70
Photo Credit: Rena Laverty

2018 NHL Draft: Spring Rankings

Now that the draft lottery is over and fans know where their teams are going to pick (barring further trades that is), interest in the NHL draft is only increasing. For the lottery winners, it’s all about binging video on Dahlin, Svechnikov, and Zadina, but for everyone else, the competition is a lot more open. High in the draft, each team should only be grabbing the best player available, but what traits they consider valuable can be a different story.

In any case, if you’re hungry for draft content, I’m pleased to say that I have a bucketload for you today. I have put together my own personal list of 100 draft eligible prospects, replete with a variety of statistics (both commonplace and proprietary) for your consumption.

There are some fundamental differences between this particular list that I have put together and a standard draft ranking. First, this list contains only first time eligible prospects –  in other words, players that were at least 17 but less than 18 years of age on September 15th of last year. At some point between now and the draft, I’ll publish a separate list for the top overage prospects. Second, this list contains no goalies. That’s not because goaltenders are voodoo, I’ve just spent far more time looking into skaters thus far.

Rest assured, by the time Canucks Army gets around to our final rankings and profile countdown, both the overage prospects and goaltenders will be intermingled in their appropriate spots. For now, there are more than enough promising first time eligible prospects to fill 100 spots.

What Goes Into Player Assessment

Before I get into the players themselves, I’d like to take a moment to lay out my methodology for ranking draft prospects.

It should come as no surprise (based on my history and my platform) that quantitative measures play a very large role in how I judge prospects. While some people prefer to project players based subjective ratings, observed traits, and gut feelings, I prefer to take a more objective, evidence-based path, with a foundation built with a variety of statistical measures, and with context applied thereafter.

The way I see it, there aren’t many things more important than results. Inputs like raw ability, technique, and intelligence are important, but can easily be overrated or underrated individually, leaving the final opinion open to various biases and weighting errors. In contrast, numbers provide a basis that can be checked against tens of thousands of historical examples to compare to and project from. Claims that a player with poor results has all the tools to become a difference maker should be met first and foremost with suspicion. If a player in a junior league is supposed to be highly talented, he should be producing a lot of points. If he isn’t, there had better be a good reason.

Sometimes that reason can be tracked down in other numbers. Unlucky? That would show up in a low shooting percentage, and a high shot rate could assuage some concerns over a lower than hoped for goal total. Bad team? Involvement percentages, with-or-without-you charts, and quality of teammate coefficients can shed light on who wasn’t receiving enough help, and who was being propped up. Not enough opportunity? We can estimate time on ice at even strength, and break down production to analyze power play time.

In some cases, there are players that are producing a lot of points because they are relying heavily on certain attributes, such as physical strength or a quick and powerful shot, but a lack of quickness or situation awareness may indicate that the production is less than likely to carry over to the next level when the players are much faster and stronger. These are the types of things that might make us think twice about players with numbers that pop.

What’s Missing

There are some things that numbers simply can’t tell us, but unfortunately they aren’t things that can be accounted for by watching a game either. Was a player ill for an extended period of time? Nursing a nagging injury? If there are extenuating circumstances hampering production, a player may be forgiven for poor point totals – if there is good reason to believe that he could bounce back, that is.

Then, there are psychological factors to consider, such as a player’s attitude, coachability, and dedication. How interested is he in taking on and applying new information, how quick a learner is he, and how hard does he work at it. How does he deal with adversity? These are questions that are far beyond the scope of an article like this, but they can be answered. This is the purpose of the player interviews at the NHL scouting combine, in addition to the research done by the scouting staff with the player’s coaches, family, and other figures within his network.

These factors can be vitally important – look no further than the case of Ryan Pilon to underline the importance of combine interviews and psychological testing. Unfortunately, I don’t have the means to consider that here, but rest assured that its absence and importance are acknowledged.

A Rundown on the Statistical Measures Used

You can get draft lists from a myriad of sources, but since you came to Canucks Army, you can expect somewhat of a statistical lean. There will be video and some scouting reports as well, but much ink will be spilled on stats, as we have metrics here that you won’t find anywhere else. What follows is a brief description of each of the stats referenced in the tables below.

  • Age: Exact age to two decimal points, calculated as of September 15th, 2017. That date is used for draft purposes – anyone with an exact age greater than or equal to 17.00 and less than 18.00 as of that date will be eligible for the first time at the 2018 draft.

Production Measures

  • Box Cars: GP, G, A, P stand for the standard Games Played, Goals, Assists, and Points, during the 2017-18 regular season.
  • INV%: Involvement Percentage, or the percentage of team goals that the player had a point on. This has been a pretty standard prospect measurement for a while (I even use a variation of it within my pGPS model), but I particularly like this title for the metric, which was coined by @scouching.
  • 5v5 PrINV%: Similar to INV%, but this metric considers only 5-on-5 team goals that the player had a primary point (a goal or first assist) on.
  • ePrP60: Estimated primary points per 60 at 5-on-5. Estimated in conjunction with the eTOI metric described below.
  • SEAL: The SEAL adjusted scoring value. SEAL stands for Situational, Era, Age, and League. Here’s a rundown of the current iteration of SEAL, which evolved from a technique that Garret Hohl pioneered for the 2015 draft.
  • Sh/GP: Shots on goal per games played.
  • Sh%: Shooting percentage.

