2015 NHL Entry Draft

[bustaheims]

Also, its debatable whether Wings draft wisely or if they provide an environment that allows young players to reach their potential.

You can't separate drafting from developing like you're trying to do here. They go hand in hand, which is why I mentioned both in the same sentence. The Wings have done both well. The Leafs haven't really done either well.

 

[Redleaf]

I wonder how much of an impact Stromes's play in the OHL playoffs would have on his draft position. How much weight does a team like Arizona (or the Leafs for that matter) put on players playoff performance in his draft year? He has kind of fizzled out a bit since the last series. If he continues to struggle to score, does his stock drop, or have the scouts already made up their minds on him, based on his terrific regular season?

 

[Pick]

Also, its debatable whether Wings draft wisely or if they provide an environment that allows young players to reach their potential.

You can't separate drafting from developing like you're trying to do here. They go hand in hand, which is why I mentioned both in the same sentence. The Wings have done both well. The Leafs haven't really done either well.

Yes I can....and I think it's an important distinction.

I don't think anybody would argue that Nylund, Benning, Iafrate, Courtnall, Clark, Damphousse were all highly rated prospects when Leafs drafted them. But they were all thrust into a dysfunctional environment and Leafs were never able to take full advantage of the huge potential that group offered.

This year there won't be much strategy or skill required when Leafs pick. They'll just wait for their turn and pick the best player available. Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

 

[Pick]

The problems are probably not due to hockey issues and that is the reason why so many 'hockey' men failed here.

Ok, I'll bite, what are the meaningful problems/issues that aren't hockey related?

I don't pretend to know.
My argument is based primarily on fact that this team has under performed since '67. The win against the Islanders under Nielson; two years under Gilmour's leadership and a string of 6 relatively successful years under Quinn......that's 9 seasons of rather modest success in the last 45+ years.

Leafs haven't finished first since the early sixties. No leaf has won the Calder since the mid-sixties. No Leafs has won a major trophy since Keon won the Conn Smythe in '67. No Leaf has led the league in scoring. I can't remember the last time a Leaf was chosen to the 1st or 2nd all-star team. That's a dismal record!

During that time ownership, coaches, managers (even the arena and the uniform) changed, but the drought continues. Solid hockey men like Imlach, Kelly, Nielson, Dryden, Maurice, Burke were humbled here. Lesser men with lots of ambition like Fergy were ruined here.

Why the failure for so long? Why have so many regimes and so many strategies failed? To me, it points to problems that go beyond hockey.

Call it culture, call it the curse, call it anything you want but anybody who truly believes that impatience, poor drafting, coaching or management are the only problems is not looking at the big picture.

 

[Kin]

I don't pretend to know.
My argument is based primarily on fact that this team has under performed since '67. The win against the Islanders under Nielson; two years under Gilmour's leadership and a string of 6 relatively successful years under Quinn......that's 9 seasons of rather modest success in the last 45+ years.

Leafs haven't finished first since the early sixties. No leaf has won the Calder since the mid-sixties. No Leafs has won a major trophy since Keon won the Conn Smythe in '67. No Leaf has led the league in scoring. I can't remember the last time a Leaf was chosen to the 1st or 2nd all-star team. That's a dismal record!

During that time ownership, coaches, managers (even the arena and the uniform) changed, but the drought continues. Solid hockey men like Imlach, Kelly, Nielson, Dryden, Maurice, Burke were humbled here. Lesser men with lots of ambition like Fergy were ruined here.

Why the failure for so long? Why have so many regimes and so many strategies failed? To me, it points to problems that go beyond hockey.

Call it culture, call it the curse, call it anything you want but anybody who truly believes that impatience, poor drafting, coaching or management are the only problems is not looking at the big picture.

It's not some grand mystery. Of those 45 years they were owned by a crazy person for half that time who frequently sabotaged the team. After that, once they built themselves up, they had about 8 successful seasons in 20. That's not a good record but it's not a record that needs people to believe in the supernatural to explain.

For all of the "strategies" they've used in that time they've never used the one that's proven the most likely to succeed, a full and patient rebuild.

