Passan: 5 biggest takeaways from MLB’s landmark pitching study
-
Jeff Passan, Senior MLB Insider
In Major League Baseball’s much-anticipated Pitching Injury Report, the league spends most of the 62 pages breaking little new ground. This is by design. To address the game’s rash of arm injuries with a sense of urgency, MLB couldn’t undertake the years of research necessary to better explain where the sport has failed and where it must go. More than a solution, this is, quite literally, a call to arms.
Over the last year, MLB officials talked with more than 200 people: pitching coaches, athletic trainers, former big leaguers — really anyone who might offer a nugget of insight or wisdom. Alongside bringing some clarity to the issue, MLB endeavored to answer lingering questions. Did the pitch clock cause arm injuries to soar? (There is no evidence to suggest as much.) What about the lack of sticky stuff to give pitchers a better handle on the ball? (Still unclear, though with the amount of ink devoted to the importance of grip, logic suggests it could be a factor for some.)
The larger issue is that arm injuries are a problem bigger than MLB. They exist in every crevice of the baseball universe, from college to youth baseball to the international game. This means fully dissecting the issue takes nuance and space better provided by a book, which I undertook a dozen years ago. Like the league, I came to no a-ha conclusion, beyond the brokenness inherent in a game fruitlessly trying to breed pitchers to do the very thing that gets arms hurt and the accompanying trajectory that portended trouble. In nearly a decade since The Arm was published, almost nothing has changed. In fact, arm injuries have gotten worse.
This report is an adequate, if banal, first step. Sound the alarms from the top, and hope to pull the right levers so a decade from now the game, at all levels, looks different. At the very least, it’s an acknowledgement that this is a matter worthy of the league’s time and energy. And while MLB isn’t explicit in its plans going forward, the main takeaways from the report are clear.
1. Early-season injuries have become especially worrisome to teams
In a memo sent to executives and team medical staff with the report Tuesday, MLB outlines the next phase of its research: “a detailed examination of offseason training regimens and early-season workloads.”
Injured-list placements between spring training and Opening Day have spiked precipitously in the last two years: nearly 100 in 2023 and more than 110 last year after never exceeding 80 over the previous five full seasons. And with spring training report dates less than two months away, how pitchers work in the offseason is at the forefront of clubs’ minds.
Professional pitchers now strive to show up at camps in Arizona and Florida looking near-ready to pitch in the big leagues. Over what should be their offseason, they use available technology to perfect current pitches and learn new ones, and, after a long season, rest insufficiently. Early in camp, they try to impress their team with the quality of their stuff — valuing spring measurables over staying healthy for a full season. Spring-training workloads, in the meantime, have dipped, even as pitchers bypass using camp to build arm strength.
“Although well-intentioned,” the report says, “this trend of reduced spring training workloads has coincided with an increase in early-season and spring training injuries, which contributes to the conclusion of some experts that pitchers are exposed to a higher risk of injury because they are not prepared for the dramatic increase in workload and intensity when the season begins.”
Undertaking this sort of a study necessitates buy-in from players, trainers and teams. Years of data will be needed before any sort of conclusion — and that is often the issue with the arm: Even data alone won’t necessarily lead to a satisfying explanation. What makes the arm such a puzzle is that any number of things can ruin it.
2. MLB is now on the record saying the most significant causes of arm injuries are velocity, spin-chasing and maximum-effort pitching
At this point, anyone familiar with how the arm works understands that the modern style of pitching is incompatible with arm health. Teams prize velocity and spin in the players they draft, promote and eventually keep on their rosters. If going deep into games led to better career outcomes, pitchers would adjust their behavior. It hasn’t. So they don’t.
Everything starts with velocity.
“Despite a direct correlation with injury risk,” the report says, “average fastball velocity in MLB jumped from 91.3 mph in 2008 to 94.2 mph this year. Velocity has been pursued by pitchers because it is advantageous in achieving positive performance outcomes, can be quantified and acquired, and is valued by major league clubs. Private facilities that specialize in velocity-focused methods of training have grown in popularity.”
Further, the report says, the culprits of injury proliferation include “the emphasis on optimizing ‘stuff’ (a term referencing the composite movement characteristics of pitches, including horizontal and vertical break and spin rate) and the modern pitcher’s focus on exerting maximum effort while pitching in both game and non-game situations.”
Partially at fault, the report posits, is that MLB teams’ response to this has not been to change the behaviors antithetical to health but rather work around them. More teams have resigned themselves to arm injuries and instead sought roster depth, taking advantage of rules that allow them to churn their pitching staff. In each of the last four years, teams have averaged more than 32 pitchers used per season. In 2010 that number was 22.8, in 2000 22.5, in 1990 20 and in 1980 15.1.
