Pronman: Flames with the 29th ranked farm system

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Really?

It's a great example ... I'll give you that.

But it's one guy, not a consensus and even at the one he's talking potential more than he's suggesting a top pairing role for players like Pellech.

As I said Pelech finished 3rd in our prospect rankings. You don't finish third if the site thinks he's a top pairing guy.

[Jiri Hrdina]

^To FW...isn't that kinda Bingo's point. You are cherry picking the comments from a single poster. And even then those comments largely talk about ceiling and potential - even saying that it remains to be seen if any or all of them can meet the potential
So what's the issue here?

[Jiri Hrdina]

In terms of Pronman, I actually enjoy the fact that he puts out an alternate POV. It is the same reason why I enjoy Craig Button's rankings. I see little value in just looking at a bunch of lists that largely have players ranked in the same way.
Pronman has some clear bias towards certain types of players and specific players, so you layer that on top of his rankings to get a sense of how much weight you give them.
But I enjoy reading different takes on prospects and in general I do agree with a ranking that favors upside primarily. For me I've always considered an approximate 75/25 weighting between upside and likelihood to reach. Generally I'm of the mind that you take more home run swings because if one pays off (like Johnny) it has a lot more impact on your organization.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

In terms of Pronman, I actually enjoy the fact that he puts out an alternate POV. It is the same reason why I enjoy Craig Button's rankings. I see little value in just looking at a bunch of lists that largely have players ranked in the same way.
Pronman has some clear bias towards certain types of players and specific players, so you layer that on top of his rankings to get a sense of how much weight you give them.
But I enjoy reading different takes on prospects and in general I do agree with a ranking that favors upside primarily. For me I've always considered an approximate 75/25 weighting between upside and likelihood to reach. Generally I'm of the mind that you take more home run swings because if one pays off (like Johnny) it has a lot more impact on your organization.

Yeah I don't mind his take at all. It's interesting.

It may not be my favourite take, and you certainly want to avoid writers that seem to have an axe to grind with certain teams, but it's interesting to see what truly objective people have to say.

In this instance I find it interesting that he has Kylington at the top. It doesn't hurt my view on Valimaki at all but it adds some intrigue for me for Kylington.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Honestly people had Pelech as a top pairing defender four years after he was drafted?

I think the issue with a message board is a single over zealous fan can sometimes get used to paint the whole board.

Not to mention there's an implicit bias. For every fan saying Pelech was the worst pick of all time, or crowning him the next Norris winner, there's 100 people who don't feel the need to post "Pelech is an adequate prospect that may or may not live up to hype."

Buuuuut:

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sure nice to see the stock rise quickly on Negrin ... I know the guys familiar with the WHL were pretty pumped on draft day, but I didn't see his push at camp, getting signed and WJC mentions coming.

With Pelech doing well in the AHL, the Flames look like they may have a couple of 2-4 D guys coming up.

Originally Posted by Bingo

first two rounds easy ... this one not so much. Pelech is a given as far as a NHL player in mind, Nemisz is not.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not to mention there's an implicit bias. For every fan saying Pelech was the worst pick of all time, or crowning him the next Norris winner, there's 100 people who don't feel the need to post "Pelech is an adequate prospect that may or may not live up to hype."

Buuuuut:

Do we need to keep doing this?

The line you bolded has me saying he's doing well in the AHL and they MAY have a 2-4 defenseman in the mix.

That isn't a top pairing elite projection.

It isn't a guarantee.

The word "may" pretty much spells that out. The guy looked good, had a rash of injury troubles and fell off the depth chart.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Seriously? No one suggested elite top pairing or said he was a lock. You've moved the goal posts substantially. I said people were saying he was a given to be an NHL player and it was a question of whether he could be a top pairing defender. You said he was a given to be an NHL player and suggested an upside between 2-4. 2 would make him a top pairing defender. You were one of those people.

The point is, there's no difference now with Valimaki, Kylington and Andersson. Same posts were being made in 2008 with Pelech, Negrin and Aulie. I'm not saying their fates are the same though.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Seriously? No one suggested elite top pairing or said he was a lock. You've moved the goal posts substantially. I said people were saying he was a given to be an NHL player and it was a question of whether he could be a top pairing defender. You said he was a given to be an NHL player and suggested an upside between 2-4. 2 would make him a top pairing defender. You were one of those people.

The point is, there's no difference now with Valimaki, Kylington and Andersson. Same posts were being made in 2008 with Pelech, Negrin and Aulie. I'm not saying their fates are the same though.

Yeah seriously.

All my replies I commented on your top pairing defenseman comment. None did I talk to the NHL level. A guy that plays 5 games at the end of one season is likely to be pencilled in to play by many, but you're talking Brett Kulak. That isn't a shock.

So no ... goal posts are firmly in cement.

Bottom line I tried pointing out that there's a difference in prospect level, which was the whole point.

Guys that produce at the AHL level are different than that class of prospect from yesteryear ... that's all I was ever saying.

