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.
Shooters shoot.
Since 2013, only 10 USHL forwards that were u18 at the start of their season have been able to score above a point-per-game AND shoot more than 3.9 shots per game. #2018NHLDraft eligible Oliver Wahlstrom is 3rd in PTS/GP among those forwards. pic.twitter.com/LRz22fVlwt— S7 (@S7Dsn) March 30, 2018
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.
The #2018NHLDraft is next month, and one player that's rising in draft rankings is Jesperi Kotkaniemi. Here's his season compared to other top recent Liiga prospects. He has definitely made a case to be included in the Top 10. pic.twitter.com/HIYi7ecp1d
— S7 (@S7Dsn) May 4, 2018
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.
You have Dobson ranked 13 and talk about points but he is regarded as the best defense first defensemen in the draft and you totally fail to mention this or take this in to account.
You are correct that I didn’t mention it in the article, but don’t assume that that means I haven’t taken it into account. I just don’t think that defence-first defencemen that might not put up top pairing offence need to be much higher than 13th.
The article is over 5,000 words long, I can’t list every quality for every player. This is meant to be more of a stats heavy ranking, because you can get description heavy rankings plenty of other places.
All good points on your part Jeremy. Often the biggest thing keeping players with high end NHL talent out of the NHL is the gaping holes in their games. Usually that revolves around weak defensive games. I think that’s why so many of us fans refer to it here. I can’t speak for the other people posting, but I think it’s quite valuable to know. I would rather have a 30 – 40 point d man that plays d like Tanev in his prime than a 40 – 50 point d man who plays d like MDZ.
Exactly. Dobson people say plays like a petriangelo, seth jones or provorov all play well in their own end and contribute. That matters and also why Boqvist is sliding.
He is a top pairing guy due to his defense. He will also put up points. He will be like Provorov in Philly. You almost suggest defense doesnt matter, if offense matters so much then why did subban never get a sniff and get dealt for peanuts..
Good article. Well done.
I agree with you about the complete lack of referring to how players are in their defensive end. I guess it may reflect in their expect goals for, etc. But if you are going away from stats over skating and things, effort and hockey sense should also be huge factors. Goldobin has amazing talent, but has lacked the defensive effort and decision making leading to bad give always that has created doubts as to whether he will be an nhl player. He did show way more at the end of the season.
Regarding the top d men, how well they play d is incredibly important. Points will get a player on the pp and get him into the roster, but top pairing d men have to excel on both ends of the ice.
I sure hope he falls to 10.
If Philly is open to trading the #14 and #19 picks, I wonder if it’s worth it to trade out of the Top 10 and for those picks plus another 2nd/3rd round pick. Last year, teams were able to draft guys with Top 4 potential in the same range (e.g. Brannstrom, Valimaki and Liljegren). Guys like Wilde and McIsaac are ranked in the mid-1st round and have the same projections. Alternatively, it’s conceivable that defenders like Smith, Dobson, Kotkaniemi and even Hughes could be available at #14.
I doubt you get 14 and 19 with a 2nd but I agree if you dont like who is left then trade back. There will be some nice centers and defense left on the board between 10 and 15.
I posted this over at the A, but I wonder what it would take to get Buffalo’s pick.
My suggestion is all of Vancouver’s picks in this draft.
Realistically, even if JB hits a couple gems, they won’t have the same impact as Dahlin.
I’d even put in Guddy and Baer and retain salary. Maybe take back a bad contract.
The result? Vancouver has Demko, Dahlin, Pettersson, Boeser, Horvat, some good prospects and a lot of cap remaining to fill gaps.
Buffalo has the 7th pick plus their picks and Vancouver’s. They are now in Vegas territory for the future.
It’s a Mike Ditka move and could blow-up on JB just as it did for the Dolphins and Ditka.
No chance Buffalo moves that pick unless there’s a McDavid or a Matthews involved. Never going to happen.
Excuse me, Matthews? How dare you even suggest Matthews being on par with Mcdavid.
Garth Snow tried trading all of his pucks in 2012 for the 2nd pick. Can you imagine trading an entire draft year for Yakupov or Murray?
only 1 pick out of that draft is still in the nhl
No, but the consensus seems to be that Dahlin is an incredible player and might be worth the risk to get him.