3. Technology runs the game
Never does the report explicitly ask what could join velocity, spin and max-effort pitching on the Mount Rushmore of Blown-Out Elbows, but it alludes implicitly and, at times, explicitly to technology’s part. This is not to suggest tech in baseball is inherently bad; on the contrary, it has done wonders for the game. But one quote in particular, from an athletic trainer, accurately reflects the environments in which pitchers are being taught.
“They’ll turn around and look at the Edgertronic and TrackMan, and they’re married to it,” the athletic trainer said. “And they’ll ask, ‘Where was that? Am I tunneling?’ I think it’s deadly. You’re challenging them on the mound to grip it, rip it. They come in and are asking, ‘What’s my carry?'”
First, a few definitions. An Edgertronic camera takes super-slow-motion video and allows pitchers to see how their pitch grip relates to the spin they seek on a certain pitch. TrackMan is a radar system that tracks ball flight and measures velocity and spin. Tunneling is trying to create difficult swing decisions for hitters by releasing different types of pitches from the same point. And carry is a pure-backspin fastball that isn’t pulled down by gravity as much as one even slightly off-axis, giving it the illusion of rising.
To be a pitcher at almost any competitive level today means fluency in this language. This is what pitchers are taught. And because the technology provides accurate and objective numbers with which growth can be tracked, it is fully embraced by the next generation of pitchers.
The consequences of this can damage pitchers who see TrackMan and Rapsodo data not as a tool but as their hammer. And who can blame them? When teams are interested in pitchers, the first thing they want to see is his data. With that being the case, of course pitchers are going to focus on juicing those numbers any way possible. It’s just another case of misplaced incentives running amok.
4. The minor leagues do not prepare pitchers for the demands of the major leagues
Twenty years ago, about 55% of major league starts and just over 50% of minor league starts came on five or fewer days’ rest. In 2024, that had dropped to about one-third of starts in the big leagues and barely 10% in the minor leagues. The same trend applies to relief pitchers: Big league relievers pitch on back-to-back days around 16% of the time; in the minor leagues, it’s closer to 2%. Want to know why the number of major league starts going at least five innings has dropped from 85% to 70% in the last two decades? Maybe it’s because over the same period, minor league starts of that length have gone from around 70% to less than 40%.
By and large, young players are no longer training — or, better put, being trained — to do what major league teams ask of them. One can’t reasonably expect a pitcher to throw deep into games when they’ve trained to air it out for five innings. Going back-to-back is a physical test that far too many relievers fail because nobody bothered telling them it’s an imperative skill for a big league bullpen arm.
And at the same time, the starting pitcher has been deprioritized. With the emergence of a seemingly endless supply of high-velocity relief pitchers, starters’ inability to go deep into games and the fear of the third-time-through-the-order penalty, the slow death of the starting pitcher has accelerated, much to the league’s discontent.
“Starting pitchers are no longer incentivized to establish their durability in games over the course of the championship season because clubs are more willing to rely on relief pitchers than ever before,” the report says. “Instead, they now pursue max-effort performance over much more limited periods of time — putting them at more substantial risk of future injury. These trends similarly raise questions about whether rule changes can be considered to make it more appealing for pitchers to prioritize durability over max-effort performance, in order to improve pitcher health.”
Perhaps the easiest rules changes the league can make are limiting moves back and forth between Triple-A and the big leagues and limiting the number of pitchers a team can roster, forcing starters to chase innings over stuff and strikeouts. The blowback would be strong — from teams and players — but when the league says modern pitching theory’s outcomes have “a noticeable and detrimental impact on the quality of the game on the field,” it’s the sort of damning statement that tends to prompt change.
5. The danger of amateur trickle-down
Perhaps the most damning graphic in the report comes on page 33. It covers 11 years of pitchers at the Perfect Game National Showcase, at which the largest company in youth baseball invites the best high school juniors in the country to play in front of an endless supply of talent evaluators. In 2014, five pitchers threw at least 95 mph. Same in 2015. Over the next three years, it was seven, six, three and eight. In 2020, it doubled to 16. Since then, the report says, it has more than doubled again, to 36.
High school players are simply doing what will get them recruited to college, where they’ll simply do what gets them drafted, where they’ll simply do what gets them promoted. Everything filters down from the big leagues. Kids aren’t using TrackMan and Rapsodo if big leaguers don’t. Compound that with the encouragement by travel-ball operators to participate in year-round play via showcases, the adoption of misguided weighted-ball programs from people ill-suited to properly monitor such training tools and the straight-up ignoring of PitchSmart guidelines recommended by a panel of medical experts, and far too often, players are coming into MLB systems already broken. Twenty years ago, less than 5% of drafted pitchers had reconstructive surgery on their pitching elbow’s ulnar collateral ligament, typically known as Tommy John surgery. Now, it’s more than one-third.
