After extensive scouting of multiple systems and teams you realize this:
There are a lot of really good young players out there!
Wow. Just tons of them! Maybe they were first rounders, maybe they weren't. Maybe they are beating expectations or have a certain something about them that makes them pop. Maybe they are posting ungodly point totals, or just playing quiet, quality minutes on a penalty kill or on the defensive side of the puck.
Bit in a whole there are pipelines and systems that just have an amazing amount of talent in them.
However, with most systems and pipelines there is perhaps an overemphasis on "Production" or pure talent.
At the end of the day that's what matters right? Are the players in your pipeline scoring? Are the goalies putting up serviceable numbers? Are the defenders not a dash 65 on a good team? Do they have a higher universal upside?
But perhaps we should look deeper than that at times. Get outside of the realm of simple NHLe style of evaluation. For those that don't know what NHLe is, it is a way for people to look at the scoring rates of certain leagues, and how they translate to the NHL. It is based on level of competition of the current leagues, how players from that league are performing at the NHL level, and it gives you a nice number to multiply it by.
Here is a full article on Rob Vollman's NHLe to get you started with that. It's scoring pace multiplied by the league equivalency.
For example, Nic Dowd's AHL scoring pace last year was around 0.8, which would be equivalent to about a 30-35 point NHL season.
Doesn't seem like a bad tool right?
And it is really not. It is especially helpful when you have to take a look at leagues where you are not sure of the level of competition. Like many European leagues like the SHL, Liiga, the Czech league, the KHL, the NLA. It is also helpful for USHL, and the various NCAA leagues which all have their own different level of competition.
However, just like any true statistical evaluation, this not a hard number to base everything off of. There are factors that must be incorporated to give you a sense of a pipeline. If someone has a poor NHLe, you need to dig, you need to watch, you need to investigate. That's part of the beauty of video and live scouting. NHLe is a great tool, but it needs to be used in conjunction with other factors.
Last season, Andrew Crescenzi posted number that would be equivalent to about 10 points in the NHL. Clearly nothing to write home about yea? What the NHLe translation does not really incorporate is the things OUTSIDE of pure production that Crescenzi brought to the table. He was one of the Reign's best defensive centers and best faceoff men on the team. He was a stalwart shot blocker and penalty killer, and heavily relied on by Mike Stothers for big defensive minutes. He scores like a third or fourth line center in the AHL would, but his defensive game was one of the best I personally saw all year.
This can put you in a sort of dilemma if you will, of gauging production versus overall projection. What projects, what do you personally value, what does an NHL team value? Is player A not scoring at the AHL level because of fit? Talent? Lack of exposure? There a tons of reasons.
That is where it becomes about much more than just looking at pure production.
I said something on twitter that sparked a bit of a debate a while back, and I still stand by it today. Maybe some will see it as a far too positive outlook, and I'll explain why I think the way I do.
Realistically speaking, the Kings are not a Top 10 system. They are debatably a Top 15, for certain a Top 20. You could confidently put them in the mid tier of prospect pipelines in at least this writer/scout's opinion. However, most fans tend to look at the Kings system and see a barren wasteland of low producing, low use players.
The Ontario Reign were not a high scoring team. This much is true. In a bubble, Nic Dowd wasn't a particularly high scoring player for an AHL center. Adrian Kempe wasn't a particularly high scoring winger. Neither was Justin Auger.
Those are just simple facts looking at a stat sheet.
But, you have to factor in fit. How do these players fit into the Kings system, the Kings team.
Justin Auger is maybe the premier example of a player who, while statistically he is no darling, he is a player that could realistically give you NHL quality minutes. But Jason, Justin Auger had only 36 points and a 0.47 point per game pace in the AHL! There is no denying this.
But want to know what Dwight King had? A .61 (And one really really good season). Jordan Nolan? a .33.
Both, at least with the Kings, are NHL caliber players. Nolan is a little more on the replacement level side of things, but King is probably an NHL third or fourth liner on most NHL teams.
Auger is also nails defensively, has a massive 6'7" frame, and can give you minutes on a powerplay OR penalty kill.