[Oling_Roachinen]

but if you look at posts in the 2009 offseason it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Pelech was an NHL player after his 5 game stint, it was just whether or not he would be a top pairing defender.

That's what was said and what you replied to. It specifically said if it was a question if he could be a top pairing defender. Like you suggested back in 08.

You somehow turned that into it being a statement that people were saying he was going to be an elite defender....Like I said, moving goalposts.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yeah, really hated those picks back then...

Quote of mine from 2011

Wasn't a fan of either the Nemisz or Wahl picks back on that draft day. I hope that Wahl picks it up.

Another from 2011

The only players that I consider to be top 2 line talent are Backlund, Erixon, and maybe Brodie. That's it. Nemisz I think will develop into a decent 3rd/4th liner like Wayne Primeau, and I'm not too sure about Howse or Wahl (I don't think he will pan out). The rest of the prospects are either way too early to tell (Arnold, Reinhart, Leach, Ferland, Holland) or just suck.

addendum from now: Erixon should have been better, but he was a head case.

from 2010

When Sutter first came here, our farm system consisted of Jason Morgan.

He focused on getting players that were defensively responsible in order to build the system.

Right now, we have Pelech, Negrin, Baldwin, Brodie, Erixon all of whom could be NHLer's. We have Watt, Bouma, Sutter, Grantham and quite a few others that are very responsible in their end.

Since the Backlund selection, we have been going with more risky boom bust picks with Backlund, Nemisz, Wahl, Howse.

from 2009 in regard to Wahl

Personally, I think he's going to be a bust. Hope I'm wrong though.

[Caged Great]

Nemisz I did think was going to be better than he did become as I thought he'd overcome his lack of foot speed. He was quite skilled, but was so slooooooooooooooooooooooooow. Kanzig speed.

[Caged Great]

I remember the 08 draft was heavy on D-men and I was high on quite a number of them and could never figure out why a team would draft forwards if there were a disproportionate amount of defensemen available. 3 of the next 4 d-men taken were John Carlsson, Slava Voynov and Roman Josi. Hamonic and Marco Scandella were 2 of the 4 taken after Wahl. It was those types of players I was hoping for, not forwards. They did get Brodie though, so it wasn't all bad.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That's what was said and what you replied to. It specifically said if it was a question if he could be a top pairing defender. Like you suggested back in 08.

You somehow turned that into it being a statement that people were saying he was going to be an elite defender....Like I said, moving goalposts.

Well you can say it over and over ... doesn't make it the least bit true.

Every fan base is going to be biased, I agree. I just don't think a fan base should be coloured by specific comments by one or a few. I think that's pretty simple.

My comment was "may", it was referring to two defensemen (Negrin and Pelech), and I range of 2-4 for the two of them.

So no you don't get to apply top defense pairing to Pelech from me as you couldn't know what I meant because I don't even remember what I meant.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

^To FW...isn't that kinda Bingo's point. You are cherry picking the comments from a single poster. And even then those comments largely talk about ceiling and potential - even saying that it remains to be seen if any or all of them can meet the potential
So what's the issue here?

Well, it's an example. I picked Text because I think most people wouldn't confuse him with an outlier like ricardo. He has pretty mainstream, board representative opinions in regards to players in the organisation. When I did a search he definitely was not the only poster holding similar views. Short of going back in time and conducting a poll asking who thinks Pelech will be a top pairing guy, I don't think I'll be able to satisfy your criteria. I found posts putting Pelech next to Bouwmeester on the top pairing, Pelech as a replacement for Sarich, etc, etc.

When you list a bunch of players as having top of the roster potential and all but one or two end up playing even a handful of games, maybe that's an indication of something.

People on this board in this thread are disagreeing with the Flames ranking. Olling is pointing out that of course a fan message board, any fan message board, is going to have a more favourable view of their prospects. not trying to embarrass anyone, pointing out that he too is/has been guilty of it. The point isn't that some people missed the mark on calling him a top pairing guy when he's really a 4/5, it's that the mark was missed to the extent he never got more than a cup of coffee in the bigs, and the rest of his cohort didn't even get that. Again, maybe that's indicative of something.

I'm chiming in, not to embarrass anyone, but to point out that I think he is accurate. To be more realistic about the state of the org we all might benefit from outside perspective and not necessarily assuming our familiarity with these players makes us any more accurate in our assessments because we are idiot fans.

Olling is saying Spencer might end up being something, but if the standard is AHL points, then he doesn't compare very favourably with a long list of players that never really amounted to anything in the org. Bingo doesn't seem to want to accept that lack of optimism. While i'm high on Foo as well as an NHL body, I have to admit I am sceptical as well. Same goes for Mangiapane and Dube.

The most interesting thing in the Pronman analysis is Kylington. I have vacillated between very impressed and very unimpressed at various points since he was drafted. Fox was my favourite prospect until he was traded, but now I'm all in on the Kylington train. Toot Toot.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well you can say it over and over ... doesn't make it the least bit true.

Every fan base is going to be biased, I agree. I just don't think a fan base should be coloured by specific comments by one or a few. I think that's pretty simple.