“The risks of arm injury due to overuse largely have been ignored in favor of year-round travel baseball and showcases (a longstanding concern with amateur baseball that experts view as only worsening in recent years),” the report says. “Indeed, high-level amateur players perform year-round with intense pitching schedules that put them at greater risk of future injury. Although some suggest that current youth and amateur development models may be primarily responsible for an increase in pitcher injuries across all levels, we conclude that improving pitcher health requires both adjusting professional incentives and implementing changes to amateur baseball so that appropriate training and performance practices trickle down to the amateur level.”
The report, which generally skimps on recommendations in favor of additional research, does no such thing with youth baseball. It recommends closing loopholes in PitchSmart guidelines, enforcing standards on participating tournaments and leagues, and increasing education. Even more, it suggests blackout periods that prevent professional scouts from evaluating players and allowing them proper rest and recovery during the offseason.
This is where the baseball universe must converge. All the stakeholders. For the sake of the kids. For the sake of the game. Solving arm injuries won’t ever come in one fell swoop. With so many pathologies, answers are built, not found. And though it will take years to see progress, it’s vital for MLB’s report to be just the beginning, not a standalone effort that stops where it started.
-
Rachel Doerrie
The games are done for the top draft prospects; there is no hockey left to be played. A few players in the top 10 played until the last possible moment, making a lasting impression on scouts and executives at the Memorial Cup. With the combine taking place this week in Buffalo, New York, players will undergo physical testing and a rigorous interview process with interested teams. The combine allows teams to ask out-of-the-box questions, get a feel for the personalities of the players and, in some cases, understand the significance of injuries.
There is room for movement on the draft board because combine testing does impact model outputs. Furthermore, this list weighs scouting as 40% of the evaluation. The final ranking, which will be published June 23, will weigh scouting, projection, off-ice assessments and industry intel to varying degrees, which may see some players move up or down.
There are five parts of this set of rankings:
-
The rank, which accounts for attributed value based on projection, the confidence of the projection and scouting.
-
The NHL projection weighs the projection formula at 70% and scouting at 30%, and represents the most likely outcome for that player. The final edition of the rankings will include the player’s NHL ceiling.
-
The NHL floor uses the same formula and represents the worst outcome, above 10% probability of occurring. If a player has a 4% chance of never playing NHL games and an 11% chance of becoming a fourth-line winger or No. 7 defenseman, then those projections will be used for NHL floor. For some players in the draft, the floor is outside of the NHL, perhaps the AHL or KHL.
-
Projection confidence is based solely on the projection formula and forms two parts: confidence and volatility. The confidence has four tiers: High, fair, medium and low. This represents that confidence the model has that the player will reach the NHL projection for 200 or more NHL games. The level of confidence impacts the value of the player and, therefore, their rank. High confidence is above 80%, fair is 60% to 79%, medium is 35% to 59% and low is below 35%. The volatility has four categories: Low, slight, medium and high. Volatility relates to the range of outcomes a player has in their career. A player with a low volatility means there is a smaller range of outcomes for the NHL career, whether that is a No. 1 defenseman to top-pair defenseman, or third-line center to bottom-six forward. A player with high volatility has a wide range of outcomes, with relatively even distributions over the NHL projection. It could be related to a number of factors: the league they play in, their scoring if they changed leagues, injuries or a significant uptick/downturn in play. Many of these players are considered “raw” in their development curve.
-
Strengths are each player’s standout abilities.
“Boom or bust” is an all-encompassing phrase with confidence and volatility. It means the player either hits their NHL projection or is unlikely to play 200 NHL games. The difference between a low-confidence/high-volatility projection and a boom-or-bust projection is simple: It means injuries played a role in the projection, and the sample size makes it difficult to confidently project the player’s most likely outcome; or that the league in which the player plays does not have a successful history of producing NHL players.
One other consideration is the “Russian factor,” where skilled Russians are more likely to return to Russia if they fail to hit their NHL projection.
