What teams have the best prospect groups position wise?

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by $ven27

Well based on the terminology of hockey, a prospect is a player who has been drafted by a team and has yet to play for the NHL club.

Meanwhile I think this is TOO strict; in common parlance I would say that for example Nino Niederreiter is still a prospect even though he's played 50-odd games because he has yet to establish himself as being ready to play in the bigs on a consistent basis.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Yamer

My terminology is strictly based in physiology. A person (usually/normally/typically), isn't "full-baked", so to speak, until approximately the age of 25. By that time the literal denotation of "prospect" (prospective) is no longer applicable, as the player (and person) has biologically peaked and a fully-informed evaluation can be made.

Gretzky, Crosby, etc. were all first line players their very first year of playing eligibility, but they got better as time went on.

Then their are the exceptions, aka "late bloomers", usually cut from the goaltending ilk.

Eberle, Hall, RNH, and to a lesser extent Paajarvi, still have yet to reach and show their full potential and thus should be technically classified as prospective, or prospects.

Actually, if you look at offensive production, most star players have reached their peak by the age of 23 and plateau to 27.

To use your example of Gretzky, he had his first 200 pt season (and his 92 goals) in 81/82 as a 21 year old. He had his last 200 pt season as a 25 yr old. (He is not particularly unusual)

Edit: referring to forwards, D are very different

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

You can make up your own terms all you like - hell, you can decide to call a sloughfoot a hipcheck if you want, or call a slapshot a backhand. But there are meanings to words in a sport that are established by general use, and at least by that standard, your terminology is wrong.

Curious, what makes your preferred arbitrary standard any more objectively applicable than anyone else's? That's partly rhetorical, but I'm still intrigued by the justification and I have already established mine.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Yamer

All have reached 25.

That's your silly criteria for determining what constitutes a prospect. I have my own silly criteria which is different than yours.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Actually, if you look at offensive production, most star players have reached their peak by the age of 23 and plateau to 27.

To use your example of Gretzky, he had his first 200 pt season (and his 92 goals) in 81/82 as a 21 year old. He had his last 200 pt season as a 25 yr old. (He is not particularly unusual)

Edit: referring to forwards, D are very different

Good points, and you can certainly see how my conjecture is somewhat supported by the data. At 23 they are just starting to peak and enter their full potential, and by 27, as you describe it, it has plateaued. Granted, there are variances, but my standards are a general guideline.

Gretzky is a special circumstance as rules were altered to combat his (and his team's) dominance. It would be hard to argue, however, that between the age of 21 to, say 26 he became a much more complete and well rounded player...it's almost analogous to say that he became a cut, already high-quality diamond.

All I'm saying is that players get better during these previously defined critical formative years, and this plays into my definition of the term prospect.

Traditional hockey terminology is perfectly acceptable, but I don't appreciate getting #### on and demeaned for providing an alternative opinion with supported justification. (<---Not directed at the quoted poster)

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

That's your silly criteria for determining what constitutes a prospect. I have my own silly criteria which is different than yours.

Then why must they be "silly"? Is this kind of attitude a prerequisite for relevant argument and discourse?

I understand and respect your approach, all I request is reciprocity.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Then why must they be "silly"? Is this kind of attitude a prerequisite for relevant argument and discourse?

I understand and respect your approach, all I request is reciprocity.

Because it is silly.

The definition of prospect is The possibility or likelihood of some future event occurring.

So an NHl prospect is someone that has some possibility of being an NHL player in their future.

Do Hall, RNH, or Eberle qualify in any way shape or form under that definition.

Of course not - they ARE NHL players. Period.

Here's the definition of silly: Having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; foolish.

Yup - fits. Trying to call those guys prospects is exactly that.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Guess it depends on how you define "prospect".

To me, it's any player who has yet to enter the beginning of their prime (and the symbolic end of their development, biologically and psychologically) at age 25.

I personally don't agree with that definition, although I think the discussion of what teams have the best players/prospects under the age of 25 is a more relevant debate.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Curious, what makes your preferred arbitrary standard any more objectively applicable than anyone else's?

Established usage? Just like the majority of descriptive sports terms?

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Because it is silly.

The definition of prospect is The possibility or likelihood of some future event occurring.

So an NHl prospect is someone that has some possibility of being an NHL player in their future.

Do Hall, RNH, or Eberle qualify in any way shape or form under that definition.

Of course not - they ARE NHL players. Period.

Here's the definition of silly: Having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; foolish.

Yup - fits. Trying to call those guys prospects is exactly that.

So, by simply using my own self-determined and scientifically supported concept of what constitutes a prospect, using literal terminology, I am foolish?

That doesn't seem appropriate.

I can understand how my argument is construed as being wrong within typical, traditional, and popular criteria, but that isn't my issue here. It's being labeled ridiculous, silly, or foolish for expressing and quantifying an opinion.

I'll end this discussion here as I have seriously contributed to the derailment of the original intention of this thread.

Apologies, OP...carry on.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Good points, and you can certainly see how my conjecture is somewhat supported by the data. At 23 they are just starting to peak and enter their full potential, and by 27, as you describe it, it has plateaued. Granted, there are variances, but my standards are a general guideline.

Gretzky is a special circumstance as rules were altered to combat his (and his team's) dominance. It would be hard to argue, however, that between the age of 21 to, say 26 he became a much more complete and well rounded player...it's almost analogous to say that he became a cut, already high-quality diamond.

All I'm saying is that players get better during these previously defined critical formative years, and this plays into my definition of the term prospect.

Traditional hockey terminology is perfectly acceptable, but I don't appreciate getting #### on and demeaned for providing an alternative opinion with supported justification. (<---Not directed at the quoted poster)

That is not what I said, and not what the numbers suggest.

Offensive output has typically peaked by 23, and plateaus from 23 TO 27, at which point it begins to decline. Particularly for goal scoring.

Certainly, other aspects of players' skill sets continue to develop and, and as you suggest, most players achieve their overall peak in their later 20s.

But offence, and particulary goal scoring, is a young man's game. And calling someone a prospect until 25 would be missing the mark, IMO.

As for Gretzky: suggesting his output slowed because they changed the rules is a stretch, to say the least.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Yamer

So, by simply using my own self-determined and scientifically supported concept of what constitutes a prospect, using literal terminology, I am foolish?

That doesn't seem appropriate.

I can understand how my argument is construed as being wrong within typical, traditional, and popular criteria, but that isn't my issue here. It's being labeled ridiculous, silly, or foolish for expressing and quantifying an opinion.

I'll end this discussion here as I have seriously contributed to the derailment of the original intention of this thread.

Apologies, OP...carry on.

Plus you talk funny.

[wretched34]

So based on Yamers definition of Prospect, Gretzky never lived up to his 'Prospective' potential, seeing as his top 5 years were age 25 and under.
So he was a let down???
Poor Scouting there....

Especially for the Kings.... god, the most they ever got out of him in 1 season was 168 points.... He avergaved 205.85 points a year, aged 18-25