That's it. No curse. No "culture". They have a bad record over the last 20 years because they weren't built patiently. They've had bad, complacent ownership. That would sink any franchise.

 

[Pick]

I don't pretend to know.
My argument is based primarily on fact that this team has under performed since '67. The win against the Islanders under Nielson; two years under Gilmour's leadership and a string of 6 relatively successful years under Quinn......that's 9 seasons of rather modest success in the last 45+ years.

Leafs haven't finished first since the early sixties. No leaf has won the Calder since the mid-sixties. No Leafs has won a major trophy since Keon won the Conn Smythe in '67. No Leaf has led the league in scoring. I can't remember the last time a Leaf was chosen to the 1st or 2nd all-star team. That's a dismal record!

During that time ownership, coaches, managers (even the arena and the uniform) changed, but the drought continues. Solid hockey men like Imlach, Kelly, Nielson, Dryden, Maurice, Burke were humbled here. Lesser men with lots of ambition like Fergy were ruined here.

Why the failure for so long? Why have so many regimes and so many strategies failed? To me, it points to problems that go beyond hockey.

Call it culture, call it the curse, call it anything you want but anybody who truly believes that impatience, poor drafting, coaching or management are the only problems is not looking at the big picture.

It's not some grand mystery. Of those 45 years they were owned by a crazy person for half that time who frequently sabotaged the team. After that, once they built themselves up, they had about 8 successful seasons in 20. That's not a good record but it's not a record that needs people to believe in the supernatural to explain.

For all of the "strategies" they've used in that time they've never used the one that's proven the most likely to succeed, a full and patient rebuild.

That's it. No curse. No "culture". They have a bad record over the last 20 years because they weren't built patiently. They've had bad, complacent ownership. That would sink any franchise.

I never suggested that its a "grand" mystery or that somehow the supernatural is involved (gimme a break). You don't need the supernatural to explain a dysfunctional organization; you just need to be close to the organization to identify the issues.

Corporations all over the world pay a lot  (a lot) of money to consultants to figure out these problems 

As I stated earlier anyone who believes this teams problems are due to impatience, poor drafting, poor coaching and poor management is not looking at the big picture.

BTW, where do you get 8 'good' seasons in the last 20? Is making the playoffs a 'good' year. I suppose it is in this town.

 

[Kin]

I never suggested that its a "grand" mystery or that somehow the supernatural is involved (gimme a break).

What do you think a curse is?

Corporations all over the world pay a lot  (a lot) of money to consultants to figure out these problems 

As I stated earlier anyone who believes this teams problems are due to impatience, poor drafting, poor coaching and poor management is not looking at the big picture.

Yes, you've stated that twice now. You haven't actually made a case for that being true or meaningful but you've definitely made it known that you think that the people who think consistently mediocre teams can be explained by poor ownership, management and coaching aren't looking at the "big picture" but you don't have the foggiest idea what is actually to blame or what the "big picture" is. Not even a supposition.

But it's not a mystery.

It's pretty straight forward. The Leafs aren't, and have never been, the Oilers. They haven't had a mess of #1 picks and been unable to pick good players. In the last 25 years the Leafs haven't had any #1 picks. Only one top 3 pick and only three top 5 picks. They've never built themselves with the sort of talent base that successful teams have.

As data-driven analysis has made it's way into sports more and more a simple conclusion is being reached. How do you win? Great players. What's the most reliable way of getting great players? Drafting high. It's why teams tank these days in a way they never really did before.

The Leafs have never followed that path and, as a result, they've been mediocre. Not bottom of the barrel bad, not top of the league good. In modern sports with a reverse order draft, mediocrity will endlessly perpetuate mediocrity. The Leafs have had ownership that have been unable or unwilling to recognize that and take the appropriate steps. Hence, a mediocre organization.

 

[herman]

I can't tell where you're going with this, Pick. All the symptoms you've outlined point to the problem being precisely a culture of impatience resulting in poor drafting, poor coaching, and poor management.

