Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
-
Rachel Krishak
Multiple authors
It’s that time of year again! NHL teams that didn’t make the Stanley Cup playoffs will be laser focused on the drawn lottery ball Tuesday at the NHL Network studios in Secaucus, New Jersey. With so much potential and intrigue surrounding the draft class, there are bound to be surprises.
There is no consensus on any player other than Gavin McKenna, and scouts have even questioned whether he should be the first player off the board. If your team needs a top defenseman, this is the year. The top pair has a handful of potential to become foundational pieces.
My guess is the model Most Liked in this iteration of the rankings, a few adjustments have been made. For refreshers, the model weighs current season and last season scoring stats, league strength, tracking stats (defensive, physical and transition play), age, size and injuries. The injury factor is weighted as a function of play only because of the effect on sample size for projection instability. The model has five outputs:
-
NHL Ceiling: A player’s peak if everything goes well
-
NHL Floor: Worst game outcome for prospects
-
NHL Prospects: Player plays 200 NHL games
-
Likely level: Player Keys Most Likely to Be in the NHL Based on Statistical Comparisons
-
Statistically comparable: A comparable player in their draft year based on NHL production parity, position and size
The biggest change this year is the addition of a statistical comparison. Note: This is not about what the comparable player has become in the NHL; This is comparable to a player in their draft year, before being selected. The comparison accounts for player position, NHL production parity, and size (to a lesser extent). This is not a projection of what the prospects will be in the NHL. Example: Chase Reed’s stats are comparable Ivan Bouchard. That doesn’t mean Reed is going to be Bouchard, it just means they’re statistically comparable players in their respective draft years.
There are certainly some surprises in these draft rankings, and not least how teams construct their internal rankings. Players who are lower on the consensus list — or players not ranked who are consensus first-round picks — aren’t surprising. Given the model, this is likely related to production and statistical comparisons. If a player has strong statistical comparability and produces well according to NHL par, their projection and potential will be stronger. Strong 2024-2025 season players (Ryan Roobroeck) are higher than consensus, as the model doesn’t ignore that production and it raises their overall prospect value score.
Once more scouting and fantasy data are accounted for in the coming weeks, this list will change. Here’s how the top 32 rankings are shaping up right now:
1. Gavin McKenna, LW, Penn State University (NCAA)
NHL Ceiling: they are
NHL Floor: second line
NHL Prospects: 88%
Likely level: top line
Statistically comparable: Clayton Keller
2. Ivar Stenberg, LW/RW, Frolunda HC (SHL)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: second line
NHL Prospects: 91%
Likely level: top line
Statistically comparable: William Nylander
3. Carson Carells, D, Prince George (WHL)
NHL Ceiling: top pair
NHL Floor: top four
NHL Prospects: 80%
Likely level: top pair
Statistically comparable: Jack Werensky
4. Chase Reed, D, Sault Ste. Marie (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: top pair
NHL Floor: middle pair
NHL Prospects: 65%
Likely level: top pair
Statistically comparable: Ivan Bouchard
5. Daxon Rudolph, D, Prince Albert (WHL)
NHL Ceiling: top pair
NHL Floor: No. 5 defenseman
NHL Prospects: 71%
Likely level: top four
Statistically comparable: Noah Hanifin
6. Nikita Klepov, F, Saginaw (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: they are
NHL Floor: six in the middle
NHL Prospects: 84%
Likely level: top line
Statistically comparable: Kyle Connor
7. Keaton Verhoef, D, North Dakota (NCAA)
NHL Ceiling: top pair
NHL Floor: No. 5 defenseman
NHL Prospects: 70%
Likely level: top four
Statistically comparable: Aaron Oakliff
8. Ethan Belchetz, LW, Windsor (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: six in the middle
NHL Prospects: 82%
Likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Valery Nichushkin
9. Caleb Malhotra, C, Brantford (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: the third line