On-Ice Measures

  • eTOI: Estimated 5-on-5 Time on Ice. This has long been estimated by the proportion of events (goals for and against) that a player is on the ice for relative to the total for their team.
  • GF%: Percentage of 5-on-5 on-ice goals scored in favour of the player’s team.
  • GF%rel: The difference between the player’s on-ice GF% relative to the team’s GF% when the player is off the ice.
  • GD60rel: Relative goal differential per 60 minutes, based on eTOI. This differs from GF%rel above by taking into account ice time. When there are two players with the same GF%rel, the one that gets more ice time will be of greater benefit or detriment to his team. GD60rel accounts for this.

Cohort Measures

  • pGPS:
    • XLS is Expected Likelihood of Success for the player, based on how many similar players reached a 100 NHL game threshold while under team control (typically seven seasons after being eligible for the draft). These parameters
    • XPR is the Expected Production Rate of the player per 82 games, based on how similar players produced in the NHL, weighted by similarity.
    • xVal is Expected Value. This particular iteration of xVAL is designed to approximate Points Shares per 82 games, weighted by likelihood of success.

Certain metrics are only available for certain leagues, depending on how easily available the data is to the public. I’ve spent a good portion of my spare time over the past several months developing scrapers for new leagues, meaning that we have more information at our fingertips than ever before. Here’s a run down on which metrics are available in which leagues.

  • pGPS: I can run pGPS data on about 20 leagues right now, so at the top of the draft, it’s easier just to say which leagues it doesn’t do. For the purposes of this list, the missing leagues are: the MHL (Russian Junior), SM-Liiga Nuorten (Finnish Junior), the US High School circuit, and the OJHL.
  • SEAL: Dependent on availability of situational scoring data. SEAL adjustments are currently available for all CHL leagues (WHL, OHL, QMJHL), BCHL, USHL, NCAA, SHL, Allsvenskan, Finnish SM-Liiga, KHL, Czech Extraliga, and J20 Superelit.
  • INV%, GF% and GF%rel: Dependent on availability of on-ice records for goals on game sheets. Currently available for all the leagues listed above under SEAL, with the exception of the BCHL.

Player Notes

Every scout, be they in the rink or on the coach, should have the same name at the top of their draft board this year. Swedish phenom Rasmus Dahlin (1st) is far and away the best player available this year, and the best defenceman to come around in quite some time. We’re often impressed when a 17-year old can stick in a professional league like the SHL. Dahlin not only played there the whole season, he put up half a point per game as well, accumulating 20 points in 41 games played. Dahlin is the only under-18 defenceman to ever post 20 points in the SHL, and only the second draft eligible defenceman to do so, following Victor Hedman in 2008-09. His production earned him the second best SEAL adjusted scoring rate of all eligible prospects, following only Andrei Svechnikov.

Speaking of Andrei Svechnikov (3rd), he and Filip Zadina (2nd) are locked in a duel for second overall. This has been a fantastically close battle all year, and the advantage has switched back and forth at times, following Zadina’s dominant performance at the World Junior Championship, and Svechnikov’s demolition of the competition in the OHL playoffs. Svechnikov is dynamite in nearly every area from a numbers standpoint, but Zadina’s bests him in a few areas. The Czech winger has a slight advantage in Involvement Percentage (as a result of playing for a less talented team) and shots per game, and while Svechnikov has a better 5-on-5 goals for percentage, Zadina has a better GF%rel. Svechnikov is more of a pure goal scorer, while Zadina has a more diverse talent set in the offensive zone. I have Zadina above Svechnikov at this point, but it’s pretty close to a toss up and will likely come down to which trait a team values more.

After the top three, things start to open up. The next three spots on my list are occupied by products of the U.S. Nation Team Development Program. Quinn Hughes, an alumnus of the program now with the Michigan Wolverines in the NCAA, has had a tremendous season and has demonstrated that he can not only produce offence against the tougher competition offered by college players, but he can defend at that level too, which should ease some concerns over his size (which probably weren’t warranted in this day and age anyway).

Next, I have a current USNTDP player, scoring winger Oliver Wahlstrom. Wahlstrom is a dynamic volume shooter who is probably closer in upside to Zadina and Svechnikov than he is to the next available winger on the board. Wahlstrom’s 4.92 shots per game this season (USNTDP games against USHL competition only) was by far the highest rate of anyone on this list. Those numbers put him with some pretty elite competition.

I keep hearing radio hosts talk about Brady Tkachuk as if he’s in the same tier as the previous two wingers, but that simply isn’t the case. Various mainstream rankings have him anywhere from third to ninth – I have him sixth. Tkachuk, who missed the cut off for the 2017 draft by just days, produced at about 0.75 points per game in the NCAA this season. His 31 points in 40 games are the exact same as what Ryan Kesler put up at the same age. While a large portion of Tkachuk’s comparables stuck around in the NHL, the offensive upside of them varied greatly, and the average settles near more of a middle six scorer than a top line winger.

Isac Lundestrom (7th) is an interesting player. He’s drawn some comparisons to Lias Andersson, drafted seventh overall by the New York Rangers last year. That was seen as a bit of a reach at the time, but many came around on Andersson after an impressive performance at the World Junior tournament and a cup of coffee in the NHL to end the season. Not only does Lundestrom have stylistic similarities to Andersson, but he’s produced at a similar rate and is currently ranked in the mid-teens by most services, which could allow a similar tale to unfold over the course of this year. Lundestrom is rocking a goals for percentage of 62 percent, and his +15.7 GF%rel is among the best on this list – and he’s doing that playing in one of the best leagues in the world.

