How does your prospect pool look? Part 2
Continuing from the assessment of forwards, let’s look at the defensive side of things. The caveats remain:
The analyze is only looking at points impact, it won’t be scoring a defensive d-man all that high, even though we know they are important. A second caveat is that I am not actually sure what a prospect means in this case, as there are some players already playing in the NHL.
Like the forwards an excel sheet was created with the top players and then matched them up against the prospects page. I then grouped the ratings into CCHL teams to give a bit of a summary of the prospect ‘power’ that is available for each team. Only 1 player was undrafted and his rating beat only one team…..Fort Erie.
Unlike the forwards prospects list there are a few teams with no players in the top 50 d-men. Hilo again is missing but so is Capeside, Niagara, and Reykjavik. Is this a result of consciously picking forwards over defense or just that there is a smaller list of ‘top’ players to match against?
Defense –
CCHL Team
|
# of Prospects
|
Prospect ‘Power’ (sum of the scores)
|
AVG Rating
|
Max Rating
|
Springfield Isotopes
|
6
|
361.9
|
60
|
74.1
|
Sudbury Miners
|
5
|
274.3
|
55
|
65.3
|
Dartmouth Lakers
|
5
|
246.7
|
49
|
52.5
|
Las Vegas Aces
|
4
|
233.2
|
58
|
68.3
|
Portland Owls
|
3
|
206.3
|
69
|
80.1
|
Long Island Express
|
4
|
201.6
|
50
|
61.1
|
Seattle Reign
|
3
|
155.4
|
52
|
57.2
|
Parry Sound Orrsmen
|
3
|
151.2
|
50
|
53
|
Dayton Musicmen
|
3
|
148.1
|
49
|
52.2
|
Siberia Icecats
|
3
|
145.6
|
49
|
51.1
|
Victoria Ronin
|
2
|
133.9
|
67
|
73.6
|
Minnesota Norsemen
|
2
|
96
|
48
|
49.6
|
Gillam Sharks
|
1
|
69.5
|
70
|
69.5
|
Wisborg Donuts
|
1
|
59.4
|
59
|
59.4
|
Georgetown Millers
|
1
|
56.6
|
57
|
56.6
|
Calgary Chinook
|
1
|
54.9
|
55
|
54.9
|
Hamilton Tigers
|
1
|
48.9
|
49
|
48.9
|
#Undrafted
|
1
|
47.7
|
48
|
47.7
|
Fort Erie Falcons
|
1
|
47.4
|
47
|
47.4
|
Capeside Loons
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Hilo Wildcats
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Niagara Falls Thunder
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Reykjavik Puffin
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
50
|
55
|
I now know the system works because it has Springfield as number 1 :). Joke aside Springfield does have the largest group of prospects with the pipeline but only the 4th highest average. Given the three teams with a better average total the number of prospects that Springfield has, and I am ok with that.
Now let’s group it together. I put the two together but also added a new field. This field is a calculation of the total score multiplied by the average rating and then divided by 100. This in theory should give teams that have a higher average a bit of an advantage over those that have many prospects.
CCHL Team
|
# of Prospects
|
Sum of the scores
|
AVG Rating
|
Max Rating
|
PPP
|
Parry Sound Orrsmen
|
22
|
1282.1
|
58
|
80.8
|
747.2
|
Victoria Ronin
|
21
|
1187.9
|
57
|
73.6
|
672.0
|
Siberia Icecats
|
23
|
1229.4
|
53
|
76.1
|
657.1
|
Sudbury Miners
|
17
|
961.7
|
57
|
83.7
|
544.0
|
Dartmouth Lakers
|
18
|
929.3
|
52
|
65.4
|
479.8
|
Springfield Isotopes
|
14
|
810.8
|
58
|
74.1
|
469.6
|
#Undrafted
|
19
|
898.9
|
47
|
60.9
|
425.3
|
Long Island Express
|
13
|
690.6
|
53
|
71.8
|
366.9
|
Wisborg Donuts
|
11
|
588.7
|
54
|
71.9
|
315.1
|
Portland Owls
|
9
|
525.7
|
58
|
80.1
|
307.1
|
Seattle Reign
|
10
|
546.9
|
55
|
76.2
|
299.1
|
Dayton Musicmen
|
12
|
598.4
|
50
|
80.1
|
298.4
|
Las Vegas Aces
|
8
|
480.6
|
60
|
82.9
|
288.7
|
Fort Erie Falcons
|
11
|
560.7
|
51
|
66.9
|
285.8
|
Calgary Chinook
|
7
|
376.6
|
54
|
78
|
202.6
|
Minnesota Norsemen
|
7
|
330.6
|
47
|
