Author Topic: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews  (Read 33381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21723
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2016, 08:19:12 AM »
They've also never made an NHL roster full time, just a smattering of games here and there, bounced up and down, that's why they still qualify for me.  So NHL rookies, no... prospects... yes.

Your criteria seems designed to give a misleading impression of a team's young talent.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline TBLeafer

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Gender: Male
  • One with the Shanaplan!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2016, 08:22:08 AM »
They've also never made an NHL roster full time, just a smattering of games here and there, bounced up and down, that's why they still qualify for me.  So NHL rookies, no... prospects... yes.

Your criteria seems designed to give a misleading impression of a team's young talent.

How so?  If you are U25 and NOT a full time NHL'er, you are a prospect until such time as you become a full time NHL'er.  How is that misleading?

Edit:  For those asking what happens when you are over 25 and not a full time NHL'er but still in the prospect pool...

At that point you are one of two things:

1. An AHL/NHL tweener (Brennan)
2. An AHL journeyman which is as far as your career will ever go unless you get signed overseas.

Either way, you are no longer a prospect.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 08:34:06 AM by TBLeafer »

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21723
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2016, 08:30:35 AM »
How so?  If you are U25 and NOT a full time NHL'er, you are a prospect until such time as you become a full time NHL'er.  How is that misleading?

Because of the largely meaningless distinction between prospect and player in this context. If a list like this is meant to give us a handle on where players stack against each other then why is it important to distinguish between where various players of similar ages are in their careers? Rielly is younger than Zaitsev. He's more relevant to a discussion of this nature than Zaitsev because he's more important to the team.

What a prospect is isn't a hard and fast rule, so why exclude players if you don't have to? What's gained by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of the discussion?
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline TBLeafer

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Gender: Male
  • One with the Shanaplan!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2016, 08:44:12 AM »

Because of the largely meaningless distinction between prospect and player in this context. If a list like this is meant to give us a handle on where players stack against each other then why is it important to distinguish between where various players of similar ages are in their careers? Rielly is younger than Zaitsev. He's more relevant to a discussion of this nature than Zaitsev because he's more important to the team.

What a prospect is isn't a hard and fast rule, so why exclude players if you don't have to? What's gained by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of the discussion?

1. See edit.
2. Zaitsev wasn't in our system at all, prior to THIS spring, he has yet to play a full season in the NHL, thus also qualifying as a rookie as well as a prospect regardless of being older than Rielly.

The discussion changes IMO from prospect depth to overall talent depth, once you include full time NHL'ers.  Then the discussion changes to also include players like Kadri, JVR, Gardiner and Andersen for instance. It's just a different list, not a prospect list.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 08:47:58 AM by TBLeafer »

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21723
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2016, 08:49:18 AM »
1. See edit.
2. Zaitsev wasn't in our system at all, prior to THIS spring, he has yet to play a full season in the NHL, thus also qualifying as a rookie as well as a prospect regardless of being older than Rielly.

Neither of those things answers the question I asked of what the value is in narrowing the scope of the question arbitrarily. I mean, it's great that you define prospect in a certain way but I don't see how these distinctions actually matter. If the Leafs had kept Marner up last year and he'd had a not very productive rookie season, why wouldn't we still want to assess his potential vs. the other young players in the system?

Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline TBLeafer

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Gender: Male
  • One with the Shanaplan!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2016, 09:02:57 AM »
1. See edit.
2. Zaitsev wasn't in our system at all, prior to THIS spring, he has yet to play a full season in the NHL, thus also qualifying as a rookie as well as a prospect regardless of being older than Rielly.

Neither of those things answers the question I asked of what the value is in narrowing the scope of the question arbitrarily. I mean, it's great that you define prospect in a certain way but I don't see how these distinctions actually matter. If the Leafs had kept Marner up last year and he'd had a not very productive rookie season, why wouldn't we still want to assess his potential vs. the other young players in the system?

Because then he gets ranked in comparison to his NHL teammates.  I just don't consider a full time NHL'er, regardless of age, a prospect.

You are no longer auditioning for the show, when you are in the show.

Offline herman

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 7844
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2016, 09:11:46 AM »
There might be a bit of confusion due to my mushing PPP's T25U25 into a thread titled Ranking Prospects. The goal of the T25U25 is to rank our talent pool just shy of the standard development inflection point (before the chaff is separated from the wheat), so it contains a mix of prospects and (hopefully a lot of) full-timers.

Full timers usually get a heavier score due to having already 'made it' in some fashion, though there are caveats to that as bottom-6 or 5-6 d-pairings are far easier to make it in than top positions (e.g. Nylander and Marner scoring higher than Holland last year).

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21723
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2016, 09:14:54 AM »
Because then he gets ranked in comparison to his NHL teammates.  I just don't consider a full time NHL'er, regardless of age, a prospect.

You are no longer auditioning for the show, when you are in the show.

Right, you've made it abundantly clear that you think the distinction between prospect/not a prospect is a very important one. That's exactly the sort of semantic diversion that a "25 under 25" list seems specifically constructed to avoid though.

The unifying thing a 19 year old regular and a 19 year old who's been in Junior probably have is that the purpose of ranking them isn't based on the players they are right now but rather the projection of players they might be. That's true regardless of NHL experience and that's what these lists are about. It's a "who has the most potential in the system" list. Excluding players like Kadri and Gardiner is on the basis of them largely having become the players they're going to be rather than something arbitrary.