Once hot on Rasmus Dahlin’s tail, fellow Swedish defenceman Adam Boqvist (8th) is taking hits to his rep at the wrong time. He is often compared to Quinn Hughes, a defenceman of similar size and style, but it’s clear to me that Hughes has pulled ahead in that race. Both blueliners are a treat for the eyes, with fluid skating and beautiful puck skills, but only one of them is backed up by the data. Hughes dominates in every category, whereas Boqvist has struggled to put up decent results this season. Boqvist managed to produce at about a point per game in the Superelit league, which is notoriously volatile in terms of predicting future offence, and his numbers at the SHL level are, simply put, poor. No doubt the 7:27 he averaged per game didn’t help him out in that regard, but that low TOI didn’t stop him from getting scored on nine times at even strength and earning a 5-on-5 goals for percentage of just 18.2%. A lack of consistent opportunity might have made things a little easier, but it’s more likely that he just wasn’t prepared for the quality of the SHL. Unfortunately, his defending at the junior level hasn’t been that much better. Boqvist could still be an elite NHL defenceman some day, but he’s a long way off from that right now.

Meanwhile, Evan Bouchard (9th) has torn up the OHL, putting up a ridiculous 87 points in 67 games, leading all draft eligible players in points as a defenceman. Consequently, he has the sixth best SEAL adjusted scoring rate of all draft eligible players, and trails only Rasmus Dahlin among defencemen in that regard. Acceleration and footspeed is what’s keeping Bouchard closer to tenth than fourth or fifth on most rankings, but his skating is coming along.

Back in December, I wrote an article about some early underrated and overrated players. I pegged Jesperi Kotkaniemi (10th) as an underrated prospect,and bemoaned the fact that he was consistently ranked later than fellow Finn Rasmus Kupari. The tables have turned, and Kotkaniemi is now getting the mainstream attention that he deserves, sitting 16th on the Consolidated Rankings board (one spot above Kupari) and drawing comparisons to Anze Kopitar. I’ve got Kotkaniemi rounding out my top ten, and feel like he could still rise. The versatile forward scored over a half point per game in the Finnish Liiga this season, earning him the sixth best SEAL adjusted scoring rate. He’s in the black in terms of on-ice goals too (53%), while his team dips into the red (49%) when he’s on the bench. Not bad for a kid playing pro hockey. Plus, with a July birthday, he’s one of the youngest top end players in this class.

As mentioned in the April Consolidated Rankings article, former CHL exceptional player Joe Veleno (11th) sure made the most out of his move from Saint John to Drummondville at the QMJHL trade deadline. His playoff run wasn’t quite as prolific, with 11 points in 10 games, but he’s still shown himself to be a talented offensive catalyst. In a draft that’s thin at centre in the first round, it’s still possible that Veleno goes off the board early because of the value associated with his position.

A couple of defencemen occupy the next couple of spots on my list, with Spokane’s Ty Smith at 12th and Acadie-Bathurst’s Noah Dobson at 13th. These two go tit-for-tat in a number of categories: Dobson has a few inches on Smith, but Smith has played in a tougher league, and the WHL’s track record for churning out solid defenceman leaves Smith with a higher pGPS Expected Likelihood of Success than Dobson (75% versus 52%). Smith also has Dobson beat in SEAL adjusted scoring (1.27 to 1.05), while Dobson has a more impressive shot rate (4.12 shots per game versus 2.81). Both blueliners crested 60% in goals for percentage, but the Spokane Chiefs were substantially worse off without Smith the the Titan were without Dobson; Smith had a GF%rel of +18.6% compared to Dobson’s +3.9%. Both are solid defencemen with bright futures, but I see Smith as more of a point producer at the next level, and that gives him a bit of an edge.

Guelph’s Ryan Merkley (17th) has been falling like a rock throughout the season. While he was one of the most productive defencemen available this year, both in raw points and SEAL adjusted scoring rate, his commitment to the defensive side of the game continues to be lackluster, underlined by a 43% on-ice goal ratio and a negative relative ratio on a bad team. He shone bright at the World Under-18 tournament this past week, but on-ice deficits and rumors of off-ice issues will continue to sink his stock. Whichever team selects him will get a very talented player, and the work to point him in the right direction will then begin in earnest. One positive is that he’s still very young – a mid-August birthday makes him the second youngest player on this entire list.

Prince Albert’s Cole Fonstad (22nd) was another player I pegged as underrated back in December. Fonstad continued his run of strong production throughout the year and finished above a point per game on a middling Raiders squad. Over the past 20 years, more than half of WHL players that scored between 70 and 75 points in their draft were picked in the top two rounds of the draft, with a third of them going in the first round. Russ Courtnall, Clarke MacArthur and Kris Versteeg are among his production comparables. Fonstad garnered enough notice to be added to the CHL Top Prospects game and the Canadian Under-18 national team, but didn’t produce much at these highly scouted events. Still, he had solid numbers over 71 games in major junior this year – there’s something to be said about which sample should be weighted more heavily here. Fonstad is a bit undersized, but has the smarts and agility to overcome it. Still, he will need to add strength and tenacity if he’s going to succeed at the pro level.

Alexander Alexeyev (28th) is a guy that first caught my attention in person, when he was in town to play the Vancouver Giants. When I got home and ran his numbers, he stood out even more. He has an Expected Likelihood of Success of 53% based on statistically comparable players, and his Expected Value of 5.5 Points Shares is the tenth best among first time eligible players. Alexeyev was one of just a few Red Deer Rebels that were in the black for on-ice goals, a team that was outscored by 21 goals at 5-on-5 this year. Then there’s the underlying story: Alexeyev has had an extremely difficult season on a personal level. Far from home, he’s dealt with multiple long term injuries this season, and worse, he lost his mother shortly before the top prospects game. That he’s managed to put together a nice season under the weight of personal tragedy says an enormous amount about his ability to deal with adversity.