Every builder who has come in to 'fix' this mess hasn't been allowed or never considered to dig down to the foundation because it would take too long to try.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I wonder how much of an impact Stromes's play in the OHL playoffs would have on his draft position. How much weight does a team like Arizona (or the Leafs for that matter) put on players playoff performance in his draft year? He has kind of fizzled out a bit since the last series. If he continues to struggle to score, does his stock drop, or have the scouts already made up their minds on him, based on his terrific regular season?

Which series is the last series?  If it's since Erie's actual last series, they've only played 1 game.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I wonder how much of an impact Stromes's play in the OHL playoffs would have on his draft position. How much weight does a team like Arizona (or the Leafs for that matter) put on players playoff performance in his draft year? He has kind of fizzled out a bit since the last series. If he continues to struggle to score, does his stock drop, or have the scouts already made up their minds on him, based on his terrific regular season?

Which series is the last series?  If it's since Erie's actual last series, they've only played 1 game.

I think he meant a drop from round 1 to round 2. Strome had 8 points in 5 games against Sarnia and then 3 in 4 against London. I'm guessing that had something to do with the strength of those particular opponents (although London and Sarnia had a similar goals against in the regular season).

To answer the question though I doubt 4 games makes a difference in this case. I would actually think the teams in the top-5 at least probably have their draft board all set by now.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Something else that I've noticed on this topic, and no offence to busta and others who say this, but you often hear the "it's just his size" line when people describe why scouts are so in love with him. Well, it kind of seems like that same line could be used to describe why others don't like him. Scouts can definitely be biased towards players with size at times, but it's also definitely possible for people to have a bias against size too. He's like the anti-Marner. Marner's critics write off his offensive talents because he's small. I think it's possible people are guilty of writing off Crouse's talents, offensive or otherwise, because he's big.

I don't think it's just his size.  IMO, it's just his offensive production.  I love his size - but historically players who fail to produce significantly in their jr. draft seasons also fail to significantly produce offensively in the NHL.  I do have concerns that if he is able to physically dominate in jr, why can't he put up better offensive numbers?  There could be a whole host of reasons - but IMO, if you're a top 10 pick you would overcome that.

That's basically the crux of it.  But to be clear - that's why I wouldn't take him top 5 or maybe even top 10.  But I'd take him later in the 1st round because he's supposedly so well rounded.

 

[Bullfrog]

Exactly. I feel the same. He may turn out great, but I'd rather take a risk on guys who are breaking scoring records for their teams or winning scoring championships.

 

[bustaheims]

Yes I can....and I think it's an important distinction.

I don't think anybody would argue that Nylund, Benning, Iafrate, Courtnall, Clark, Damphousse were all highly rated prospects when Leafs drafted them. But they were all thrust into a dysfunctional environment and Leafs were never able to take full advantage of the huge potential that group offered.

This year there won't be much strategy or skill required when Leafs pick. They'll just wait for their turn and pick the best player available. Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

Except that you really just explained why they can't be separated when you're looking at why a team is successful - which what this whole discussion has been about. You can't just have one. You need to have both. Detroit has both drafted and developed well. It's not about environment. Plenty of players have developed perfectly fine in terribly dysfunctional environments - including a number of the guys you listed. It's about having the right development strategies and plans in place to compliment a smart drafting philosophy. They are absolutely intertwined and inseparable when it comes to building a team successfully - and, really, that means more about picks outside the 1st round. It's having success in later rounds that builds championship teams.

 

[Kin]

Exactly. I feel the same. He may turn out great, but I'd rather take a risk on guys who are breaking scoring records for their teams or winning scoring championships.

I think one of the problems with basing so much on junior scoring is that the factors that influence scoring in the NHL are present in junior. It seems pretty clear that if Bennett had been healthy, a factor that has absolutely nothing to do with Crouse and his NHL potential, he probably would have scored at a significantly higher rate throughout the season. He'd probably have been over whatever threshold makes for a safe level of production for a good prospect.

Likewise, it seems fairly clear that guys like Strome and Marner benefitted from their surroundings and teammates in a way Crouse didn't.  Is the difference enough to even out? Probably not and it's why I'm not super-high on Crouse but I think there are a fair amount of NHL stars who produced at a similar level to what Crouse probably would have with a healthy Bennett during their last junior seasons.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

At least with someone like Strome you have 21 games where McDavid was not in the lineup and he produced at 1.67 PPG, or what would be 3rd best among draft eligible forwards in the OHL.  It's not a lot of games but it is something to consider.