NHL Prospects: 74%
Likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Matty Benniers
10. Adam Novotny, LW/RW, Peterborough (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 77%
Likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Timo Mayer
11. Mathis Preston, F, Vancouver (WHL)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 73%
Likely level: six in the middle
Statistically comparable: Oliver Bjorkstrand
12. Oliver Suvanto, C, Tappara (League)
NHL Ceiling: six in the middle
NHL Floor: Fourth line
NHL Prospects: 89%
Likely level: the third line
Statistically comparable: Itu Luosterinen
13. Viggo Bjorck, C/RW, Djurgardens IF (SHL)
NHL Ceiling: second line
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 63%
Likely level: six in the middle
Statistically comparable: Conor McMichael
14. Wyatt Cullen, F, USNTDP
NHL Ceiling: top six
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 57%
Likely level: six in the middle
Statistically comparable: Travis Koneney
15. Tynan Lawrence, C, Boston University (NCAA)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 59%
Likely level: Middle-six centers
Statistically comparable: Nick Schmaltz
16. Yegor Shilov, C, Victoriaville (QMJHL)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: six in the middle
NHL Prospects: 61%
Likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Jared McCann
17. Ryan Rubrock, C, Niagara (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: Fourth line
NHL Prospects: 85%
Likely level: six in the middle
Statistically comparable: Sean Couturier
18. Alberts Smits, D, Jukurit (League)
NHL Ceiling: top four
NHL Floor: Depth defenseman
NHL Prospects: 52%
Likely level: middle pair
Statistically comparable: Ryan Pulock
19. Ilya Morozov, F, University of Miami (NCAA)
NHL Ceiling: top six
NHL Floor: the third line
NHL Prospects: 44%
Likely level: six in the middle
Statistically comparable: Will Quill
20. JP Hurlbert, F, Kamloops (WHL)
NHL Ceiling: top six
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 41%
Likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Nicholas Ehlers
21. Ryan Lynn, D, Vancouver (WHL)
NHL Ceiling: top pair
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 40%
Likely level: bottom pair
Statistically comparable: Bowen Byram
22. Ryder Kelly, C, North Bay (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: second line
NHL Floor: Fourth line
NHL Prospects: 85%
Likely level: Six below
Statistically comparable: Jordan Kiro
23. Adam Valentini, F, University of Michigan (NCAA)
NHL Ceiling: top six
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 66%
Likely level: six in the middle
Statistically comparable: Brian Rust
24. Tommy Bleil, D, Moncton (QMJHL)
NHL Ceiling: top pair
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 42%
Likely level: middle pair
Statistically comparable: Samuel Girard
25. Brooks Rogowski, C, Oshawa Generals (OHL)
NHL Ceiling: second line
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 86%
Likely level: the third line
Statistically comparable: Pavel Zacha
26. Oscar Hemming, F, Boston College (NCAA)
NHL Ceiling: top six
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 36%
Likely level: the third line
Statistically comparable: Mark Stone
27. Xavier Villeneuve, D, Blainville-Boisbrind (QMJHL)
NHL Ceiling: top pair
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 40%
Likely level: middle pair
Statistically comparable: mario ferraro
28. Liam Ruck, F, Medicine Hat (WHL)
NHL Ceiling: top six
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 30%
Likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Brock Boweser
29. Elton Hermanson, RW/LW, MoDo (Hockey Allsvenskan)
NHL Ceiling: second line
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 29%
Likely level: the third line
Statistically comparable: Edward Sale
30. Marcus Ruck, F, Medicine Hat
NHL Ceiling: top six
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 25%
Likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Brendan Brison
31. Marcus Nordmark, LW, Djurgardens IF (U20 National)
NHL Ceiling: top line
NHL Floor: Non-NHL
NHL Prospects: 63%
Likely level: six in the middle
Statistically comparable: Jake Neighbors
32. Maddox Dagenais, C, Quebec (QMJHL)
NHL Ceiling: second line
NHL Floor: Six below
NHL Prospects: 43%
Likely level: the third line
Statistically comparable: Danny Nelson
