Orcasfan Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Great pick! Definitely seemed like his skill-set is just what this team needs...more skilled scorers! And with size and determination! He was undoubtedly the BPA at 23. I would have liked to add Jeremy Roy too, but not at 23. For some of you who are concerned about the college commitment...remember there have been some great players who have gone the NCAA route - Toews, Parise, Schneider, etc. It doesn't always mean that they stay the full 4 years. And most (even those from Minnesota) fulfill their draft commitment with the team that drafted them. In this case, I would imagine the kid will leave ND after a couple of years. I am not overly impressed with Konecny, unlike some others. I have no doubts that Boeser will turn out to be the more impressive prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post uselessstats Posted June 28, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2015 I agree his cohort does suggest first line upside. But honeslty you could find top line potential within any cohort, probability is far more important. His cohort still suggests he is more likely to not play in the NHL than play in the NHL for 200 games. And if he does win that battle and plays in the NHL, his cohort suggest he is more likely to be a bottom 6 than a top 6. And his lack of comparables makes it likely that his cohort model could be inaccurate either leading to a favorable outcome or equally an unfavorable outcome. Which, I should say, is fairly common for 23rd picks. Respectfully disagree. I don't agree with your first round constraints as a "compensating for the increased risk of using a first", as the risk is in the inherent value/opportunity cost of the pick, not in the cohort of comparable players. But regardless, showing that Boeser's production - PPG and GPG - is comparable to a dozen productive NHLers is the point of cohort analysis, namely is his production at a level that *could* translate to the NHL. After that you need to move on from cohort analysis (and its many limitations) and simply scout the player's tools and abilities. -NHL size -Solid base of skating with room to improve -Elite shooting technique -High end goal scoring IQ - Strong possessing the puck and zone time - Going to a strong NCAA program You have to factor this into projections of Boeser rather than look myopically at the USHL, as Vancouver didn't draft the league, they drafted the player. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred65 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 I wonder if he'll turn up in the Penticton Prospects tourney. Same goes for the other picks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 contrast with Hannah Bernard looks like Vey is a little premature in that pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Respectfully disagree. I don't agree with your first round constraints as a "compensating for the increased risk of using a first", as the risk is in the inherent value/opportunity cost of the pick, not in the cohort of comparable players. But regardless, showing that Boeser's production - PPG and GPG - is comparable to a dozen productive NHLers is the point of cohort analysis, namely is his production at a level that *could* translate to the NHL. After that you need to move on from cohort analysis (and its many limitations) and simply scout the player's tools and abilities. -NHL size -Solid base of skating with room to improve -Elite shooting technique -High end goal scoring IQ - Strong possessing the puck and zone time - Going to a strong NCAA program You have to factor this into projections of Boeser rather than look myopically at the USHL, as Vancouver didn't draft the league, they drafted the player. Agreed, you have to look at the person. Benning is looking for high hockey IQ, character, hard to play against and Boeser checks those boxes. Don't forget, he has overcome personal adversity and has continued to excel. The term *cohorts* in this sense is jargon but I take it to mean comparable players and if so, I think that you can only use them in a general sense. Real people are much more complicated than that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 I wonder if he'll turn up in the Penticton Prospects tourney. Same goes for the other picks Probably not. He's going to UND. Brisebois, Neill, Olson probably will. Jasek is a maybe. Zhukenov, probably not. They'll likely all be coming to Canucks camp in a few days here tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uselessstats Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Agreed, you have to look at the person. Benning is looking for high hockey IQ, character, hard to play against and Boeser checks those boxes. Don't forget, he has overcome personal adversity and has continued to excel. The term *cohorts* in this sense is jargon but I take it to mean comparable players and if so, I think that you can only use them in a general sense. Real people are much more complicated than that. Ya, it's a good starting point, since if a player hasn't produced at a level that other top 6 players have then they aren't likely to reach a top 6 level at the NHL. It's a ceiling setting analysis, not a 'likelihood' analysis. Likelihood depends so much on the kids tools and work ethic, as well as some luck and opportunity as they develop after the draft. None of these things are accounted for in a simple cohort analysis, which is why I like it as a starting point but not an ending point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Ya, it's a good starting point, since if a player hasn't produced at a level that other top 6 players have then they aren't likely to reach a top 6 level at the NHL. It's a ceiling setting analysis, not a 'likelihood' analysis. Likelihood depends so much on the kids tools and work ethic, as well as some luck and opportunity as they develop after the draft. None of these things are accounted for in a simple cohort analysis, which is why I like it as a starting point but not an ending point. Since I'm obviously not as smart as the two of you, would it be OK just to be excited about this pick based on his showings in USHL and Ivan Hlinka?