You take that .47 and couple it with some more subtle qualities. When taking in that aspect of it, you have a lot of players in the Kings system who look like they could have an NHL impact at least with Los Angeles. It certainly varies team by team, but with the Kings, they value big, safe, and industrious wingers. They make it work within their system and they look for certain styles of players that may grow into that mold in the future. Matt Schmalz, Austin Wagner, Chazz Reddekop etc.
These are perhaps players you would pay no mind to just looking at a box score. However, when you project into a Kings lineup by style, each one of them brings something that is of value within the Kings system.
With first round selections, like Kempe or Forbort, you are simply selecting the best available player. Why? Because at that spot you are going to get a good player no matter what most times. Where the Kings have been stellar is in later round drafting, and it is because they simply understand what their system is and what kind of players thrive in it. Comparatively speaking, if you put pure talent of the Kings system up against the pure talent of say, San Jose (Who have a number of very good European and NCAA prospects), you would probably give the edge to San Jose. HOWEVER, from a systemic standpoint, when you look at the stylistic match up of the Kings prospects versus that of the Sharks, overwhelmingly you would have to feel more confident in the potential NHL utility of the Kings system.
Justin Auger would probably not thrive in just any system. Likewise with Michael Mersch or perhaps Kurtis MacDermid. However, they do have a good shot with the Kings. It works both ways as well. Andrei Loktionov was a talented player. Jordan Weal is a talented player. Did their styles necessarily match up with the Kings? Nope. This is why it can be a bit trivial a task to say "Prospect XYZ went on to Team ABC and did way better. Man, the Kings blew it on that one."
It just simply does not work like that.
If you uprooted the Kings system, and switched in entirely with the high skill, high pace, Arizona system, both groups would suffer. Both teams would probably find players of use, but overall there would be a lot of puzzle pieces not fitting in right.
Rankings overall of pipelines can be deceptive in that regard. We can analyze pipelines based on pure talent and upside, sure. We should also however take into account the realistic certainty and usefulness of a player succeeding in his system.
When you look at Justin Auger play you say, "That's a Kings player." When you watch Kurtis MacDermid, or Erik Cernak play, you say "That's a Kings player."
Could you say the same about Nikolay Goldobin? Probably not. It does not mean Goldobin is not a talented guy, it just means he would probably go more the way of Andrei Loktionov than a Dwight King.
The Kings have done a remarkable job in this regard in drafting for an identity and for a usefulness. The front office understands what they are, they understand the strengths and weaknesses of the team. They have drafted a ton of mobile, puck moving defensemen, knowing that the play with the team starts at the back end. They have drafted a plethora of hard nosed, sizey and speed driven wingers to chase down plays and bang bodies. And at center they have a number of intelligent two-way centers who can play both ends of the ice. Does that sound familiar to the makeup of the NHL roster?
Not a lot of people give enough credit to the top to bottom identity change and roster reconstruction the Kings have done in the past decade. It is generally a long process and it can be easy to deviate from the course or lose your way. The Kings however have stuck to that path in draft and development, and for that reason have, in my opinion, a mid tier system with a number of useful players in it. Talent wise it is not mindblowing, not at all, but then again the Kings roster has never been one of mindblowing talent either. It is a group of guys who understand their role, play to it, and it works. Looking at the Kings pipeline, you see a lot of the same thing, and that is very positive.
In a nutshell, talent and quality are not synonymous sometimes. The best player might not be the RIGHT player. The most talented system might not be the best system. It is, the system with the most talent, but maybe it is just not the right talent for the job. Think about the Edmonton Oilers system. Now think about the LA Kings system. In that regard, you have two pipelines of vastly different levels of talent but also different levels of overall usefulness and success. One team is making the most of their prospects, the other? Well, maybe not so much. Sorry Oilers fans.
Follow me on twitter for news and notes about the Kings, the Reign, and the NHL
Also be sure to like HockeyBuzz on facebook!
++++I AM CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR ADVERTISERS! If you, or anyone you know would be interested in placing an ad on the blog here at HockeyBuzz then send me a PM!+++++
Los Angeles Kings Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»