 

[Joe S.]

Let's hope he has more luck than Nylund or Iafrate (or more recently, Schenn or Kadri).

Iafrate was great in his time with the Leafs, and had a good NHL career. Injuries derailed him.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I don't think it's just his size.  IMO, it's just his offensive production.  I love his size - but historically players who fail to produce significantly in their jr. draft seasons also fail to significantly produce offensively in the NHL.  I do have concerns that if he is able to physically dominate in jr, why can't he put up better offensive numbers?  There could be a whole host of reasons - but IMO, if you're a top 10 pick you would overcome that.

This is kind of what I mean though. Everybody knows that there are issues with Crouse's point production this season. Instead of asking if there are any viable reasons for the lack of production the anti-Crouse crowd tends to just say that the points should be there and they often point to his size as the reason for why he's ranked so high. Are Crouse's scoring problems because he just isn't offensive talented? Given what I've read from scouting reports a lot of them say that he does have good offensive skills. That's the big difference here for me between Crouse and guys like Biggs and Gauthier. They had noted limitations even at the time of the draft in regards to their offensive potential. I don't really get that sense with Crouse. Scouts say that he's often creating scoring chances himself.

So the question becomes if his low scoring isn't related to his lack of skills what's the deal? I think I brought up a bunch of very real explanations. His teammates can't score goals, his team has an extremely low shooting percentage, and his on-ice shooting percentage is likely unsustainably low. Aside from that, is it possible that he personally just had a cold streak that effected his point totals? He finished with 51 points in 56 games. He was a point-per-game player from January to March. If he doesn't go cold for a couple of weeks in November he likely hits the PPG mark for the entire season and then what? Are we still having this conversation?

Like I said, these all seem like things we would be looking at from an analytical perspective if a situation like this was happening in the NHL. I just find it interesting that it's largely the analytical community leading the anti-Crouse campaigns.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I wonder how much of an impact Stromes's play in the OHL playoffs would have on his draft position. How much weight does a team like Arizona (or the Leafs for that matter) put on players playoff performance in his draft year? He has kind of fizzled out a bit since the last series. If he continues to struggle to score, does his stock drop, or have the scouts already made up their minds on him, based on his terrific regular season?

Which series is the last series?  If it's since Erie's actual last series, they've only played 1 game.

I think he meant a drop from round 1 to round 2. Strome had 8 points in 5 games against Sarnia and then 3 in 4 against London. I'm guessing that had something to do with the strength of those particular opponents (although London and Sarnia had a similar goals against in the regular season).

To answer the question though I doubt 4 games makes a difference in this case. I would actually think the teams in the top-5 at least probably have their draft board all set by now.

This.  The Leafs know they're getting one of Hanafin, Strome or Marner, and I'm sure they have determined their order of preference already.  Dubas (or should I say Dubois  ) even alluded to that in saying their group is concentrating on who they'll be taking with Nashville's pick, and have been putting their collective energy into researching/scouting that decision.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think it's just his size.  IMO, it's just his offensive production.  I love his size - but historically players who fail to produce significantly in their jr. draft seasons also fail to significantly produce offensively in the NHL.  I do have concerns that if he is able to physically dominate in jr, why can't he put up better offensive numbers?  There could be a whole host of reasons - but IMO, if you're a top 10 pick you would overcome that.

This is kind of what I mean though. Everybody knows that there are issues with Crouse's point production this season. Instead of asking if there are any viable reasons for the lack of production the anti-Crouse crowd tends to just say that the points should be there and they often point to his size as the reason for why he's ranked so high. Are Crouse's scoring problems because he just isn't offensive talented? Given what I've read from scouting reports a lot of them say that he does have good offensive skills. That's the big difference here for me between Crouse and guys like Biggs and Gauthier. They had noted limitations even at the time of the draft in regards to their offensive potential. I don't really get that sense with Crouse. Scouts say that he's often creating scoring chances himself.