The consensus was Yakupov was an incredible player too.
Actually, some Edmonton scouts were saying not to draft Yakupov for reasons that are now obvious. If *Edmonton* scouts are avoiding a player, something’s gotta be fishy.
Do you have a source for that? Cause in all the public draft rankings he was the choice. I’m not saying teams might have had different rankings, of course they could. But without actual first hand proof of that it’s just speculation.
Sportsnet’s summary
Nail Yakupov, RW (Sarnia, OHL)
Born: Oct. 6, 1993 | 5’10.5″ – 189
Stats: 42 GP – 31 G – 38 A – 69 P
Rankings: No. 1 by NHL’s Central Scouting, No. 1 ISS, No. 1 Red Line Report, No. 1 McKeen’s Hockey
Analysis: Yakupov is a dynamic, game-breaking talent. He can create offence on his own and will be a difference-maker in the NHL. His defensive game saw an improvement, but injuries took a toll and his playoffs were disappointing. He’s still the draft’s top prospect and will be a star in the NHL, where he will play next season.
Words just like people are using for Dahlin.
“Will be a difference maker in the NHL”
“Will be a star in the NHL”
“game breaking”
Bob Mckenzie’s consolidated ranking (september of that year)
Nail Yakupov is the clear-cut #1 right now. In the 9 lists, he’s ranked first overall six times. He’s ranked no lower than second by anyone.
It’s hard to find the list of his final ranking as TSN seems to delete that stuff, but Flames Nation said this:
“Nail Yakupov has gone from the strong consensus #1 to the unanimous #1”
So that one person changed their ranking to have Yakupov at the top.
Again, you need to provide proof of that claim otherwise it’s just a strawman argument.
The other idea I floated was trading for Calgary’s defensive prospects so they get back into the draft. I’d ask for Valimaki, Andersson, and Kylington.
IF we never traded for sven we would have one of the them already..
amazing what teams can do with 2nd round picks
This could easily work if you just turn Trade Difficulty all the way down.
But we don’t need to trade down so it’s nice to be in a position where we could extract a premium on a trade. If we stand pat, we still get a core player.
It is amassing Dirk22, just take Debrincat and Andersson for example… both were at the Canucks hands and are still
Be ELC, but instead we have Gudbranson @ 4 mil and another 3-4 mil for Baertschi…
For me, I would love if the Nucks landed Merkely in the 2nd round; if not, I would like to see them take a flier on K’Andre Miller, who has a ton of raw talent and could be another Buff Daddy. I had no idea Wahlstrom was a Swede, but I would be more than happy if we could grab him at 7. I really like Tkachuk – but man, there is a lot of Brett Lindros in him, and with more time/maturity – I think Jake will be a better player.
Wahlstrom has dual citizenship, his father Joakim played professionally in Sweden for a short time. Oliver was born in the United States however, and plays for the U.S. in international competitions. Wahlstrom is a very Swedish name though.
Excellent article, I know you guys have been busy, but I have been waiting for this kinda stuff.
Interesting to see the pGPS on some are way lower than I thought, and others higher. I guess height kinda throws a monkey wrench into it sometimes, but I really like that extra info, and should be really helpful in uncovering some hidden gems further down the draft especially. Like Berggren at 25 – 100%, who is this kid and why is no one talking about him!? Could he fall to us in the second, third maybe? I don’t see him high on anyone else’s lists.
also, does pgps take into consideration exact age or all from same draft year lumped together?
anyway, great work.
Sorry I’m late on this one. Just want to say I’ve been critical of the CA team lately – sometimes I just get tired of the narrative – but this article right here is outstanding.
This is how you get noticed by NHL teams. Articles like this are how Money puck and Weisstock?!?! got their jobs, not by pretending to be smarter than the present GM (I think only Charron got his job like that but he was ahead of the fancy stats curve). The rest got jobs with hard work and innovative ideas…like this!!!
Great work Jeremy!!!!! Thank you!!!
I really liked what I saw of Quinn Hughes this morning at the WHC. He was in over his head and he knew it so he didn`t try to dazzle until the last half of the third and that shows maturity. He played well enough to make the Canucks next season.
