Brock Boeser | #6 | RW

[NHL'er]

contrast with Hannah Bernard

[Big Time]

These last two posts are gold. Pure gold.

[87Crosby]

These last two posts are gold. Pure gold.

[Derp...]

All of these guys played in the USHL during their draft year exactly like Boeser, except Vanek who played his pre-draft but was still 18 (was drafted at 19) and Wheeler who played his draft+1 at 19:

Obviously the company speaks for itself, but what about guys who are statistically in that category and didn't make it? There have to be some right?

How did these guys projections improve in their draft +1 year?

[uselessstats]

Looks like a good pick and could well prove to be BPA, but we definitely do not need more RW despite what some are saying. Leaving older players like Burrows, Dorsett and Hansen out of the discussion, we still have Kassian, Virtanen, Grenier and Jensen. We are deeper at RW than any other position, even C.

Jensen is close to being moved or going back to Europe. His NHL future is extremely unlikely right now. Grenier is a longshot at being anything outside of a bottom 6 winger. We really have Kassian and Virtanen, and neither are locks to be full-time top6 RW either. Plus Virts can also play the left side. It's foolish to assume that prospect depth = NHL depth. At the moment, we are still very suspect on both wings, at least until we see Virtanen, Shinkaruk, and Kassian emerge. Boeser could potentially be better than all of them.

Edited June 28, 2015 by uselessstats

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Grenier may never make the show and Jensen is still struggling to be consistent in Utica. RW was by far our biggest hole at forward.

You can say that about any prospect until they've made it. I do agree about Jensen but not Grenier. The point is that the depth chart is weaker at every other position.

Again, none of this detracts from Boeser as a player, just a comment about organizational need. If he's a lethal sniper with some physicality to his game, we can always use that.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Jensen is close to being moved or going back to Europe. His NHL future is extremely unlikely right now. Grenier is a longshot at being anything outside of a bottom 6 winger. We really have Kassian and Virtanen, and neither are locks to be full-time top6 RW either. Plus Virts can also play the left side. It's foolish to assume that prospect depth = NHL depth. At the moment, we are still very suspect on both wings, at least until we see Virtanen, Shinkaruk, and Kassian emerge. Boeser could potentially be better than all of them.

No argument about Boeser's potential or Jensen's status, but Grenier has proved he's ready for an NHL look. We'll see how he does. Kassian is already an NHL player and we already have Burrows, Hansen and Dorsett on RW, with Virtanen waiting in the wings. So let's discount Jensen. That still leaves us 6 deep at RW, three of whom (not counting Boeser) are young and 2 of whom are top 6 material (I'm being realistic about Grenier here). Fact is, we're plenty deep at RW. If you want to dispute that, feel free to go through our depth at any other position. Only at C does it come remotely close. Then there's the D situation ...

Boeser may well have been BPA so I'm fine with the pick on that basis, just not the bogus argument about us not having depth at RW.

[baumerman77]

CA also says that the small cohort and Boeser's higher boxcars compared to those in the cohort leads to a significant underrating of his potential by PCS (currently 27%). Simply put, they don't have a proper range of analogues to compare him to.

And this is the same model that predicted Bo Horvat had a 24% chance of making the NHL in his draft year. He's now at 84% (and more realistically, he's as sure a thing as they come to be a 2C at minimum). Either that 57% jump in Bo's PCS is because the methodology is pretty poor, or his improvement is due to "intangibles" and Benning is drafting the right way.

Yes, or Horvat greatly improved the next year(s). I agree that there is a smaller list of comparables out of the USHL so the methodology likely isn't as reliable, which brings me back to my overall point. His next year at the NCAA will clarify a lot.

All of these guys played in the USHL during their draft year exactly like Boeser, except Vanek who played his pre-draft but was still 18 (was drafted at 19) and Wheeler who played his draft+1 at 19:

This seems like a list of only his NHL comparables (at least PPG-wise). Does anyone know of a list of his USHL prospect comparables (over perhaps the past 10 years or so)?

