-
Rachel Farmer
multiple authors
Its that time of year again! The NHL teams that did not reach the Stanley Cup playoffs will be laser-focused on lottery balls drawn at the NHL Network studios in Secaucus, New Jersey on Tuesday.7pm ET, ESPN). With so many possibilities and intrigue surrounding the draft class, it’s natural to wonder.
There is no consensus on any player except Gavin McKenna, and even their scouts are questioning whether he should be the first player off the board. If your team needs a high-end defenseman, this is the year. Some prospects are projected to play a fundamental role in the top pair.
my estimation model With a few adjustments, this iteration of the ranking features the best of the best. For a refresher, the model weighs scoring stats from the current season and previous seasons, league strength, tracking stats (defensive, physical and transition plays), age, size, and injuries. The injury factor is only weighted as a function of games played to account for the impact on sample size for projection instability. The model has five outputs:
-
nhl ceiling: If everything goes right, a player’s peak is
-
nhl floor: Worst game result for possibility
-
nhl prospect: The probability that a player will play 200 NHL games is
-
Most likely level: Which player is most likely to be in the NHL based on statistical comparisons
-
Statistically comparable: A comparable player in their draft year, based on NHL production equivalence, position and size
The biggest change this year is the addition of a statistical comparable. Note: This is not about what a comparable player has become in the NHL; This is equal to the player’s draft year before being selected. Player position, NHL production equivalence and size (to some extent) are taken into account in the comparison. This is not a prediction of what the prospect will become in the NHL. Example: Chase Reed’s statistical comparison is Ivan Bouchard. This doesn’t mean Reed is going to be Bouchard, it just means they are statistically comparable players in their respective draft years.
There are definitely some surprises in these draft rankings, and especially as teams don’t make their internal rankings this way. Players who appear lower on the consensus list – or players not in this ranking who were unanimous first-round picks – should not be a surprise. Looking at the model, this is probably related to production and statistical comparability. If a player has strong statistical comparables and has performed well according to the NHL equivalence, their projection and prospects will be stronger. Players with strong 2024-2025 seasons (Ryan Rubroek) are higher than the consensus, as the model doesn’t ignore that production and it boosts his overall potential value score.
This list will change once more scouting and actual information is taken into account in the coming weeks. Here’s how the top 32 rankings are shaping up right now:
1. Gavin McKenna, LW, Penn State University (NCAA)
nhl ceiling: star
nhl floor: second line
nhl prospect: 88%
Most likely level: top line
Statistically comparable: clayton keller
2. Ivar Stenberg, LW/RW, Frölunda HC (SHL)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: second line
nhl prospect: 91%
Most likely level: top line
Statistically comparable: William Nylander
3. Carson Carrolls, D, Prince George (WHL)
nhl ceiling: top pair
nhl floor: top four
nhl prospect: 80%
Most likely level: top pair
Statistically comparable: Zach Werenski
4. Chase Reed, D, Sault Ste. Marie (OHL)
nhl ceiling: top pair
nhl floor: middle pair
nhl prospect: 65%
Most likely level: top pair
Statistically comparable: Ivan Bouchard
5. Daxon Rudolph, D, Prince Albert (WHL)
nhl ceiling: top pair
nhl floor: number 5 defenseman
nhl prospect: 71%
Most likely level: top four
Statistically comparable: noah hanifin
6. Nikita Klepov, F, Saginaw (OHL)
nhl ceiling: star
nhl floor: middle six
nhl prospect: 84%
Most likely level: top line
Statistically comparable: kyle connor
7. Keaton Verhoef, D, North Dakota (NCAA)
nhl ceiling: top pair
nhl floor: number 5 defenseman
nhl prospect: 70%
Most likely level: top four
Statistically comparable: aaron ekblad
8. Ethan Belchatz, LW, Windsor (OHL)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: middle six
nhl prospect: 82%
Most likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: valery nichushkin