Wahlstrom in the U18 looked slow. He will have a NHL career but he`s not a top ten pick.
Boqvist is this years version of Liljegren. A couple of years in the AHL to learn how to play defence.
Ty Smith is another one who looks like he could play for the Canucks next season and shows leadership.
Dobson might turn out to be the best of them all but he will need two more years of junior and maybe two years in the AHL.
Dropping like a stone. McBain, Groulx and Merkley.
Why does it matter if they make the canucks next season or take 2 or 3 years?
There are several advantages to having a young player make the roster like; Pouliot looks at Guddy who`s looking at Hutton who`s looking at Biega and all four are thinking the same thing; I better up my game because this kid is going to take somebodys job.
Here`s another one; Edler looks at the kid and thinks; Am I going to have to carry this team on my back again or am I finally going to get some help.
…and another one; Kesler looks around the room and thinks; This team doesn`t have a future. I better get out while the goings good because this management group is clueless – and he was right wasn`t he.
LOL this is probably the worst comment ive ever read on here. you want the best player possible who cares if it takes 2 or 3 years.. so petterson sucks because he didnt jump right in to the nhl?
Iwhich management group? Or both? He wanted out before Benning had made a decision, conversely, Gillis had just traded away two AllStar goalies.
Jeremy, would you be willing to run pGPS numbers on Vegas’ 2017 picks? Specifically, it seems that Lucas Elvenes may have been a huge steal and your numbers from last year support that. Thanks in advance!
looks like you have done a lot of work here. Can I ask what your hockey history is so I can get a handle on your qualifications?
Not sure if serious, but consider this:
– Jeremy Davis is a pseudonym. I actually played in the NHL for parts of seven years before an injury ended my career and I took up statistical analysis.
– Actually, I played minor hockey for a couple of decades as a young person, as many Canadians do, then I went and got a job in an unrelated field but did a ton of research and presented here.
– Actually, I have never played nor even seen a hockey game before, but based on my calculations, I should be able to predict the success of any player better than anyone who actually played the game.
One of the above three things is true. I’m not telling which one though.
Oh I was serious and am ok with your response. I will take door #2 .
The true one is – – Actually, I played minor hockey for a couple of decades as a young person, as many Canadians do, then I went and got a job in an unrelated field but did a ton of research and presented here?
Who is this year’s Michael Rasmussen, Jeremy? Hopefully the Canucks avoid that player.
Have you forgotten who your GM is?
Way to Donald Trump that one LAKID. Avoid answering the original question by posing a completely unrelated question. Are you afraid that the Oilers might draft this year’s Rasmussen?
What’s with all the hate ADS? Iam just as cocerned as you about your idiots.
That’s the thing, I’m not really concerned.
Yeah, and whose your daddy?
Nils Lundkvist’s age is listed as 18.00 even though he’s born July 27, 2000.
Thank you! I’ll get that fixed up shortly.
I would be interested in a deep dive comparing Quinn Hughes to Cale Makar. I believe they are similar players. Both were the exact same age going into their draft years, similar height and weight. Both competed in their first WJC and first year in college.
I know Benning made some comments suggesting Makar had a better shot and considering that Linden hinted that they had Makar rated #1 last year, an in depth comparison would be helpful. What do you think Jeremy?
Does Tkachuk being listed as a centre effect the statistical analysis? He plays as a left wing as far as I can tell and listed as such on most other sites, I’m just wondering if him being regarded as a centre for the purposes of this analysis might affect, for example, his XLS %?
A couple things:
The interesting thing about Lucas Elvenes, is that in my draft contest, it wasn’t me, or canucksarmy that selected Elvenes as the top available player when Buffalo picked, it was Bob McKenzie’s draft list. Which doesn’t happen for the consensus very often (Bob is normally in last place). In case you’re wondering, canucksarmy did very well with last year’s rankings.
As far as the article goes, I find it interesting how different our rankings are, since we both take an analytical approach. I don’t have Zadina near the top of my board, although admittedly, I’m still tuning my valuation for the year, but at this point it’s Dahlin, Bouchard, Svech, Wahlstrom, Kotkaniemi
solid work in compiling these stats, and applying your guy’s in-house analysis to it.
