fifth Round

122. Nick Pastujov (134.0) – number hurt by one ranking
123. Oskar Steen (120.0) – undersized; unranked by one source
124. Aapeli Rasanen (131.5) – gets a second-round nod
125. Adam Brooks* (130.0) – has a second-round selection
126. Dmitri Alexeyev (D) (133.0) – rankings all over the place (third to seventh)
127. Tobias Eder (125.66) – similar to the above; injuries hurt his season; only player listed from the German leagues
128. Markus Nurmi (125.33) – rankings third to seventh
129. Travis Barron (124.25) – fairly tight range of predictions
130. Dylan Gambrell* (123.66) – not listed by one source
131. Evan Cormier (G) (131.33)
132. Matthew Murray (G) (129.0) – not listed by one source; AJHLer
133. Stepan Falkovsky* (D) (127.5) – not listed by two sources (ahead due to threshold)
134. Samuel Rossini (D) (117.5) – as above
135. Todd Burgess* (119.5) – as above
136. Ross Colton* (127.5) – as above (higher threshold than Koppanen)
137. Hayden Verbeek* (132.0) – as above (ibid)
138. Joona Koppanen (126.5) – as above
139. William Lockwood (137.5) – number hurt by one ranking; has two-fourth round placements
140. Brayden Burke* (148.75) – undersized; rankings all over the place, but ranked by everyone and tops out in the third-round
141. Riley Stillman (D) (149.75) – very similar to Burke above; son of the former NHLer
142. Matthew Phillips (141.0) – undersized; relatively tight range (3rd-5th), but absent from one source
143. Otto Makinen (141.0) – as above
144. Graham McPhee (135.25) – picked in all sources with a fairly tight range (4th-6th); son of former NHLer George
145. Jonathan Ang (141.75) – as above
146. Ondrej Najman (134.33) – extremely tight range (just 17 spots in this round); not picked by one source
147. Jeff de Witt (140.0) – wide range (3rd-7th); not picked by one source
148. Colby Sissons (D) (148.) – as above
149. Brandon Hagel (150.0) – as above
150. Hugo Danielsson (D) (144.33) – highest threshold of a group of three similarly ranked players
151. Jack LaFontaine (G) (145.33) – second of the aforementioned group

Nine players with two fifth-round (or higher) selections did not make the above list.

Sixth Round

152. Domenic Commisso (144.66) – last of the aforementioned group
153. Yegor Rykov (D) (146.66) – one of the last players with a 4th and 5th round ranking
154. Patrick Bajkov (157.0) – another player with 4th-5th selections (higher threshold than Neveu)
155. Jacob Neveu (142.0) – the final player from at least three sources with 4th-5th round picks
156. Griffin Luce (168.75) – while most put him as a late round pick, he has a 3rd round selection and is one of the last players placed by all sources
157. Casey Fitzgerald* (154.33) – the last player picked by three-sources slotted in the 3rd round; son of the former NHLer
158. Garrett Pilon (169.75) – a fourth-round high and appears in all sources; son of the former NHLer
159. Kyle Maksimovich (151.66) – undersized; fourth-round selection
160. Jaime Armstrong (152.33) – has a fourth-round nod; son of former AHL pugulist Bill
161. Ondrej Vala (D) (161.75) – fourth-round selection and appears in all sources
162. Vojtech Zelenak (D) (161.66) – fourth-round pick and beats Graham head-to-head
163. Michael Graham (170.33) – the last player to appear in three-sources with a fourth-round selection
164. Kasper Bjorkqvist* (144.0)
165. Alan Lyszczarczyk (163.75) – the last player to appear in all sources with two fifth-round selections
166. Jake Ryczek (D) (156.66)
167. Andrei Svetlakov* (157.66) – the last player to appear in three sources with two fifth-round selections
168. Jake Kryski (163.66)
169. Grant Jozefek (161.33) – the last player from three sources to have a 5th and 6th selection
170. Otto Koivula (168.5) – his number is skewed by one ranking
171. Kristian Reichel (180.75) – despite some underwhelming scores he appears in all sources and does get a 5th-round pick; son of the former NHLer
172. Colin Grannary (183.5) – the last player to appear in all four sources; BCHLer
173. Tanner Laczynski* (174.33) – second last player from three sources with a 5th-round pick
174. Gabriel Sylvestre (D) (169.33) – last player from three sources with a 5th
175. Joseph Raaymakers (G) (174.0)
176. Daniil Miromanov* (179.0) – among the final players from three sources
177. Filip Lestan (186.66) – as above
178. Jiri Karafiat (190.66) – the last player to appear in three sources
179. Jakob Stukel* (137.5) – a 3rd-round pick to one source
180. Filip Berglund* (D) (139.0) – as above
181. Dante Salituro* (136.0) – undersized; a fourth-rounder to one source; decent ranking in last year’s draft