My comment was "may", it was referring to two defensemen (Negrin and Pelech), and I range of 2-4 for the two of them.

So no you don't get to apply top defense pairing to Pelech from me as you couldn't know what I meant because I don't even remember what I meant.

Wait, what dude? Make what true? These are just quotes. I didn't hack CP to make them.

You said he and Negrin had 2-4 D potential, and I'll emphasis potential because I never swayed from that. But if he became a number 2, like you said he may (again emphasis may) he's a top pairing defender. How else would you describe a 2D I mean, what? Haha.

The funny thing is, regardless of potential on 2-4 D. You were wrong (as I have been on for hundreds of prospects) about him being an NHL player. I don't know what your stance is now.

I wish I just used some of my own very wrong quotes about prospects instead because people don't like being wrong, the point remains the same though. Every fanbase is biased when it comes to their prospects. The Flames, in particular, right now, have a weak farm (assuming we're talking prospects) compared to other teams who have been able to draft highly (and not promote like Tkachuk has been) or accumulated picks. Back in 2006-2010, we thought the same thing. Sutter's drafting was a Godsend compared to the late 1990 and early 2000 drafts and he single handedly turned the farm around when he had Howse, Irving, Wahl, Pelech, Ramholt, Aulie, Negrin in the system. Now we're saying how much better the system is now compared to when the team had Howse, Irving, Wahl, Pelech, Ramholt, Aulie, Negrin in the system. Funny how that works.

And for what it's worth, I've often mentioned that Dube, Foo, Kimchuk, Mangaipaine and even Philips could make the team while penciling in Valimaki, Andersson and Kylington in future lineups. I'm very optimistic with them, just like I have been with all the past iteration of Flames prospects. And I will likely be wrong again as one or two of those guys end up NHL regulars - as is the business of the NHL.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, it's an example. I picked Text because I think most people wouldn't confuse him with an outlier like ricardo. He has pretty mainstream, board representative opinions in regards to players in the organisation. When I did a search he definitely was not the only poster holding similar views. Short of going back in time and conducting a poll asking who thinks Pelech will be a top pairing guy, I don't think I'll be able to satisfy your criteria. I found posts putting Pelech next to Bouwmeester on the top pairing, Pelech as a replacement for Sarich, etc, etc...

It’s a small thing, and I will readily admit that I am wrong about these things ALOT, but in the post of mine you quoted I did not promote the idea that Matt Pelech was a top-pairing defenseman.

In the end I think fans are optimistic. It’s fun to be optimistic. Why would anyone want to think or expect the worst about their favourite team’s young players? That sounds miserable.

[Jay Random]

To say that a prospect may become an NHL regular, or even that you expect he probably will, is not evidence of bias.

Nearly every drafted player has some chance of becoming an NHLer, or teams would not bother to draft them. With every prediction of a prospect's upside goes the unstated caveat: ‘If everything works out well, and his skills translate at the next level.’ For Pelech, Wahl, and Poirier, among many others, things did not work out well: injuries or personal troubles kept them from realizing their potential. That does not prove that the potential was never there, or that one had to be a homer to see it.

To prove bias, you would have to show that a person regularly rates one team's prospects higher (or, for that matter, lower) than prospects of similar quality in other organizations. That is a case that Oling_Roachinen has not even begun to make. How does Bingo's, or Textcritic's, or any other particular person's assessment of the Flames' prospects compare with his assessment of other teams' prospects? That's where you'll find bias if there is one to find.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It’s a small thing, and I will readily admit that I am wrong about these things ALOT, but in the post of mine you quoted I did not promote the idea that Matt Pelech was a top-pairing defenseman.

In the end I think fans are optimistic. It’s fun to be optimistic. Why would anyone want to think or expect the worst about their favourite team’s young players? That sounds miserable.

Well it doesn't have to be thinking the worst, it can just be an acknowledgement that the majority won't do anything. I don't find it particularly fun to build every prospect up for an inevitable disappointment.

I'm not trying to embarrass you, you're a board representative stand in this example, but you also suggested that 3 guys who have a handful of games exclusive on the bottom pairing as not having bottom pairing potential.

Again, not saying the above to be a dick, just as an example that familiarity doesn't necessarily equate to accuracy, and by extension, maybe the ranking from an outsider could be more accurate than a fan representation. Or that if there IS a disagreement with an outside evaluation, there's an argument behind it. For example when Bingo brought up Foo's AHL production and Olling compared that production to previous prospects who replicated that kind of production and still couldn't make the show.

[Strange Brew]

Is anyone really arguing against homer and familiarity bias? Isn’t that just a given? And of course years of disappointment could also fuel some bias in the opposite direction.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is anyone really arguing against homer and familiarity bias? Isn’t that just a given?

No, it isn't really a given. For instance:

And of course years of disappointment could also fuel some bias in the opposite direction.

To know how much bias there is for a given person, and in which direction, you'd have to see their assessments of other teams' prospects and compare them. Just to say somebody must be a homer because he thought his team's prospects had upside? That's out of line.

Let's not assume too much.