[uselessstats]

No argument about Boeser's potential or Jensen's status, but Grenier has proved he's ready for an NHL look. We'll see how he does. Kassian is already an NHL player and we already have Burrows, Hansen and Dorsett on RW, with Virtanen waiting in the wings. So let's discount Jensen. That still leaves us 6 deep at RW, three of whom (not counting Boeser) are young and 2 of whom are top 6 material (I'm being realistic about Grenier here). Fact is, we're plenty deep at RW. If you want to dispute that, feel free to go through our depth at any other position. Only at C does it come remotely close. Then there's the D situation ...

Boeser may well have been BPA so I'm fine with the pick on that basis, just not the bogus argument about us not having depth at RW.

But you can't talk about Hansen and Dorsett as being the same thing as Boeser. They aren't and will never be top 6 wingers. Benning drafted Boeser because that is what he believes Boeser can become. Or look at it this way. How many 30G scorers do we have or are likely to have on RW in 5 years? Maybe 1 (Virtanen), that's it. Boeser gives us 2 (potentially). Having Dorsett, Hansen, Jensen, and Grenier shouldn't stop us from drafting Boeser any more than having Sbisa, Bieksa, Corrado, and Clendeing should stop us from drafting a D. Depth =/= Quality. We need both badly. Boeser was arguably BPA at 23 and fills a need (goals) as badly as drafting a D would have.

[thejazz97]

Wouldn't be surprised if Boeser makes it this year. If we're looking for goals, he could find himself on a line with the Sedins, or at the very least, Horvat. He's not gonna be able to wear #12 though

Edited June 28, 2015 by thejazz97

[Gstank29]

Wouldn't be surprised if Boeser makes it this year. If we're looking for goals, he could find himself on a line with the Sedins, or at the very least, Horvat.

No way Boeser makes the team. It would not benefit him at all, plus we have Virtanen and Grenier who are more likely than not to be in the lineup.

Boeser is going to UND one of the best collage hockey programs in the NCAA so there is no reason to rush him. Also his CHL rights are owned by Seattle so either way he is going to a good program.

Benning said they are going to take his development "year by year" so I would assume he thinks that Boeser is probably 2-3 years away from making/competing for a spot on the team

[baumerman77]

Here is a list of forwards drafted out of the USHL* from 2000-2015 in the first round.

*They played primarily for a USHL team not on the national development team (which I know gets confusing), but that is Boeser profile so it is only fair to have comparables meet that criteria.

PPG Year

Connor 1.43 2015

Schwartz 1.38 2010

Lewis 1.33 2006

Boeser 1.19 2015

Okposo 1.16 2006

Schmaltz 1.15 2014

Girgensons 1.12 2012

Pacioretty 1.05 2007

Leblanc 0.98 2009

Miller 0.72 2011

There are a few advantages of this list of comparables. 1) It demonstrates the lack of USHL forward draftees in the first round. This lack of sample size causes uncertainty in any statistical model. 2) It is not does not truncate all comparables like the aforementioned list of "NHL comparables" which could lead to some thinking that all players with a similar profile made the NHL. 3) It factors in the risk of using a first round pick. You won't find Gaurdeau on the list even though his PPG was 1.2 because he was selected in the 4th round.

As previously stated, I can't really pass judgement on the potential of this pick at this time from a statistical perspective because there is very little to go on (which in itself makes the selection risky). If you eliminate Leblanc and Miller whose PPG is not really comparable to Boeser you are left with only 7 other players over a 15 year time span.

[uselessstats]

Yes, or Horvat greatly improved the next year(s). I agree that there is a smaller list of comparables out of the USHL so the methodology likely isn't as reliable, which brings me back to my overall point. His next year at the NCAA will clarify a lot.

This seems like a list of only his NHL comparables (at least PPG-wise). Does anyone know of a list of his USHL prospect comparables (over perhaps the past 10 years or so)?