Nathan Dunkley (30th) is the third player that I pegged as underrated back in December. He’s an interesting player to view on the stats-to-eye-test spectrum (remember, it’s not a battle, it’s a balance), and could potentially be the type of player I referenced earlier, whose numbers pop, but there are worrisome gaps in his game. Dunkley stayed close to a point per game throughout the season, on both a very strong Kingston Frontenacs team and a rebuilding London Knights team. On both squads, he produced impressively at 5-on-5, and posted extremely positive relative on-ice goal ratios. On the flip side, the weaknesses of his game include his acceleration and top speed while carrying the puck, and to a certain extent his offensive awareness. Oddly enough, Dunkley seems to move much quicker without the puck, and has no issue retrieving pucks in the defensive zone. That could make him a solid bottom six two-way player in the future, but if he wants to add offence he’ll need to add speed while carrying the puck.

On our Consolidated Rankings of mainstream lists, the USNTDP’s Bode Wilde sits in 15th. However, I have outside the first round at 39th. There’s no doubt that Wilde has plenty of tools, including excellent skating, a hard shot and that desirable blueline size (6-foot-2, 195 pounds), but he just isn’t much of a point producer. Scouting reports claim that he can run a power play efficiently, but he had just five power play points this season on a team that had Oliver Wahlstrom, Joel Farabee, and Jack Hughes as its finishers. Of all the 5-on-5 goals that the USNTDP team scored against USHL competition while Wilde was in the lineup, Wilde had a primary point on just 3.5% of them. That Primary Involvement Percentage is one of the lowest of all the players on this list. Wilde may become a reliable, low offence, puck moving defenceman at the professional level (and even that isn’t a guarantee; his play away from the puck is still developing), but there are too many better offensive blueline options available this year to have him in the first round in my opinion.

The MHL is one of the hardest leagues to assess prospects in, largely because it’s still very new. That’s partly why I’ve struggled with evaluating Grigori Denisenko (41st) this season. Visually, he make some dazzling plays and shows excellent speed and puck control, helping his team maintain possession for long periods of time, but unfortunately that hasn’t translated to a particularly impressive point total. Denisenko had just 22 points in 31 games in the Russian junior league this year, and no regular KHL games. Lokomotiv Yaroslavl gave him a cup of coffee in the playoffs, where he went pointless in four games. He’s flown all the way up to 18th on the Consolidated Rankings, but with hardly any pro games and with mediocre junior production, I have a hard time putting that much faith in him at this point.

Diminutive Finn Niklas Nordgren (51st) is likely going to jump up some lists after leading the Gold Medal winning Finnish squad in scoring at the World Under-18’s last week. Nordgren tore apart the Finnish junior league this year, with 42 points in just 28 games, and appeared in 15 games in the top pro league, SM-Liiga, notching three assists. Even at just 5-foot-9, his Expected Likelihood of Success through pGPS is among the top tier in the class at 54%, and he posted a stellar on-ice goals ratio of 70%. Averaging 11:50 of ice time per game leads to a fairly volatile sample size, but he also posted a 50.5% corsi-for percentage this season, which is better than either highly touted Finns Kotkaniemi (49.7%) or Rasmus Kupari (46.3%) managed.

Speaking of the World Under-18’s, Swedish defenceman Adam Ginning (62nd) captained his squad to bronze. Back home in Sweden, Ginning spent more time in the SHL than the junior league, which is certainly a good sign, but there wasn’t much offence coming in either situation. Ginning had just two points in 28 SHL games, and an abysmal 33% on-ice goal ratio – his team was well over 50% when he was on the bench. With time, he could develop into a bottom pairing, penalty killing, defensive defenceman. That certainly has value, but it’s not an overly rare commodity.

Apart from Ginning and others mentioned above, there are a few more European teens to take note of – as we’ve mentioned ad nauseum, just playing in the top European leagues in a draft year is a good sign and any production therein is certainly a positive. David Gustafsson (39th) jumps immediately to mind – the Swedish forward spent 45 games in the SHL this year. Defenceman Nils Lundkvist (35th), and Marcus Westfalt (67th) are also worthy of note. In the Czech league, Martin Kaut (29th) has had a great domestic campaign and starred for his country at the World Juniors, and Jakub Lauko (57th) spent the entire season in the Czech Extraliga before leading the Czech Under-18 team in scoring last week in Russia.

There are many more prospects to dig into, but I’ll save that for the profiles. For now, I give you my list of 100 prospects for the 2018 NHL Entry Draft, along with a bevy of statistics that I have gathered and concocted. Enjoy!

