Article: The Wild Won't Be Haunted By the Ghosts Of Prospect Pools Past

[Tony Abbott]

View full article

[Will D. Ness]

The fact that Addison increased his "star" potential 25% makes me wonder if these "star quantifying" functions of speculation are some kind of modern day divination from sheep intestines.

[MNCountryLife]

Very cool comparison.  Will be a lot of fun tracking these guys and watching it all play out.

[Up North Guy]

Man, I love optimism, especially when it has a lot of reality to it. If half these guys achieve plus results and a couple more surprises along with them the future is very bright. I hope I live long enough to enjoy it.

[Tony Abbott]

1 hour ago, Will D. Ness said:

The fact that Addison increased his "star" potential 25% makes me wonder if these "star quantifying" functions of speculation are some kind of modern day divination from sheep intestines.

The model can only do what it's designed to do: project the likelihood of point production. It flags Addison as very likely to put up points, and so far, it looks dead-on.

It's very possible he becomes a power-play specialist with little 5-on-5 utility, making him a "star" that clearly isn't a star. Someone like Tony DeAngelo comes to mind. But point production at the development stages does tend to correlate to overall value in terms of Goals Above Replacement.

It's also very possible that we're overreacting to a rookie defenseman getting some rotten goaltending luck with not-particularly-good defense partners.

[Willy the poor boy]

2 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

It's also very possible that we're overreacting to a rookie defenseman getting some rotten goaltending luck with not-particularly-good defense partners.

He certainly could take another step defensively, he's still young enough to have not realized that potential. What's concerning is he 'seems' to be a guy with the Elvis effect, he's gonna do it his way.

Any insight on that?

[Protec]

2 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

There's plenty of time for things to go wrong, of course. Until proven otherwise, you should assume prospects going to be as good as the local media (Hockey Wilderness, the most trustworthy source in the hockey world being the lone exception, of course) and team hype them up to be. Aside from Boldy, none of this is in the bag yet. But at least right now, it looks like this version of the Wild's young core far exceeds the Granlund Generation in terms of raw upside, production, and sheer depth. Any time you take to get worried about the ghosts of the past is time you'd be much happier spending getting hyped for the future.

I like the conclusion here which is optimistic but tempered with the profound reality that we don't know what the future brings AND who is the most trustworthy source in the hockey world. 

I think commenters here have two important things in common. We're all interested in seeing the Wild succeed and hopefully win a Cup. We also don't have any motivation to create Wild propaganda although afflicted by a Minnesota curse. There's good honest debate and search for truth. I don't think everyone's eye-test or preferred sources for data are the same, nor are the opinions but I'm happy to discuss and argue the merits.

That period of time at the beginning of the Parise/Suter era was filled with promise and hope for greatness. There were highs when MN won 12 games in a row 2016-17 and lows as the wheels fell off against Winnipeg in 2017-2018. That year was followed by a 7th place finish in the central as Paul Fenton picked up the biggest "Doofus" moniker before being abruptly fired for utter doofiness. The Wild's trajectory has risen and now somewhat plateaued. Let's hope a boost of youth and talent described in Tony's article indeed does outclass the prospect ghosts in a big way.

[UncleWalt]

Does the top 10 by draft year star prob. omit Faber and Lambos bc they were both lower than Khus in their draft year? Where are the two D at now?

[Tony Abbott]

1 minute ago, UncleWalt said:

Does the top 10 by draft year star prob. omit Faber and Lambos bc they were both lower than Khus in their draft year? Where are the two D at now?

Yeah, both were lower than Khusnutdinov. If we're talking where everyone's at today, the Top-10 in star probability goes:

Boldy
Addison
Rossi
Yurov
Heidt
Khusnutdinov
Lambos (12%)
Ohgren
Spacek/Beckman (10%)

Faber isn't going to look good on this, even if he's good, because it deals in points.

[Protec]

I think this is why it's important to combine and integrate the opinions, stats, and analysis. Charts based on points and comparable players is okay and tells us something but not necessarily everything. Developmental rates or one facet of the game alone doesn't paint the full picture.

[UncleWalt]

53 minutes ago, Tony Abbott said:

Yeah, both were lower than Khusnutdinov. If we're talking where everyone's at today, the Top-10 in star probability goes:

Boldy
Addison
Rossi
Yurov
Heidt
Khusnutdinov
Lambos (12%)
Ohgren
Spacek/Beckman (10%)

Faber isn't going to look good on this, even if he's good, because it deals in points.

