Pronman's 2020 Farm System Rankings

[Wastedyouth]

Pronman is kinda like a couple peeps on CP. Fake it till you make it long enough and people think you actually did or do the things you claim when you present yourself as a Prospect Expert.

I am sure Pronman does watch a lot more prospects now that he's actually paid to do it, but my belief that he had the access he claimed to all the scouts he did or watched all the players he claimed he did every day, in the past, is very slim.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Pronman is kinda like a couple peeps on CP. Fake it till you make it long enough and people think you actually did or do the things you claim when you present yourself as a Prospect Expert.

I am sure Pronman does watch a lot more prospects now that he's actually paid to do it, but my belief that he had the access he claimed to all the scouts he did or watched all the players he claimed he did every day, in the past, is very slim.

Exactly. If he actually provided valuable insight he wouldn’t be banging out conversation pieces in the media.

A team would hire him.

Anyone on an analytical front who provides value is hired, with their public content deleted from open access.

I just wish he would do more of the Bob McKenzie approach and reference other scouting opinions.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Exactly. If he actually provided valuable insight he wouldn’t be banging out conversation pieces in the media.

A team would hire him.

Anyone on an analytical front who provides value is hired, with their public content deleted from open access.

I just wish he would do more of the Bob McKenzie approach and reference other scouting opinions.

There are different types of lists. Pronman isn't connected nearly to the extent that Bob is.

Pronman's list is a personal evaluation and ranking of prospects
Bob's list is an aggregation of scouts views, and has no personal opinion factored in
Button's list is more like Pronman.

Each list has a place and are fun to read.

What I appreciate about Pronman is that he has his own view. It often differs from other lists. Which makes it valuable as a single source and input. It doesn't make him the source of truth. It's just another opinion, but one that is more informed than the average fan.

I don't see the value in reading a bunch of lists that are largely the same. I appreciate reading someone who has a unique take.

I don't get the criticism.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Pronman is kinda like a couple peeps on CP. Fake it till you make it long enough and people think you actually did or do the things you claim when you present yourself as a Prospect Expert.

I am sure Pronman does watch a lot more prospects now that he's actually paid to do it, but my belief that he had the access he claimed to all the scouts he did or watched all the players he claimed he did every day, in the past, is very slim.

Well the fact that he convinced two major media outlets to pay him for his views (ESPN and now The Athletic) suggests that his views have some value. People pay to read them. And he gets paid to write them.

I don't think he is the be all end all, but I do think he puts in the work.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

There are different types of lists. Pronman isn't connected nearly to the extent that Bob is.

Pronman's list is a personal evaluation and ranking of prospects
Bob's list is an aggregation of scouts views, and has no personal opinion factored in
Button's list is more like Pronman.

Each list has a place and are fun to read.

What I appreciate about Pronman is that he has his own view. It often differs from other lists. Which makes it valuable as a single source and input. It doesn't make him the source of truth. It's just another opinion, but one that is more informed than the average fan.

I don't see the value in reading a bunch of lists that are largely the same. I appreciate reading someone who has a unique take.

I don't get the criticism.

Sure, conversation pieces can be fun to read.

My criticism of his work is that he puts an emphasis on elite game breaking talent in his assessments and evaluations.

In the salary cap era this is an oversimplification of drafting, assessing roster construction, and development.

Elite talent is vital and gets paid, but every roster optimally need a diversity of home grown skills that are appropriately paid replacement level talent.

When I read his work it seems like he assesses every mid-late round pick on its potential to be a Gaudreau/Datsyuk/Zetterberg Diamond in the rough.

This is why I rarely give his work much credence or find it useful.

To even compare him to Button is a long reach in my opinion.

Craig’s father started the NHL’s central scouting service and his scouting resume speaks for itself.

When I read the Art of Scouting by Shane Malloy Pronmon’s name or connections/mentors are never mentioned as far as I understand.