2018 NHL Draft Spring Top 100

Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
1 Rasmus Dahlin D 17.42 6.02 SWE SHL 41 7 13 20 15.6% 13.6% 1.00 2.07 2.05 8.3% 16.2 54.5% 2.5% 0.25
2 Filip Zadina LW 17.80 6.01 CZE QMJHL 57 44 38 82 37.3% 29.9% 2.40 1.74 4.11 18.8% 18.9 58.3% 8.6% 1.10 53% 50.5 5.3
3 Andrei Svechnikov RW 17.47 6.03 RUS OHL 44 40 32 72 34.6% 27.1% 3.19 2.23 3.95 23.0% 16.7 68.3% 5.9% 0.79 100% 67.3 11.2
4 Quinn Hughes D 17.92 5.10 USA NCAA 37 5 24 29 23.2% 14.0% 1.09 1.49 2.51 5.4% 19.3 61.4% 7.7% 0.90 33% 31.8 3.4
5 Oliver Wahlstrom C/RW 17.26 6.01 USA USHL 26 22 23 45 32.4% 25.0% 3.06 1.93 4.92 17.2% 17.3 74.1% 12.2% 1.75 100% 70.5 11.8
6 Brady Tkachuk C 17.99 6.03 USA NCAA 40 8 23 31 25.0% 20.0% 1.76 1.40 3.28 6.1% 14.5 65.3% 13.8% 1.40 37% 40.6 3.5
7 Isac Lundestrom C/LW 17.86 6.00 SWE SHL 42 6 9 15 15.2% 11.1% 0.97 1.42 1.00 14.3% 10.4 62.1% 15.7% 1.25 60% 38.1 5.4
8 Adam Boqvist D 17.08 5.11 SWE Superelit 25 14 10 24 25.8% 19.3% 1.40 0.57 3.92 14.3% 18.9 51.1% 0.3% 0.04 20% 78.5 2.7
9 Evan Bouchard D 17.91 6.02 CAN OHL 67 25 62 87 37.8% 18.5% 0.98 1.59 4.43 8.4% 22.8 53.1% 4.2% 0.43 73% 34.9 7.4
10 Jesperi Kotkaniemi C 17.19 6.02 FIN Liiga 57 10 19 29 18.8% 18.3% 1.48 1.72 2.77 6.3% 13.5 50.0% -0.7% -0.07 50% 46.8 4.9
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
11 Joseph Veleno C 17.67 6.01 CAN QMJHL 64 22 57 79 35.3% 17.4% 1.64 1.46 3.13 11.0% 13.2 51.9% 0.8% 0.09 34% 44.1 3.2
12 Ty Smith D 17.48 5.11 CAN WHL 69 14 59 73 27.2% 13.1% 0.96 1.27 2.81 7.2% 19.9 64.0% 18.6% 2.26 75% 34.1 8.1
13 Noah Dobson D 17.69 6.03 CAN QMJHL 67 17 52 69 26.1% 9.8% 0.79 1.05 4.12 6.2% 18.2 61.9% 3.9% 0.44 52% 23.5 5.1
14 Joel Farabee LW 17.56 6.00 USA USHL 26 15 25 40 28.8% 20.7% 3.50 1.75 3.54 16.3% 12.5 74.4% 10.7% 1.54 29% 60.2 3.0
15 Akil Thomas C 17.70 5.11 USA OHL 68 22 59 81 34.0% 20.7% 1.67 1.55 2.91 11.1% 15.8 57.0% 9.2% 1.02 42% 42.7 4.0
16 Barrett Hayton C 17.27 6.01 CAN OHL 63 21 39 60 20.5% 14.3% 1.93 1.28 2.51 13.3% 12.3 64.9% 2.6% 0.30 36% 39.2 3.4
17 Ryan Merkley D 17.09 5.11 CAN OHL 63 13 54 67 32.2% 14.7% 0.89 1.41 2.29 9.0% 20.4 43.4% -2.3% -0.27 66% 36.3 7.3
18 Ryan McLeod C 17.99 6.02 CAN OHL 68 26 44 70 28.1% 16.8% 1.48 1.26 2.41 15.9% 14.9 53.5% 8.3% 0.97 35% 35.9 3.2
19 Calen Addison D 17.43 5.10 CAN WHL 68 11 54 65 27.8% 10.3% 0.76 1.16 2.84 5.7% 17.3 50.9% -2.3% -0.25 48% 31.9 5.0
20 Vitali Kravtsov RW 17.73 6.02 RUS Russia 35 4 3 7 9.0% 11.5% 1.97 1.13 1.00 11.4% 5.2 63.6% 10.1% 0.73 13% 48.6 1.2
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
21 Dominik Bokk RW 17.62 6.01 GER Superelit 35 14 27 41 34.7% 23.5% 2.10 0.76 3.31 12.1% 16.4 72.9% 13.4% 1.35 29% 39.7 2.7
22 Cole Fonstad C/LW 17.39 5.10 CAN WHL 72 21 52 73 30.2% 18.8% 1.39 1.27 2.13 13.7% 18.0 52.3% 4.9% 0.58 30% 42.5 2.8
23 Rasmus Kupari C 17.50 5.11 FIN Liiga 39 6 8 14 10.5% 8.2% 1.21 1.09 1.79 8.6% 8.9 60.7% 0.5% 0.05 40% 43.2 3.9
24 Allan McShane C 17.59 5.11 CAN OHL 67 20 45 65 26.4% 18.6% 1.89 1.32 2.46 12.1% 13.8 54.4% 3.7% 0.44 29% 37.5 2.7
25 Jonatan Berggren C/RW 17.17 5.10 SWE Superelit 38 18 39 57 39.3% 31.0% 2.88 1.06 2.11 22.5% 17.0 66.2% 17.1% 2.16 100% 42.3 9.2
26 Serron Noel RW 17.10 6.05 CAN OHL 62 28 25 53 22.2% 19.2% 2.00 1.24 1.69 26.7% 14.1 47.1% -8.1% -0.98 48% 45.3 4.7