9. Caleb Malhotra, C, Brantford (OHL)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: third row
nhl prospect: 74%
Most likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: matty beniers
10. Adam Novotny, LW/RW, Peterborough (OHL)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 77%
Most likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Timo Mayer
11. Mathis Preston, F, Vancouver (WHL)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 73%
Most likely level: middle six
Statistically comparable: oliver bjorkstrand
12. Oliver Suvanto, C, Tappara (Liga)
nhl ceiling: middle six
nhl floor: fourth line
nhl prospect: 89%
Most likely level: third row
Statistically comparable: eitu luostarinen
13. Viggo Björk, C/RW, Djurgården IF (SHL)
nhl ceiling: second line
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 63%
Most likely level: middle six
Statistically comparable: Connor McMichael
14. Wyatt Cullen, F, USNTDP
nhl ceiling: top six
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 57%
Most likely level: middle six
Statistically comparable: travis konecny
15. Tynan Lawrence, C, Boston University (NCAA)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 59%
Most likely level: middle-six center
Statistically comparable: Nick Schmaltz
16. Yegor Shilov, C, Victoriaville (QMJHL)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: middle six
nhl prospect: 61%
Most likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Jared McCann
17. Ryan Rubroek, C, Niagara (OHL)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: fourth line
nhl prospect: 85%
Most likely level: middle six
Statistically comparable: sean couturier
18. Alberts Smits, D, Jukurit (Liga)
nhl ceiling: top four
nhl floor: depth guard
nhl prospect: 52%
Most likely level: middle pair
Statistically comparable: Ryan Pulock
19. Ilya Morozov, F, University of Miami (NCAA)
nhl ceiling: top six
nhl floor: third row
nhl prospect: 44%
Most likely level: middle six
Statistically comparable: Will Quill
20. JP Hurlburt, F, Kamloops (WHL)
nhl ceiling: top six
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 41%
Most likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Nikolaj Ehlers
21. Ryan Lynn, D, Vancouver (WHL)
nhl ceiling: top pair
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 40%
Most likely level: bottom pair
Statistically comparable: bowen byram
22. Ryder Kelly, C, North Bay (OHL)
nhl ceiling: second line
nhl floor: fourth line
nhl prospect: 85%
Most likely level: bottom six
Statistically comparable: jordan kiru
23. Adam Valentini, F, University of Michigan (NCAA)
nhl ceiling: top six
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 66%
Most likely level: middle six
Statistically comparable: brian rust
24. Tommy Bleyel, D, Moncton (QMJHL)
nhl ceiling: top pair
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 42%
Most likely level: middle pair
Statistically comparable: Samuel Girard
25. Brooks Rogowski, C, Oshawa Generals (OHL)
nhl ceiling: second line
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 86%
Most likely level: third row
Statistically comparable: pavel zacha
26. Oscar Hemming, F, Boston College (NCAA)
nhl ceiling: top six
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 36%
Most likely level: third row
Statistically comparable: mark stone
27. Xavier Villeneuve, D, Blainville-Boisbriand (QMJHL)
nhl ceiling: top pair
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 40%
Most likely level: middle pair
Statistically comparable: mario ferraro
28. Liam Rook, F, Medicine Hat (WHL)
nhl ceiling: top six
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 30%
Most likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Brock Bowser
29. Elton Hermansson, RW/LW, MoDo (HockeyAllsvenskan)
nhl ceiling: second line
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 29%
Most likely level: third row
Statistically comparable: edward sale
30. Marcus Ruck, F, Medicine Hat
nhl ceiling: top six
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 25%
Most likely level: second line
Statistically comparable: Brendan Brisson
31. Marcus Nordmark, LW, Djurgården IF (U20 Nationale)
nhl ceiling: top line
nhl floor: non-nhl
nhl prospect: 63%
Most likely level: middle six
Statistically comparable: jake neighbor
32. Maddox Dagenais, C, Quebec (QMJHL)
nhl ceiling: second line
nhl floor: bottom six
nhl prospect: 43%
Most likely level: third row
Statistically comparable: danny nelson