I mean, I guess I'll give asking one last try but this isn't about what you consider a prospect or whether or not you think the distinction between player/prospect is important. I'm asking us why we'd want to narrow the discussion as opposed to broaden it? What purpose does that serve as we assess young players?
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline bustaheims

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 19345
  • 56!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2016, 09:20:50 AM »
You are no longer auditioning for the show, when you are in the show.

Until you're a well-established player, you're always auditioning - even when you're in the show.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Offline TBLeafer

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Gender: Male
  • One with the Shanaplan!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #24 on: July 12, 2016, 09:21:24 AM »
Because then he gets ranked in comparison to his NHL teammates.  I just don't consider a full time NHL'er, regardless of age, a prospect.

You are no longer auditioning for the show, when you are in the show.

Right, you've made it abundantly clear that you think the distinction between prospect/not a prospect is a very important one. That's exactly the sort of semantic diversion that a "25 under 25" list seems specifically constructed to avoid though.

The unifying thing a 19 year old regular and a 19 year old who's been in Junior probably have is that the purpose of ranking them isn't based on the players they are right now but rather the projection of players they might be. That's true regardless of NHL experience and that's what these lists are about. It's a "who has the most potential in the system" list. Excluding players like Kadri and Gardiner is on the basis of them largely having become the players they're going to be rather than something arbitrary.

I mean, I guess I'll give asking one last try but this isn't about what you consider a prospect or whether or not you think the distinction between player/prospect is important. I'm asking us why we'd want to narrow the discussion as opposed to broaden it? What purpose does that serve as we assess young players?

Because then why limit it at 25?  Why not assess our ENTIRE talent pool. That certainly broadens things.

Offline TBLeafer

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Gender: Male
  • One with the Shanaplan!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2016, 09:23:00 AM »
You are no longer auditioning for the show, when you are in the show.

Until you're a well-established player, you're always auditioning - even when you're in the show.

But many more eyes are watching and biases are formed.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21723
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2016, 09:28:41 AM »
Because then why limit it at 25?  Why not assess our ENTIRE talent pool. That certainly broadens things.

I answered that in the post you quote.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

Offline Bender

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Hot diggity daffodil!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2016, 09:32:27 AM »
Because then he gets ranked in comparison to his NHL teammates.  I just don't consider a full time NHL'er, regardless of age, a prospect.

You are no longer auditioning for the show, when you are in the show.

Right, you've made it abundantly clear that you think the distinction between prospect/not a prospect is a very important one. That's exactly the sort of semantic diversion that a "25 under 25" list seems specifically constructed to avoid though.

The unifying thing a 19 year old regular and a 19 year old who's been in Junior probably have is that the purpose of ranking them isn't based on the players they are right now but rather the projection of players they might be. That's true regardless of NHL experience and that's what these lists are about. It's a "who has the most potential in the system" list. Excluding players like Kadri and Gardiner is on the basis of them largely having become the players they're going to be rather than something arbitrary.

I mean, I guess I'll give asking one last try but this isn't about what you consider a prospect or whether or not you think the distinction between player/prospect is important. I'm asking us why we'd want to narrow the discussion as opposed to broaden it? What purpose does that serve as we assess young players?

Because then why limit it at 25?  Why not assess our ENTIRE talent pool. That certainly broadens things.

Because that was the scope the article went out to achieve, and it's fair in its scope - it's based on age bracket. That's it. Adding additional parameters unnecessarily distorts who our young players are and how good they are. As an example, leave Rielly off the list all you want - it's still an insane omission to make if we are judging our young, quality talent pool. I don't think anyone who's a Panthers fan would leave Ekblad off the top of their list of young players within the Panthers organization. I mean, by your definition Marner, Matthews, Nylander etc. will likely all be off this list next year, which makes our team's young players look incredibly shallow when it isn't.
"They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. So here is the professor's oldest friend, a grotesque, stinking lobster." - Bender

Offline TBLeafer

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Gender: Male
  • One with the Shanaplan!
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2016, 09:37:00 AM »
Because then why limit it at 25?  Why not assess our ENTIRE talent pool. That certainly broadens things.

I answered that in the post you quote.

And you get to either accept my prospect list as a prospect list in a prospects thread, or go off and create a T 25 U 25 rank of your own or discuss the one created on PPP, which personally I don't think belongs in this subforum because it includes full time NHL'ers.  Go back to my original list and my disclaimer as to why I created it the way I did.

There is nothing wrong with my criteria because I've qualified it, before I created the list.

Offline Nik the Trik

  • Sittler Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 21723
  • Some Guy On a Message Board
    • View Profile
Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2016, 09:43:04 AM »
There is nothing wrong with my criteria because I've qualified it, before I created the list.

Like I said, because it arbitrarily narrows the scope of what's being discussed I think it creates a less extensive answer to the fundamental question which is the overall strength(and effective depth chart) of the organizational pool of young players.
Give a man the reputation of an early riser and he can sleep 'til noon
-Mark Twain

TMLfans.ca

Re: Ranking Prospects Post-Matthews
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2016, 09:43:04 AM »