27 Jacob Olofsson C 17.60 6.02 SWE Allsvenskan 43 10 11 21 20.0% 13.0% 0.81 1.01 1.84 12.7% 17.6 62.2% 3.7% 0.29 0% 0.0 0.0
28 Alexander Alexeyev D 17.83 6.03 RUS WHL 45 7 30 37 28.7% 13.8% 0.78 0.95 1.76 8.9% 18.9 50.7% 7.3% 0.75 53% 28.4 5.5
29 Martin Kaut RW 17.96 6.01 CZE Czech 38 9 7 16 15.7% 15.7% 1.61 1.55 1.63 14.5% 10.8 58.1% 8.5% 0.77 31% 59.4 3.3
30 Nathan Dunkley C 17.37 5.11 CAN OHL 60 21 36 57 26.6% 19.7% 1.66 1.26 1.83 19.1% 16.3 63.3% 16.0% 1.77 32% 38.6 2.9
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
31 Jared McIsaac D 17.47 6.01 CAN QMJHL 65 9 38 47 18.4% 6.8% 0.56 0.74 2.74 5.1% 18.2 52.0% -4.0% -0.50 26% 22.8 2.5
32 Jett Woo D 17.14 6.00 CAN WHL 44 9 16 25 12.5% 6.3% 0.59 0.69 1.89 10.8% 18.4 61.4% -1.7% -0.21 31% 24.1 3.1
33 Jake Wise C 17.55 5.10 USA USHL 18 9 19 28 27.2% 11.6% 2.45 1.59 2.17 23.1% 10.9 70.8% 1.5% 0.22 60% 68.6 6.5
34 Filip Hallander C/W 17.21 6.01 SWE Allsvenskan 40 9 11 20 20.0% 18.2% 1.49 1.13 2.18 10.3% 12.7 61.3% 1.8% 0.14 0% 0.0 0.0
35 Nils Lundkvist D 17.16 5.10 SWE SHL 28 2 3 5 7.5% 4.5% 0.34 0.78 0.75 9.5% 12.6 52.2% -2.1% -0.16 38% 23.5 3.9
36 Rasmus Sandin D 17.53 5.11 SWE OHL 51 12 33 45 18.3% 9.0% 0.79 1.15 1.84 12.8% 20.9 61.5% -3.5% -0.43 59% 30.4 6.1
37 K’Andre Miller D 17.65 6.04 USA USHL 22 4 12 16 15.1% 15.5% 2.27 1.05 2.18 8.3% 13.2 63.6% -1.3% -0.18 40% 37.3 4.3
38 David Gustafsson C 17.43 6.01 SWE SHL 45 6 6 12 10.2% 12.7% 1.47 1.28 0.73 18.2% 9.1 58.1% 8.5% 0.77 55% 46.3 5.4
39 Bode Wilde D 17.64 6.02 CAN USHL 25 3 13 16 12.4% 3.5% 0.46 0.89 2.36 5.1% 15.6 69.6% 6.5% 0.91 19% 31.4 2.0
40 Jack McBain C 17.69 6.03 CAN OJHL 48 21 37 58 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
41 Grigori Denisenko LW 17.23 5.10 RUS MHL 31 9 13 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
42 Jesse Ylonen RW 17.95 6.01 FIN Mestis 48 14 13 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
43 Mattias Samuelsson D 17.51 6.04 USA USHL 23 4 10 14 11.4% 6.3% 0.95 0.87 1.61 10.8% 13.7 64.9% -2.6% -0.37 32% 29.8 3.2
44 Aidan Dudas C 17.25 5.07 CAN OHL 68 31 34 65 22.7% 16.8% 1.92 1.32 3.25 14.0% 14.2 51.4% -2.9% -0.38 18% 39.9 1.7
45 Blade Jenkins C 17.10 6.02 USA OHL 68 20 24 44 22.7% 22.1% 1.76 1.01 2.06 14.3% 14.6 45.1% -0.6% -0.07 25% 37.5 2.3
46 Kyle Topping C 17.83 5.11 CAN WHL 66 22 43 65 25.4% 14.5% 1.44 1.06 2.74 12.2% 13.3 59.5% 10.3% 1.19 24% 39.1 2.2
47 Ty Dellandrea C 17.15 6.01 CAN OHL 67 27 32 59 31.6% 16.0% 1.09 1.18 3.55 11.3% 15.6 34.2% -1.3% -0.18 39% 41.0 3.7
48 Nicolas Beaudin D 17.94 5.11 CAN QMJHL 68 12 57 69 25.2% 8.5% 0.72 1.03 0.00 0.0% 18.4 57.7% -2.2% -0.26 38% 27.0 3.8
49 Jonny Tychonick D 17.54 5.11 CAN BCHL 48 9 38 47 32.6% 13.0% 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.0% 0.0 50.0% -12.9% -1.17 0% 0.0 0.0
50 Jonathan Gruden LW 17.37 6.00 USA USHL 25 15 19 34 25.8% 20.9% 3.00 1.52 2.40 25.0% 14.4 76.7% 17.2% 2.46 28% 65.4 3.0
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
51 Niklas Nordgren RW 17.37 5.09 FIN Liiga 15 0 3 3 7.7% 3.4% 0.42 0.56 1.80 0.0% 9.6 70.0% 10.5% 0.88 54% 57.4 5.5
52 Anderson MacDonald LW 17.33 6.02 CAN QMJHL 58 27 18 45 24.1% 18.6% 1.24 0.95 2.76 16.9% 15.8 38.0% -6.0% -0.73 17% 40.2 1.6
53 Jacob Ragnarsson D 17.98 6.00 SWE Allsvenskan 47 4 9 13 12.9% 12.9% 0.90 0.62 0.74 11.4% 14.7 48.9% 0.5% 0.05 13% 26.0 1.2