I was thinking Logan Husko might break the top 100, he really looked good in his freshman Hockey East year.
Hutsko
This article earned “Oh hell yeah” from and some minor league coach on the east coast. Great job!
Looks like there will be several decent d-men prospects available in the early second round. Bode Wilde’s stock has fallen pretty steeply it seems. As I recall, he was considered a first rounder as recently as last fall. Hopefully the Canucks can address that area of relative weakness in their talent pool this draft.
I look at decade rankings to judge the value of player the Canucks will get in the second round. In this draft, I have 20 defensemen in the top 200 for the decade, which is average. There are only 12 forwards in the top 200, so it’s a weak forward class. So Vancouver will be much better off if they are looking for a defenseman. Wilde wouldn’t be my first choice at that point, I have him 22nd among D
As it turns out, after shaking my analytics a bit, Wilde ended up on my draft board. My draft contest uses the Islanders this year, as they have 4 nice picks. We take the top undrafted pick from your board when the Islanders choose. I’ll put my list here, just as a dated reference, not because anyone is reading this page anymore.
RASMUS DAHLIN
EVAN BOUCHARD
ANDREI SVECHNIKOV
OLIVER WAHLSTROM
NOAH DOBSON
JOSEPH VELENO
JESPERI KOTKANIEMI
JOEL FARABEE
GRIGORI DENISENKO
JONATAN BERGGREN
VITALI KRAVTSOV
Tkachuk
Akil Thomas
ALEXANDER ALEXEYEV
JARED MCISAAC
RYAN MERKLEY
JETT WOO
Bode Wilde
MATTIAS SAMUELSSON
JACOB BERNARD-DOCKER
Ty Emberson
SEAN DURZI
XAVIER BOUCHARD
STANISLAV DEMIN
K’ANDRE MILLER
BULAT SHAFIGULLIN
RUSLAN ISKHAKOV
CARL WASSENIUS
Severi Lahtinen
SIMON JOHANSSON
PAVEL SHEN
PATRICK KHODORENKO
OLIVER OKULIAR
IVAN D. MOROZOV
KAREL PLASEK
Kirill Marchenko
ALLAN MCSHANE
ALEXANDER KHOVANOV
JAN JENÍK
JOHN LEONARD
EINAR EMANUELSSON
JACK ST. IVANY
HENRIK MALMSTRÖM
BRADY LYLE
Just a couple updates:
RASMUS DAHLIN
EVAN BOUCHARD
ANDREI SVECHNIKOV
OLIVER WAHLSTROM
NOAH DOBSON
JOSEPH VELENO
JESPERI KOTKANIEMI
JOEL FARABEE
GRIGORI DENISENKO
JONATAN BERGGREN
VITALI KRAVTSOV
Tkachuk
Akil Thomas
ALEXANDER ALEXEYEV
JARED MCISAAC
RYAN MERKLEY
JETT WOO
Bode Wilde
MATTIAS SAMUELSSON
JACOB BERNARD-DOCKER
Ty Emberson
SEAN DURZI
RUSLAN ISKHAKOV
BULAT SHAFIGULLIN
XAVIER BOUCHARD
STANISLAV DEMIN
K’ANDRE MILLER
CARL WASSENIUS
Severi Lahtinen
SIMON JOHANSSON
PAVEL SHEN
PATRICK KHODORENKO
OLIVER OKULIAR
IVAN D. MOROZOV
KAREL PLASEK
Kirill Marchenko
ALLAN MCSHANE
ALEXANDER KHOVANOV
JAN JENÍK
JOHN LEONARD
EINAR EMANUELSSON
JACK ST. IVANY
HENRIK MALMSTRÖM
BRADY LYLE
I’ve been following a lot of the other draft lists and the majority have Oliver Wahlstrom going 7th, your 7th pick is 17, 13, 20, 11, 16,18 on other lists, it will be interesting to see where he is picked at the draft, I would be shocked if the Canucks pick him
Jeremy, would you be pleased if the Canucks selected the players you have ranked in their draft spots if they are available?
He’s got somebody named Isac Lundestrom at number 7. I wouldn’t put too much stock in this ranking.