Thanks, Tony! I’m familiar with HockeyProspecting but I’m not a subscriber. 

 

I think this model is going to underrate Faber and Lambos. I’m excited to watch both this year. 

[vonlonster67]

Hey Tony, LOVE the future!

Key word from the past, "FLETCHER", our demise by trading away the farm and the blind mouse who never quite found the cheese. He's the gift that keeps on "not giving". Destroyed another franchise in Philly. Thank you for Brodin, (young Dumba) Ek and Kaprizov.

Ah, then we have "FENTON", Mr. Personality, who could find talent by throwing darts, Filip Johansson "who" and picking the best player on the board in his second year. Thank you Paul for Mr. Boldy and flossing the Predators for Fiala.

The future is BRIGHT and the only way to the Cup is keeping Billy G here and finding a coach in two years who can push us over the top!

[TCMooch]

Yes, thank you so much for this awesome piece!

[Pewterschmidt]

7 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

Yeah, both were lower than Khusnutdinov. If we're talking where everyone's at today, the Top-10 in star probability goes:

Boldy
Addison
Rossi
Yurov
Heidt
Khusnutdinov
Lambos (12%)
Ohgren
Spacek/Beckman (10%)

Faber isn't going to look good on this, even if he's good, because it deals in points.

I predict in 5 yrs petrovsky (sp?) is somewhere in the middle of this list.  And Mikey Milne is a bottom six grinder who eats nails and shits tacks

sad to see Beckman so low after hearing he’s the second coming in waiting for so long.  

[Protec]

15 hours ago, Willy the poor boy said:

He certainly could take another step defensively, he's still young enough to have not realized that potential. What's concerning is he 'seems' to be a guy with the Elvis effect, he's gonna do it his way.

Any insight on that?

I would say the combination of the worst +/- on the team, eye-test, and late-season benching is an indication his defensive game is just not a priority for him. Really needs to be #1 for NHL hockey so Addison will need to improve that greatly. It's possible and he could be learning from Spurgeon. Makes me think that's what management wants based on what we saw/heard last season. Addison's public comments were not good for him. I think he made himself & his bosses look bad when they were looking at his terrible defensive numbers and being critical of his play.(quite fairly) Was there a need for him down the stretch? Not really, and he was rumored on the trade block. I'm not sure how this plays out long-term but I think the writing is on the wall with Addison.

As much as people complained about Dumba defensively early in his career, he's never been worse than -8 for any season of his career but was very close to even through his first years in the NHL. As a historical comparison. Dumba was always bigger and more physical.

[bisopher]

16 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

Yeah, both were lower than Khusnutdinov. If we're talking where everyone's at today, the Top-10 in star probability goes:

Boldy
Addison
Rossi
Yurov
Heidt
Khusnutdinov
Lambos (12%)
Ohgren
Spacek/Beckman (10%)

Faber isn't going to look good on this, even if he's good, because it deals in points.

I saw that right away with Brodin.  I think we'd all agree that Brodin is a "star" as an all-around defenseman; Faber will be just fine if he follows that path.

 

BTW, NHL.com did their "Team Reset" for the Wild yesterday.  Their roster projections were interesting: they had Rossi centering the 4th line (I don't think so), and Addison paired with Brodin (maybe?).

[Will D. Ness]

19 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

The model can only do what it's designed to do: project the likelihood of point production. It flags Addison as very likely to put up points, and so far, it looks dead-on.

Thanks for the explanation.  It's hard to apply this model to defense IMO.  I gives guys of real value the shaft and glorifies the loose and irresponsible players.

[mnfaninnc]

23 hours ago, MNCountryLife said:

Very cool comparison.  Will be a lot of fun tracking these guys and watching it all play out.

With the "new" HW, my hope is that someone will have dedicated eyes on Iowa, while someone else will have dedicated eyes on jr/Euro/college development. For instance, who knows how Lorenz is doing in Denver (I think). 

[mnfaninnc]

21 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

It's also very possible that we're overreacting to a rookie defenseman getting some rotten goaltending luck with not-particularly-good defense partners.

The eye test would suggest that Addison made his own luck with this stat. He was simply brutal on defense, and worse yet, he showed a disinterest in improving that part of his game. While the +/- stat isn't the best, that is a true indication of what his season was like, and when you compare it with the rest of the team, it's pretty brutal.