54 Gabriel Fortier LW 17.61 5.10 CAN QMJHL 66 26 33 59 28.9% 18.2% 1.70 1.07 2.61 15.1% 12.8 50.6% 4.7% 0.53 11% 41.1 1.0
55 Blake McLaughlin C 17.59 5.11 USA USHL 54 23 29 52 26.8% 19.3% 1.68 1.10 2.52 16.9% 15.7 50.0% -1.0% -0.13 15% 37.2 1.4
56 Jack Drury C 17.62 5.11 USA USHL 56 24 41 65 35.2% 12.4% 1.32 1.09 2.70 15.9% 9.8 65.7% 12.5% 1.05 20% 45.2 1.9
57 Jakub Lauko C/LW 17.47 6.01 CZE Czech 42 3 6 9 8.8% 7.9% 0.78 0.76 0.90 7.9% 9.1 46.4% 1.0% 0.09 26% 49.3 2.6
58 Alexander Khovanov C 17.43 5.11 RUS QMJHL 29 9 19 28 26.2% 17.0% 1.23 1.16 2.31 13.4% 15.2 49.0% 14.5% 1.93 16% 45.2 1.6
59 Philipp Kurashev LW/C 17.93 6.00 SUI QMJHL 59 19 41 60 30.0% 18.2% 1.44 1.16 3.20 10.1% 14.2 50.0% -1.4% -0.14 17% 43.3 1.6
60 Yegor Sokolov RW 17.27 6.04 RUS QMJHL 64 21 21 42 19.5% 16.8% 1.33 0.82 2.64 12.4% 14.1 39.3% -5.8% -0.69 16% 38.2 1.4
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
61 Milos Roman C 17.86 5.11 SVK WHL 39 10 22 32 23.5% 12.4% 1.17 0.87 1.97 13.0% 14.4 56.1% 8.2% 1.00 13% 33.0 1.1
62 Adam Ginning D 17.67 6.03 SWE SHL 28 1 1 2 2.8% 0.0% 0.00 0.31 0.54 6.7% 11.0 33.3% -24.8% -2.31 31% 25.9 3.1
63 Filip Kral D 17.91 6.00 CZE WHL 54 9 26 35 16.4% 9.3% 0.91 0.78 1.69 9.9% 15.9 57.6% 0.1% 0.01 24% 21.8 2.3
64 Oscar Back C/RW 17.51 6.02 SWE Superelit 38 10 22 32 22.2% 13.9% 2.09 0.54 2.05 12.8% 10.6 62.5% 4.0% 0.48 10% 32.4 0.8
65 Benoit-Olivier Groulx C 17.61 6.01 FRA QMJHL 68 28 27 55 20.5% 15.3% 1.64 0.97 2.49 16.6% 14.0 52.5% -2.6% -0.33 14% 41.7 1.3
66 Kody Clark RW 17.93 6.01 CAN OHL 56 18 21 39 21.4% 17.0% 1.45 0.86 2.29 14.1% 13.3 55.9% 15.2% 1.66 15% 32.0 1.3
67 Marcus Westfalt C/LW 17.51 6.03 SWE SHL 31 1 3 4 4.4% 4.5% 0.71 0.61 0.00 0.0% 8.1 39.1% -15.7% -1.71 29% 36.7 2.6
68 Riley Sutter RW 17.89 6.02 CAN WHL 68 25 28 53 23.5% 18.6% 1.73 0.90 2.51 14.6% 13.2 66.2% 10.8% 1.03 18% 31.3 1.6
69 Adam Samuelsson D 17.24 6.05 USA USHL 26 2 10 12 8.6% 3.3% 0.53 0.60 0.62 12.5% 13.2 63.4% -4.6% -0.67 44% 26.8 4.3
70 Albin Eriksson LW 17.16 6.04 SWE Superelit 38 22 18 40 28.4% 20.0% 1.92 0.67 3.63 15.9% 15.6 65.0% 15.4% 1.87 28% 42.4 2.7
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
71 Vladislav Kotkov RW 17.69 6.04 RUS QMJHL 61 21 28 49 28.5% 19.4% 1.44 0.95 2.87 12.0% 13.0 49.2% 4.5% 0.43 26% 27.4 2.2
72 Liam Foudy C 17.61 6.00 CAN OHL 65 24 16 40 17.8% 15.7% 1.55 0.84 2.08 17.8% 12.5 47.1% -6.0% -0.62 13% 30.8 1.2
73 Dmitri Zavgorodny C 17.10 5.09 RUS QMJHL 62 26 21 47 21.9% 14.3% 1.52 0.98 2.35 17.8% 12.7 61.8% 2.4% 0.25 8% 43.0 0.8
74 Axel Andersson D 17.60 6.00 SWE Superelit 42 6 25 31 23.3% 15.7% 1.10 0.47 2.48 5.8% 16.9 60.9% 19.4% 2.10 8% 27.7 0.8
75 David Lilja C 17.65 5.11 SWE Allsvenskan 37 3 5 8 11.0% 8.7% 0.79 0.49 0.41 20.0% 9.8 38.5% -0.2% -0.03 23% 41.3 2.2
76 Ty Emberson D 17.31 6.01 USA USHL 25 4 11 15 11.1% 6.6% 0.98 0.79 1.36 11.8% 14.7 57.8% -13.7% -2.00 8% 27.9 0.8
77 Sampo Ranta LW 17.29 6.02 FIN USHL 53 23 14 37 27.7% 20.0% 1.40 0.77 3.64 11.9% 14.8 45.9% -2.5% -0.24 15% 36.9 1.4
78 Jay O’Brien C 17.87 6.00 USA USHS 30 43 37 80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
79 Stanislav Demin D 17.45 6.01 USA BCHL 57 9 36 45 23.1% 11.8% N/A 0.63 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17% 39.9 1.8
80 Carl Wassenius C 17.94 6.02 AIK Superelit 34 16 24 40 37.0% 25.8% 1.67 0.69 3.65 12.9% N/A 50.0% -1.3% -0.13 23% 29.3 2.0