I’ve also never found or read anything of his evaluation rubric that touches on the fundamental player assessment criteria Malloy’s book details after discussions with numerous actual NHL scouts.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Well the fact that he convinced two major media outlets to pay him for his views (ESPN and now The Athletic) suggests that his views have some value. People pay to read them. And he gets paid to write them.

I don't think he is the be all end all, but I do think he puts in the work.

Steve Simmons also gets paid to express his view. Steve Simmons also puts in “work”.

Corey’s platforms give him more credibility than he gives his platforms.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Elite talent is vital and gets paid, but every roster optimally need a diversity of home grown skills that are appropriately paid replacement level talent.

When I read his work it seems like he assesses every mid-late round pick on its potential to be a Gaudreau/Datsyuk/Zetterberg Diamond in the rough.

This is why I rarely give his work much credence or find it useful.

Just my opinion - but players with some sort of elite flashes, even if they don't end up hitting their ceiling, have more potential to be useful NHLers than players who "seem safe". I look at a guy like Paul Byron, and I don't think he was drafted to be a bottom six grinder. That's the niche he ended up filling out thanks to his skillset, but contrast that with a guy like Greg Nemisz, who on paper seemed really well rounded, but lacked any gamebreaking ability that could help him find a niche.

So I do value Pronman's opinions more than most.

Overall though, of the various writers, I value Byron Bader's rankings. It's a purely numbers-based look, and contrary to the prevailing sense... this actually has a higher chance of predicting future NHLers.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Sure, conversation pieces can be fun to read.

My criticism of his work is that he puts an emphasis on elite game breaking talent in his assessments and evaluations.

Sure and he's clear about that.

In the salary cap era this is an oversimplification of drafting, assessing roster construction, and development.

Elite talent is vital and gets paid, but every roster optimally need a diversity of home grown skills that are appropriately paid replacement level talent.

When I read his work it seems like he assesses every mid-late round pick on its potential to be a Gaudreau/Datsyuk/Zetterberg Diamond in the rough.

This is why I rarely give his work much credence or find it useful.

To even compare him to Button is a long reach in my opinion.

Craig’s father started the NHL’s central scouting service and his scouting resume speaks for itself.

When I read the Art of Scouting by Shane Malloy Pronmon’s name or connections/mentors are never mentioned as far as I understand.

I’ve also never found or read anything of his evaluation rubric that touches on the fundamental player assessment criteria Malloy’s book details after discussions with numerous actual NHL scouts.

That's all fair.
You have the option not to read him.
But what I don't understand is a criticism such as "I wish he was more like Bob". Why - that would just produce a very similar list. And that's not what he set out (or gets paid to do). Again - people are paying him for his opinion. That's the work he's doing.

It's just one perspective amongst many. The degree to which you think it's worth your time reading is completely up to you.

I agree he prioritizes offensive upside and potential highly. And my view is that teams should use the draft to select players that can be difference makers. I would be asking, regardless of round, "does this player have an opportunity to be a difference maker for us". If not - I wouldn't draft him. The impact of drafting an impact player is huge. Depth players can be found elsewhere.
Which I realize isn't your entire point, but just communicating my overall philosophy, as a fan, not an expert.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Steve Simmons also gets paid to express his view. Steve Simmons also puts in “work”.

Corey’s platforms give him more credibility than he gives his platforms.

Um ok.
That's your view.
He gets paid to write his views.
People pay to access those views.
He's doing something right.

[Blaster86]

I am not saying to discount what Pronman says entirely (I probably would say that about JD Burke). I am just saying that you have to remember that he has his method for determining who and what is best and it can be somewhat flawed.