This round exhausts the supply of prospects picked by all or three of my sources.

Seventh Round

182. Dawson Davidson (D) (139.5) – as above
183. Colton Point (G) (140.0) – as above; CCHLer
184. James Sanchez (140.5) – as above
185. Frederik Karlstrom (148.5) – as above
186. Tyler Steenbergen (153.0) – as above
187. Josh Dickinson (128.5) – gets a fifth-round nods where he appears; OJHLer
188. Tyler Soy* (134.0) – as above; was fairly highly ranked in the previous draft
189. Brandon Duhaime* (137.5) – as above
190. Max Gerlach (141.5) – undersized; the last player with two fifth-round nods where he appears
191. Samuel Solenksy (146.5) – undersized
192. Brandon Saigeon (149.0)
193. Austin Osmanski (D) (150.0)
194. Mathieu Sevigny (151.0)
195. Greg Printz (152.0)
196. Mitch Eliot (D) (154.0)
197. Luke Coleman (154.5)
198. Noah Carroll (D) (156.0)
199. Tarmo Reunanen (D) (161.5)
200. Yevgeni Mityakin (162.0)
201. Matthew Boucher (169.0) – undersized; son of former NHLer Philippe
202. Dean Stewart (D) (173.0) – MJHLer
203. Casey Staum (D) (173.5)
204. Olivier Galipeau* (D) (171.5) – the last player with a fifth-round selection
205. Zach Walker (155.5)
206. Cameron Clarke* (D) (166.5)
207. Brinson Pasichnuk (D) (173.5) – AJHLer
208. Gustaf Westlund (176.0)
209. Dmitri Zaitsev (D) (181.5)
210. Evan Sarthou (G) (186.5)
211. Kristians Rubins (D) (187.0) – the final player to appear in two sources

This is the first draft since I started doing this where I’ve had no players with two scores left off the list (last year there were six).  I’ve felt that scouting opinions have gradually been moving towards consensus and this is evidence of that.  There are four goaltenders who appear somewhere other than ISS (including the delightfully obscure Belgian goaltender Wouter Peeters), but given that publication’s insistence on not providing metrics for those selections I can’t use them practically (the highest appears as a fourth-rounder elsewhere).

As for individual picks left out, the highest is a late second-rounder, followed by three third-rounders.  Central Scouting’s European selections were (again) largely ignored, as 13 of the top-50 skaters/top-10 goaltenders were ignored, including Pius Suter and Veini Vehvilainen who were both ranked in last year’s draft.  Given how NHL teams like bloodlines Tony Amonte’s son Ty, Paul Coffey’s son Blake, Dale Hawerchuk’s son Ben, or Petr Klima’s son Kevin could be picked, although none are ranked by any of my sources.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

June 22, 2016
Categories: NHL Draft . . Author: Eye on the Sens . Comments: 11 Comments

With the draft just a week away it’s time to take a look at this year’s guides.  As I’ve done for the last few years I’m only looking at guides covering the entire draft, so in that light: Future Considerations (FC), Hockey Prospects (HP), International Scouting Service (ISS), and Red Line Report (RLR) are on the menu.  The top-30 lists for the first three are all publically available (you can see them on their various websites or posted up elsewhere).