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
81 Xavier Bernard D 17.69 6.02 CAN QMJHL 66 11 24 35 12.8% 7.4% 0.73 0.56 1.70 9.8% 16.2 62.6% 4.9% 0.59 18% 25.4 1.8
82 Jachym Kondelik C 17.74 6.07 GER USHL 44 16 18 34 22.8% 19.2% 1.43 0.74 2.91 12.5% 14.3 51.0% 7.5% 0.78 49% 41.6 4.7
83 Matthew Struthers C 17.72 6.02 CAN OHL 62 23 22 45 22.1% 22.0% 1.81 1.01 2.66 13.9% 15.5 56.2% 10.4% 1.15 22% 34.5 1.9
84 Ruslan Iskhakov RW 17.15 5.07 RUS MHL 33 6 24 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.48 12.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
85 Martin Fehervary D 17.94 6.01 SWE Allsvenskan 42 1 6 7 7.0% 4.3% 0.36 0.38 1.57 1.5% 14.0 57.5% 5.8% 0.56 7% 21.2 0.6
86 Alec Regula D 17.11 6.02 USA OHL 67 7 18 25 10.9% 5.8% 0.39 0.52 1.22 8.5% 18.6 55.1% 6.4% 0.66 17% 23.2 1.7
87 Nando Eggenberger LW/RW 17.94 6.02 SUI NLA 36 3 2 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
88 Connor Roberts C 17.56 6.03 CAN OHL 66 18 17 35 18.9% 16.9% 1.08 0.74 1.98 13.7% 16.9 35.8% -5.2% -0.61 14% 27.0 1.2
89 Kirill Marchenko RW 17.15 3.06 RUS MHL 31 8 8 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.32 11.1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90 Kevin Bahl D 17.22 6.06 CAN OHL 58 1 17 18 9.6% 4.3% 0.32 0.44 1.00 1.7% 16.3 36.8% -11.7% -1.41 23% 15.4 2.1
Rank Player Pos Age Height Nat. League GP G A P INV% 5v5 Pr INV% 5v5 ePr60 SEAL Sh/GP Sh% eTOI GF% GF%rel GD60 rel XLS% XPR xVAL
(PS)
91 Giovanni Vallati D 17.57 6.01 CAN OHL 65 3 23 26 10.9% 4.8% 0.45 0.55 0.86 5.4% 16.5 53.3% -1.7% -0.21 12% 23.5 1.2
92 Declan Chisholm D 17.68 6.01 CAN OHL 47 3 17 20 12.3% 6.3% 0.55 0.56 0.98 6.5% 13.9 46.3% 4.2% 0.51 12% 24.0 1.2
93 Kirill Nizhnikov RW 17.47 6.01 RUS OHL 63 10 25 35 18.2% 15.0% 1.47 0.80 2.73 5.8% 12.9 37.8% -12.7% -1.53 10% 27.3 0.9
94 Santeri Salmela D 17.27 6.01 FIN Liiga 31 0 1 1 1.4% 0.0% 0.00 0.14 1.39 0.0% 10.6 40.0% 0.5% 0.05 18% 41.5 2.0
95 Merrick Rippon D 17.39 6.00 CAN OHL 68 4 19 23 9.7% 8.3% 0.79 0.46 1.40 4.2% 13.3 48.9% 1.4% 0.17 8% 25.7 0.8
96 Carter Robertson D 17.67 6.02 CAN OHL 57 5 13 18 9.6% 6.8% 0.47 0.42 1.19 7.4% 17.7 43.5% -7.9% -0.86 9% 20.1 0.9
97 Curtis Hall C 17.39 6.02 USA USHL 54 13 18 31 19.1% 15.9% 1.56 0.62 1.74 13.8% 10.7 53.5% 3.9% 0.37 6% 26.2 0.5
98 Lukas Wernblom C/LW 17.15 5.09 SWE Superelit 20 5 13 18 26.5% 17.8% 1.52 0.60 2.75 9.1% N/A 45.5% -9.1% -0.50 10% 31.5 0.9
99 Xavier Bouchard D 17.55 6.03 CAN QMJHL 65 3 18 21 10.2% 6.1% 0.43 0.36 1.28 3.6% 17.2 41.1% -11.0% -1.26 5% 19.4 0.5
100 Damien Giroux C 17.54 5.09 CAN OHL 68 19 24 43 22.2% 13.7% 1.18 0.78 1.96 14.3% 13.5 44.0% -2.0% -0.22 9% 30.9 0.8

pGPS (prospect graduation probability system) and SEAL (situational-era-age-league) adjust scoring metrics are unique to Canucks Army. All data in this article, including that used to build the models just mentioned, was gathered from the following locations: eliteprospects.com, hockey-reference.com, whl.ca, ontariohockeyleague.com, theqmjhl.ca, ushl.com, collegehockeyinc.com, collegehockeynews.com swe.hockey.se, en.khl.ru, enmhl.khl.ru, liiga.fi, and hokej.cz/tipsport-extraliga.

E&OE: This article is very large and contains an enormous amount of data. Feel free to point out if something is missing or looks erroneous so that I can fix it.