USHL is no different than CHL in that you can find countless guys with better PPGs that have never sniffed the NHL. That is true of any league and isn't the point of that chart. It simply shows that of the guys that HAVE made the NHL, Boeser is right up there in PPG and GPG. From a cohort analysis, he has PLENTY of NHL comparables. The USHL isn't an obscure league where few good players come out of.

Of course the odds of Boeser making it are still what they are for most #23 picks, which is probably in the 30-50% to play in the NHL and maybe 10-20% to become an impact NHler. Still better than Konecny (5'9 with ~1.15 PPG) and probably around the same as Merkley.

I'm not trying to overrate Boeser - he could bust just like any #23 pick - but people shouldn't confuse their lack of familiarity with him with thinking he has low upside. His cohorts suggest he absolutely has first line upside.

[ihavenoideawhatsgoingon]

not to scare anyone... but taking into account only looks and interests... this guy kind of reminds me of Booth...

[mpt]

Jensen is close to being moved or going back to Europe. His NHL future is extremely unlikely right now. Grenier is a longshot at being anything outside of a bottom 6 winger. We really have Kassian and Virtanen, and neither are locks to be full-time top6 RW either. Plus Virts can also play the left side. It's foolish to assume that prospect depth = NHL depth. At the moment, we are still very suspect on both wings, at least until we see Virtanen, Shinkaruk, and Kassian emerge. Boeser could potentially be better than all of them.

I think Boeser will be better than all of them

[mpt]

Wouldn't be surprised if Boeser makes it this year. If we're looking for goals, he could find himself on a line with the Sedins, or at the very least, Horvat. He's not gonna be able to wear #12 though

He's committed to the University of North Dakota and won't be at training camp

[baumerman77]

USHL is no different than CHL in that you can find countless guys with better PPGs that have never sniffed the NHL. That is true of any league and isn't the point of that chart. It simply shows that of the guys that HAVE made the NHL, Boeser is right up there in PPG and GPG. From a cohort analysis, he has PLENTY of NHL comparables. The USHL isn't an obscure league where few good players come out of.

Of course the odds of Boeser making it are still what they are for most #23 picks, which is probably in the 30-50% to play in the NHL and maybe 10-20% to become an impact NHler. Still better than Konecny (5'9 with ~1.15 PPG) and probably around the same as Merkley.

I'm not trying to overrate Boeser - he could bust just like any #23 pick - but people shouldn't confuse their lack of familiarity with him with thinking he has low upside. His cohorts suggest he absolutely has first line upside.

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.

Edited June 28, 2015 by baumerman77

[Off_The_Schneid!]

He's committed to the University of North Dakota and won't be at training camp

Hutton and labate were commuted to colleges and were at two camps

[Gstank29]

Hutton and labate were commuted to colleges and were at two camps

You have to pay your own way to camp. NCAA athletes CAN"T recieve any type of outside payment, otherwise they lose eligibility

[Crabcakes]

In 2009, before the draft, TSN's Scott Cullen prepared these stats: here's the link, interesting stuff, I'll summarize http://www2.tsn.ca/columnists/scott_cullen/?ID=267960

Pick Prob of playing 100 NHL games Avg Player rating (same as Hockeys Future rating)

1-5 96% 6.84

6-10 74% 5.02

11-15 54% 4.58

16-20 62% 4.44

21-25 72% 4.96

26-30 44% 3.82

31-60 28%

61-90 24%

91-120 16%

after the mid 4th round, success is in the 7-10% range and is fairly steady

The player rating indicates the likelihood of being an impact player. The figures are skewed by the success rate. In other words, if a player is a complete bust, their rating would be a 1. Also, the rating is the authors opinion but relativity is important.

There is another site called College Hockey Inc that has studied the different success rates based on where a player has played his junior hockey. Here is the link http://collegehockeyinc.com/articles/study-ncaa-leads-nhl-draft-success

Their measure of success is playing 300+ NHL games. All players are 1st round picks.

NCAA 70%

CHL 64%

Europe 49%

Is there bias here? It's hard to say but the study is in some detail and it is an interesting read.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Crabcakes