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Western Red Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Probably not. He's going to UND. Brisebois, Neill, Olson probably will. Jasek is a maybe. Zhukenov, probably not. They'll likely all be coming to Canucks camp in a few days here tho. Its a good thing that Boeser will get to visit the island while he's here. Check out Victoria. It should leave a positive impact. When he sees Stanley Park flying into Vancouver... Hopefully he appreciates it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uselessstats Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Since I'm obviously not as smart as the two of you, would it be OK just to be excited about this pick based on his showings in USHL and Ivan Hlinka?! Well I am excited about the pick personally (don't know what gave the impression I wasn't) and his Ivan Hlinka WAS very impressive so I'm gonna allow it ... this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Orcasfan Posted June 28, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2015 Yeah, I'm disappointed that Canucks Army has gone so far in their love affair with stats analysis. They seem to be using their new PCS ratings as the be-all and end-all when it comes to how they rate these draft prospects. Using their model, there is no apparent need for any skilled scouting! There are just so many flaws in the usefulness of this type of analysis, that it becomes more of a distraction, rather than an aid. I know this is difficult for those would-be sports journos over at CA to hear - but there is no real substitute for the eyes of a good scout! 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post S N Y P E R S 7 Posted June 28, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2015 I think he's going to have fun at UND. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Yeah, I'm disappointed that Canucks Army has gone so far in their love affair with stats analysis. They seem to be using their new PCS ratings as the be-all and end-all when it comes to how they rate these draft prospects. Using their model, there is no apparent need for any skilled scouting! There are just so many flaws in the usefulness of this type of analysis, that it becomes more of a distraction, rather than an aid. I know this is difficult for those would-be sports journos over at CA to hear - but there is no real substitute for the eyes of a good scout! Tell this to Baumerman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL'er Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) These last two posts are gold. Pure gold. Gotta be honest, don't know how everyone ended up liking your post instead. Edited June 28, 2015 by NHL'er 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uselessstats Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I'm disappointed that Canucks Army has gone so far in their love affair with stats analysis. They seem to be using their new PCS ratings as the be-all and end-all when it comes to how they rate these draft prospects. Using their model, there is no apparent need for any skilled scouting! There are just so many flaws in the usefulness of this type of analysis, that it becomes more of a distraction, rather than an aid. I know this is difficult for those would-be sports journos over at CA to hear - but there is no real substitute for the eyes of a good scout! The problem with the 'model' (and I use it loosely) is the scarcity of data that goes into it. League, scoring rate, and general draft range I believe are the 3 things they use. Doesn't take into account deployment, PP time, team quality, QoC, minutes per game, role, height/frame, hard skills (skating, hands, passing) or soft skills (work ethic, coachability, attitude). It excludes so many things that are critical to a 17 year old becoming either AHL fodder or an NHL All-Star that it isn't any better than looking at a player's boxcar stats to project them. As I said, I don't mind it as a starting point for analysing a player, but it has to go further than just scoring rates and league. Edited June 28, 2015 by uselessstats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumerman77 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Respectfully disagree. I don't agree with your first round constraints as a "compensating for the increased risk of using a first", as the risk is in the inherent value/opportunity cost of the pick, not in the cohort of comparable players. But regardless, showing that Boeser's production - PPG and GPG - is comparable to a dozen productive NHLers is the point of cohort analysis, namely is his production at a level that *could* translate to the NHL. After that you need to move on from cohort analysis (and its many limitations) and simply scout the player's tools and abilities. -NHL size -Solid base of skating with room to improve -Elite shooting technique -High end goal scoring IQ - Strong possessing the puck and zone time - Going to a strong NCAA program You have to factor this into projections of Boeser rather than look myopically at the USHL, as Vancouver didn't draft the league, they drafted the player. I agree. I was just making the point from a statistical standpoint. There are numerous attributes those stats don't account for specifically when looking at USHL players. In the CHL, when using stats analysis it is more accurate because the sample size is much greater and intangibles wash out in the large sample size. Because the USHL cohort is so small these intangibles have a much bigger impact (positive or negative). From what I seen, statistically he has about the same odds of making the NHL as an average mid-20s pick, about 50/50--very similar to Gaunce's probability when he was draft (albeit different type of players). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaSwede Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 I think he's going to have fun at UND. That looks absolutely incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 That looks absolutely incredible. Right, the facilities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Watching this kids interviews you can tell he is a HUGE wild fan I really hope he gets signed cause I can see him doing the college loophole and becoming a UFA. Or I hope that the NHL addresses this loophole and stops college players being able to become UFA's by just not signing and graduating college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uselessstats Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Watching this kids interviews you can tell he is a HUGE wild fan I really hope he gets signed cause I can see him doing the college loophole and becoming a UFA. Or I hope that the NHL addresses this loophole and stops college players being able to become UFA's by just not signing and graduating college. Well he'd have to remain at UND for a full 4 years and delay his NHL start to do so. There's no way he *needs* 4 years of college to develop so he'd have to REALLY want to go to Minnesota considering he'd be sacrificing two years of NHL pay and closer to the big payday of UFA. Possible like all things but doesn't make much sense. Most of the guys who do it are D because the position often requires they play their full 4 years in college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now