The four publications have 129 prospects in common–that is to say, 128 players they all agree should (or will) be taken in the draft.  That’s 61% of the total, which represents a very small drop from last year (-3 players).  As you would expect the further we get into the draft the greater the variance.  As for unique selections, ISS leads the way with 39 (RLR 31, FC 28, and HP 24).  This represents an increase from 2015, but its on par for 2014.  As for what leagues the common group comes from, it’s no surprise the CHL dominates: 82 CHL (5 via tier-2), 27 Europe (9 Sweden, 7 Finland, 3 Russia, 2 Czech, 1 Swiss), and 25 US (3 via NCAA).

As for those unique selections, the vast majority are mid-to-late selections (only one player hits the second round, and just five in the third).  These unique picks are much less commonly CHL players (just 39% vs the 60% they represent among common selections).  The breakdown (123): CHL 49, US junior 27, Russia 12, Sweden 11, NCAA 6, tier-2 6, Czech 5, Finland/Switzerland 2, Slovakia/Denmark 1.  As per usual the guides ignore some highly ranked Central Scouting European players (you can see their lists here), as Oleg Sosunov (#25), Artur Shepelkov (#35), Pius Suter (#40), Ivan Kovalev (#41), Artur Lauta (#43), Sebastian Repo (#44), Alexander Bjurstrom (#45), Andrei Kuzmenko (#47), Alexander Yakovenko (#50), Veini Vehvilainen (#G3), Sergei Bolshakov (#G8), and Filip Larsson (#G10) are completely absent (most, not surprisingly, are Russian).  In comparison the highest ranked NA player that doesn’t appear on the lists is Anthony Salinitri (#84).  I’ve always believed this wild variance has to do with the spotty scouting in Europe (if CS’ approach had issues you’d see the same avoidance in their NA lists).

Future Considerations ($22.99)
Scouts: 31
Prospects listed: 211
Prospect profiles: 211
Mock draft: first and second round
Future watch: 2017 and 2018 drafts
Miscellaneous: critical piece on scouting bias

This always affordable product has been my best-buy for several years now.  With that said, there’s nothing new in this years version (save 7 more scouts listed versus 2015), although I do think the piece on potential bias (written by Daniel Deschenes) is excellent and well worth reading through.

Hockey Prospects ($39.99)
Scouts: 22 (Canada 16, US 2, Europe 4); they are not listed in the book, but are available on the website
Prospects listed: 211
Prospect profiles: 411
Mock draft: N/A
Future watch: 2017 and 2018 drafts
Miscellaneous: scouts’ game reports

This expansive publication consistently has more profiles than any other and has been the best predictor of the draft the past two years.  There are no meaningful changes to the product from last year (with extras included in the more expansive “team” version that I’m not reviewing here).

International Scouting Service ($99.99)
Scouts: 53 (Canada 28, US 18, Europe 7)
Prospects listed: 220
Prospect profiles: 110
Mock draft: first round
Future watch: 2017, 2018, and 2019 drafts
Miscellaneous: team draft success from 2000-2014

While the price-point for ISS is unchanged from last year the content has undergone a significant change: the number of profiles has been cut in half, despite an increase in the number of scouts listed (an additional 15 from 2015).  ISS continues to separate its goaltending lists from the rest of the players for no good reason, and provides no rubric for their inclusion in their draft lists.  As the most expensive (and expansive) scouting group included, this year’s product is a disappointment.

Red Line Report ($50.00)
Scouts: N/A
Prospects listed: 312
Prospect profiles: 116 (plus one-line notes on another 61)
Mock draft: 2 (both of the first round)
Future watch: 2017 draft
Miscellaneous: European free agent watch

Constricted by limitations of space for their print-version the publication, they can’t really compete with the heavyweights (HP and FC); that said, it offers it’s own unique opinions and with ISS scaling back the number of profiles included this is certainly a better value.

So what’s the best value?  FC has been the easy choice the last few years, but the pure tonnage of profiles from HP makes this a toss up for me.  For casual fans FC is the way to go in terms of cost and value (most fans aren’t going to care about late round profiles), but for those with a stronger interest it’s hard to ignore the extra coverage offered by HP.  I don’t think the different way they organise their prospects matters (by ranking for FC and alphabetical by HP)–it’s moot in PDF because you have a search function.  Either way, I enjoy both products so whatever choice you make is a good one.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)

June 18, 2016
Categories: NHL Draft . . Author: Eye on the Sens . Comments: 3 Comments