He tends to over-value short tournaments and brief glimpses over extended play even at higher levels. Going back to the Middlestadt evaluation as an example: While Makar was obliterating the college scene as a defenceman and Pettersson was playing vs men in Sweden, Pronman rated Middlestadt as the better player based on the WJHC performance. To say that Zary will be better than Dube before he's played a professional game is bold. I think that Dube has proven to be a capable top-six nhler in a very short span at a very young age. Trying to put an expectation like that on Zary before he's played a professional game based on Pronman's expectations is not something I'd do. Let the kid develop a bit, play a professional game and see where he is. He may well surpass Dube, but I don't see it yet. Dube is a hell of a player.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

That's all fair.
You have the option not to read him.
But what I don't understand is a criticism such as "I wish he was more like Bob". Why - that would just produce a very similar list. And that's not what he set out (or gets paid to do). Again - people are paying him for his opinion. That's the work he's doing.

It's just one perspective amongst many. The degree to which you think it's worth your time reading is completely up to you.

I agree he prioritizes offensive upside and potential highly. And my view is that teams should use the draft to select players that can be difference makers. I would be asking, regardless of round, "does this player have an opportunity to be a difference maker for us". If not - I wouldn't draft him. The impact of drafting an impact player is huge. Depth players can be found elsewhere.
Which I realize isn't your entire point, but just communicating my overall philosophy, as a fan, not an expert.

Fair enough.

McKenzie only does the first few rounds. Some sort of similar criteria to evaluate the later rounds would be insightful, especially when actually evaluating a teams draft performance. It doesn’t even need to be as rigorous, or require the same depth and breadth of connections.

When assessing a teams ability to evaluate talent, a connection to pro scouting & development would also be of value.

This would directly speak to the strength of a team to acquire players elsewhere, with minimal risk of overpayment. In team building there is always a stronger connections to a players 1st team.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Fair enough.

McKenzie only does the first few rounds. Some sort of similar criteria to evaluate the later rounds would be insightful, especially when actually evaluating a teams draft performance. It doesn’t even need to be as rigorous, or require the same depth and breadth of connections.

When assessing a teams ability to evaluate talent, a connection to pro scouting & development would also be of value.

This would directly speak to the strength of a team to acquire players elsewhere, with minimal risk of overpayment. In team building there is always a stronger connections to a players 1st team.

I suspect it is harder to extract reliable information re. how teams view the later rounds - as that's where the lists really start to differ and teams will be very worried about "their guy" getting leaked out. Even this year we heard about how the Flames stepped up to draft the Russian goalie out of fear someone else would jump in and get him.
Bob gets his insights on the first largely because the top 30 (which is really where he focuses) is more predictable for the most part. so when a team shares the players they are interested in - they aren't giving away much.
Though we also now know that either Bob doesn't get anything from CBJ or what they do give him is false!

[Wastedyouth]

I got nothing really against him.

Having followed him for a long time it's pretty clear he's just aggregated a bunch of opinions, claimed he has a lot of access to a lot of different scouts (I mean, as far as I can tell, from his own wording he's VERY connected) and done his best to be as vanilla as possible and tried to appease almost every fan base by using his shiny toy methodology.

It works. It worked for him no doubt.

But I would take his rankings with little to no real worth.

Read a guy like Byron Bader. Who really does do the work and can back his opinions and theories on prospects up with his own methodology. Unlike Corey who is really a glorified opinion aggregator who has developed a baseball like skills ranking system that seems to be a matter of his own opinion from limited viewings.

[Strange Brew]

So a guy like Pronman forms his opinions of prospects based on his own viewings? Maybe some of it is a labor of love but how much hockey do you actually have to watch to be able to evaluate several hundred prospects, and then have time to write about it afterwards (which BTW is the only part he gets paid for).

I've always kind of assumed every one short of pro scouts is basing their picks and analysis in large part on compiling and comparing the views of others, supplemented by viewings in major tournaments and the like. But the majority of prospects aren't in the big tournaments.

If guys like Pronman were great talent evaluators, wouldn't NHL clubs be hiring them?

It is fun to read their lists though and see where your club fits and it's definitely nice to see the Flames having a prospect pipeline again.

[GullFoss]

I actually unsubscribed from the athletic in part because the idea of a Corey Wrongman is a joke.