So the question becomes if his low scoring isn't related to his lack of skills what's the deal? I think I brought up a bunch of very real explanations. His teammates can't score goals, his team has an extremely low shooting percentage, and his on-ice shooting percentage is likely unsustainably low. Aside from that, is it possible that he personally just had a cold streak that effected his point totals? He finished with 51 points in 56 games. He was a point-per-game player from January to March. If he doesn't go cold for a couple of weeks in November he likely hits the PPG mark for the entire season and then what? Are we still having this conversation?

Like I said, these all seem like things we would be looking at from an analytical perspective if a situation like this was happening in the NHL. I just find it interesting that it's largely the analytical community leading the anti-Crouse campaigns.

Here's a fairly in-depth look from a statistical perspective that doesn't take into account his size: http://canucksarmy.com/2015/2/21/is-lawson-crouse-a-top-10-prospect

On the positive side, Crouse's skating, puck handling and shooting all look to be at the elite level, which is why pundits such as myself struggle to understand why he doesn't score more than he does. Clearly, scouts drool over the potential to draft the next Todd Bertuzzi, with good reason.

19 of out 60 CHLers (25%) who were a similar size to Crouse and produced at a similar rate went on to play 200 NHL games. On average, these 25 NHLers produced at a 0.55 points-per-game rate, which is roughly the average for a second-line NHL player.

CONCLUSION

While there has been a lot of discussion around whether Crouse warrants the rank ISS/CSS and other project for him, the reality is that with roughly a 25% chance of success based on his historical cohorts, he's most definitely a first round pick. The art of drafting comes down to trying to figure out whether he's going to be part of the 25% in his cohort that make it, or the 75% that don't, and by the eye test there is definitely a lot to like about him.

However, looking at the NHLers in each prospects cohort, we see a lot of commonalities. Without a doubt, there are lots of good players listed, but very few stars. On average, each prospect projected to be a second line player, based on the players in their cohort, if they are successful in overcoming the odds to make it to the NHL in the first place.

So, is Crouse really a top 10 pick? It's actually difficult to say, but his average upside is nearly identical to a group of players ranked a handful of picks below him. History also tells us that Crouse has the largest bust potential of the players I looked at too, with around 75% of CHL players that produce in a similar manner and who are of a similar size missing the NHL. His well-rounded game arguably gives him a greater than ~25% shot at becoming an NHLer, however it's tough to say how much this increases his chances as we have seen solid defensive projections amount to absolutely nothing before.

With the Canucks unlikely to pick in the top ten, and players like Barzal, Merkley, Sprong, and Konecny likely to slide as a result, I sure hope Crouse is taken in the top-10 though!

There's plenty of examples of very good players who weren't PPG or were around PPG in their draft year going on to be much more successful in the NHL (Ryan Getzlaf to name one) but in a lot of the cases they were either drafted low 1st round and/or played C.

Or there's this:

After reading through the scouting reports and seeing how these players scored in juniors, I think Crouse compares most favourably to Pouliot, Skille, Setoguchi and Staal. They have similar scouting profiles being labelled good defensively, while having comparable offensive numbers.

Crouse has the potential to be a Gabriel Landeskog or Jordan Staal type of player, however he could just as easily end up as a Jack Skille or Benoit Pouloit type of guy. Crouse?s prototype has undeniably valuable assets, however you can find those assets in players later in the first round or even later in the draft.

Columbus currently holds a top ten pick and they, along with every other team, should be looking for an offensive superstar; leave Crouse on the board until the latter half of the first round.

http://bshockey.com/2015/finding-comparisons-crouse.html

For me what it boils down to is the conclusion a lot of these types of articles come down to: he may turn out to be an elite player, but the odds are that he won't and the skills he provides can likely be found with a later pick and be a better use of your draft assets than using a top 10 pick on him.

 

[ZBBM]

Interesting discussion re Crouse, but since we won't be picking him at 4 (the universe would de-Bang if we did) it's kind of academic with respect to the Leafs.

Unless.  Unless we snag another 1st rounder in trade.  Just as a hypothetical ... say we got another pick in the 6-10 range.  Would you take him over the other prospects likely to be available then?  (Which, I guess, is the same as saying, is he a for-real Top 10?)