Addison benefited from a healthy PP1 unit that Klingberg only briefly got to work with. I would suggest that Addison was not the star of that unit, but Ek and Kaprizov were. 

[mnfaninnc]

2 hours ago, bisopher said:

BTW, NHL.com did their "Team Reset" for the Wild yesterday.  Their roster projections were interesting: they had Rossi centering the 4th line (I don't think so), and Addison paired with Brodin (maybe?).

I think I like the Addison pairing here. Some would wonder if that makes him a top 4 defender? I'm not so sure. Faber teamed with Goligoski will probably also be a pairing. I think Brodin>Merrill on this will help Addison's game a lot. Where Merrill could eliminate a player, Brodin can strip just about anyone off the puck. 

But, here's where I think it gets more interesting. The 3rd period probably plays out differently, especially if we are defending a lead. Brodin and Faber likely become a pair as the bench shortens and Addison and Goligoski are "resting." If another guy is needed, it's probably Goligoski. So, that means that Addison's main contribution will be on the PP and in the 1st 2 periods. It will also mean he's got to produce.

[mnfaninnc]

1 hour ago, Will D. Ness said:

Thanks for the explanation.  It's hard to apply this model to defense IMO.  I gives guys of real value the shaft and glorifies the loose and irresponsible players.

I think it also eliminates the benefits of players who can play a structured game very well. +/- types of stats are completely out the window, but you'd think that basing a model after these types of stats would give you a more complete picture.

So, it seems like when looking at team stats, you'd be pretty close looking at net special teams play + 5v5 play. You'd probably also pull in Xgf and Xga vs. actual to see if the performance is on par or under/over performing. Some teams' structure allows them to overperform and count on it. 

Edited July 21, 2023 by mnfaninnc

[Tony Abbott]

22 hours ago, TCMooch said:

Yes, thank you so much for this awesome piece!

Thanks for asking, it was a good idea.

[Tony Abbott]

8 hours ago, mnfaninnc said:

The eye test would suggest that Addison made his own luck with this stat.

Any scoring chance is the result of a defensive breakdown, it's just that we tend to not remember the ones where the goalie bails out the defense. I'm not even saying Addison was good at defense, but the goaltending definitely did him no favors. 

[mnfaninnc]

15 hours ago, Tony Abbott said:

I'm not even saying Addison was good at defense, but the goaltending definitely did him no favors. 

Sometimes, defensive mistakes give you a little window to score. I'd suggest, though, that Addison's mistakes were egregious, and gave the opposition way more of a chance than normal gaffes. 

I still have pictured in my mind, Addison on the PP trailing an opponent on the breakaway putting in little to no effort to catch him or interrupt his chance. I'd seen this same thing happen with Rossi. That particular thing drives me up the walls. This is hockey, not basketball. You simply have to hustle that out more, and Addison looked extremely disinterested in doing it, and didn't look that unhappy about the outcome, a goal against. 

When you refuse to use your body to eliminate an opponent, even just get in the way, constantly get outmuscled in your own end, and show a lack of effort to stop someone, I've got very little sympathy for that guy even if he is young. That is a lack of compete level. 

I would suggest that if we see this with the eye test again, Addison will be traded. This team is simply not good enough for anyone to be loafing.

[Will D. Ness]

On 7/21/2023 at 9:42 AM, mnfaninnc said:

I think it also eliminates the benefits of players who can play a structured game very well. +/- types of stats are completely out the window, but you'd think that basing a model after these types of stats would give you a more complete picture.

So, it seems like when looking at team stats, you'd be pretty close looking at net special teams play + 5v5 play. You'd probably also pull in Xgf and Xga vs. actual to see if the performance is on par or under/over performing. Some teams' structure allows them to overperform and count on it. 

I think +/- is completely flawed, but at the same time, better than just going with points.  I don't understand why in this new statistical analysis age of sports that there hasn't been a comprehensive equation/model that evaluates the two way game.

I think it runs along similar lines of fair weather fandom.  Fair weather fans just want to cheer when there is a score.  Defense gets no love.  It is mass market appeal.

Only players and hardcore fans really love good defense.

This evaluation of points only as an indication of being a "star" feels like the same thing to me.  Sounds like mass market in both terminology and promotion of players.  (no offense to the writers here... just a generalization of sports media)