We're expected to believe that we should value one pseudo-scouts opinion because why? I mean it's one guy - how closely do you think one guy can follow hundreds of prospects and accurately rank them? And how much skill does he have in this area?

I'd be willing to bet that I could do 10 randomizations of Bob McKenzie's rankings subject subject to a few statistical constraints and more than five of those rankings would have a better track record than Corey.

As someone who has a deep background in probabilities and statistics, I can tell you that I'm fairly confident that Corey's work represents noise. He'll hit a few gems, like someone playing roulette at the table. He'll also hit a few stinkers. But all in all the value of his work is objectively close to zero (and it's possibly negative).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I actually unsubscribed from the athletic in part because the idea of a Corey Wrongman is a joke.

We're expected to believe that we should value one pseudo-scouts opinion because why? I mean it's one guy - how closely do you think one guy can follow hundreds of prospects and accurately rank them? And how much skill does he have in this area?

I'd be willing to bet that I could do 10 randomizations of Bob McKenzie's rankings subject subject to a few statistical constraints and more than five of those rankings would have a better track record than Corey.

As someone who has a deep background in probabilities and statistics, I can tell you that I'm fairly confident that Corey's work represents noise. He'll hit a few gems, like someone playing roulette at the table. He'll also hit a few stinkers. But all in all the value of his work is objectively close to zero (and it's possibly negative).

Boy it seems like your disdain for Pronman is personal. I just don't get these kinds of takes. It's not like he's doing hot take articles like Francis or Simmons. It's just his opinion on prospects. Mike Mayock was basically a guy like Pronman on TV and he's actually done a very good job as NFL GM so you don't necessarily have to be a scout to have a well informed opinion about prospects.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If guys like Pronman were great talent evaluators, wouldn't NHL clubs be hiring them?

NHL clubs pay talent evaluators who think guys like Keegan Kanzig, Riley Bruce, and Hunter Smith are worth spending draft assets on. Let's not pretend there's some degree in prospectology that separates paid scouts from randoms on HFboards.

Take Pronman's writeups for ehatever they're worth, but don't fool yourself into thinking professional amateur scouts are any more qualified.

[Monahammer]

Wow CP is in a dark place today, what did Pronman ever do to us? I personally enjoy reading his stuff. 99% of us here speculate, we're just not good enough or devoted enough to get paid for it... and yet we all come here to read each others drivel anyways.

I am happy that there are motivated people out there like me who enjoy hockey, enjoy following prospects, and are good enough at writing about it to properly proliferate these ideas. We don't need to slag their methodology. I don't often agree with Granteed EV but he's right- Pronman is no more or less "talented" than the pro scouts our club paid to say that Keegan Kanzig or Hunter Smith would make it at the NHL level (even when all of us knew they definitely would not make it...) It's not the Pronmans of the world we should be throwing under the bus, it is the pro scouts who are paid and fail so obviously.

[Eric Vail]

Has anyone ever done an evaluation on the different media projections? It would be interesting if someone looked at the rankings from say 10 years ago to 5 years ago and looked at who's projections panned out better.

I think that would be a very interesting read and would help fans weigh the different opinions out there.

[Fan69]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

Has anyone ever done an evaluation on the different media projections? It would be interesting if someone looked at the rankings from say 10 years ago to 5 years ago and looked at who's projections panned out better.

I think that would be a very interesting read and would help fans weigh the different opinions out there.

Really like that idea. To me a general ranking and average per year could really weed out some of the wild fluctuations in opinion and give a rough consensus as to where every player fits overall in everyone’s rankings.

Another list I would like to see ( sorry I just don’t have that kind of time) is a drafted / traded listings. Take a team like the flames look over the last 10 years of draft picks and trades and see what could have been and what currently is.
My example is the hamonic trade which I think was a waste, and what the team would look like with those draft picks. But do it for a 10 year period. I think it would show if trading picks is a huge mistake which I think it is.