Here is how the top 64 prospects line up according to my model:
1. Matthew Schaefer, D, Erie (OHL)
NHL projection: No. 1 defenseman
NHL floor: Top-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Mobility, puck moving, creativity, rush activation
2. Michael Misa, F, Saginaw (OHL)
NHL projection: Elite No. 1 center
NHL floor: Second-line winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Offensive instincts, explosiveness, transition offense, two-way play
3. James Hagens, F, Boston College (NCAA)
NHL projection: First-line center
NHL floor: Second-line center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Transition play, speed, hockey sense, puck handling
4. Porter Martone, F, Brampton (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-line power forward
NHL floor: Middle-six winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, scoring, hockey sense, size
5. Caleb Desnoyers, F, Moncton (QMJHL)
NHL projection: Top-six, two-way center
NHL floor: Third-line checking center
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, quick hands, playmaking, efficient puck play
6. Anton Frondell, F, Djurgardens (Allsvenskan)
NHL projection: Second-line center
NHL floor: Third-line scoring winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Versatility, two-way play, elite release, forechecking
7. Roger McQueen, F, Brandon (WHL)
NHL projection: First-line scoring center
NHL floor: Injury-shortened career
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, quick release, size
8. Viktor Eklund, F, Djurgardens (Allsvenskan)
NHL projection: Top-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Middle-six scoring forward
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Motor, transition offense, two-way play, off-puck play, hard skill
9. Jake O’Brien, F, Brantford (OHL)
NHL projection: Top-six playmaking center
NHL floor: Middle-six scoring winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, creativity, hockey sense
10. Jackson Smith, D, Tri-City (WHL)
NHL projection: Top-four defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Physicality, transition defense, mobility, puck moving
11. Brady Martin, F, Sault Ste. Marie (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-line scoring forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six power forward
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Motor, wall play, physicality, hard skill, competitiveness
12. Radim Mrtka, D, Seattle (WHL)
NHL projection: Top-four shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair transition defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Size, stick positioning and use, hockey sense
13. Carter Bear, F, Everett (WHL)
NHL projection: Second-line versatile forward
NHL floor: Third-line checker
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, versatility, two-way play, motor
14. Justin Carbonneau, F, Blainville-Boisbriand (QMJHL)
NHL projection: Second-line scoring forward
NHL floor: Middle-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Powerful stride, playmaking, puck handling
15. Logan Hensler, D, Wisconsin (NCAA)
NHL projection: Second-pair transition defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Gap control, mobility, transition play
16. Lynden Lakovic, F, Moose Jaw (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, finishing ability, hands, size
17. Kashawn Aitcheson, D, Barrie (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Physicality, competitiveness, aggression, strength
18. Braeden Cootes, F, Seattle (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, speed, anticipation, forechecking
19. Cameron Schmidt, F, Vancouver (WHL)
NHL projection: Second-line scoring winger
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, offensive instincts, finishing ability
20. Cole Reschny, F, Victoria (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, anticipation, quick hands, competitiveness
21. Cameron Reid, D, Kitchener (OHL)
NHL projection: Top-four transition defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defensive defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, transition play, hockey sense
22. Cullen Potter, F, Arizona State (NCAA)
NHL projection: Top-six forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, agility, offensive play driving, elite release
23. Benjamin Kindel, F, Calgary (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Hockey sense, transition, two-way play
24. Malcolm Spence, F, Erie (OHL)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: High-end motor, two-way play, tenacity
25. Joshua Ravensbergen, G, Prince George (WHL)
NHL projection: No. 1 starting goaltender
NHL floor: 1B tandem goaltender
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Anticipation, crisp movements, competitiveness, lateral agility
26. Blake Fiddler, D, Edmonton (WHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Transition defense, in-zone defensive play, size, mobility
27. Sascha Boumedienne, D, Boston University (NCAA)
NHL projection: Second-pair two-way defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair offensive specialist
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, stick play, transition play, slap shot
28. Jack Murtagh, F, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: Third-line power forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Motor, shooting, hard skill, straight-line speed
29. Jack Nesbitt, F, Windsor (OHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line defensive center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Strength, size, competitiveness, two-way play
30. Bill Zonnon, F, Rouyn-Noranda (QMJHL)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way forward
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: High-end motor, raw playmaking, competitiveness, puck battles
31. William Moore, F, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: Third-line forward
NHL floor: NHL depth player
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Puck protection, skating, offensive instincts, puck skill
32. Ryker Lee, F, Madison (USHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six playmaker
NHL floor: Bottom-six scoring depth
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Hockey sense, creativity, puck handling, one-timer
33. Nathan Behm, F, Kamploops (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six scoring depth
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, shooting, creativity
34. Milton Gastrin, F, Modo (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, two-way instincts, motor
35. Shane Vansaghi, F, Michigan State (NCAA)
NHL projection: Third-line power forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking forward
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, strength, competitiveness, puck skill
36. Jakob Ihs-Wozniak, F, Lulea (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Third-line scoring depth
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, finishing ability, offensive instincts
37. Jack Ivankovic, G, Brampton (OHL)
NHL projection: Platoon starting goaltender
NHL floor: High-end NHL backup
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Positioning, controlled movements, patience in save selection
38. Henry Brzustewicz, D, London (OHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 transition defender
NHL floor: AHL scoring defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Puck moving, gap control, creativity
39. Cole McKinney, F, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: Third-line, two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line defensive center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, penalty killing, competitiveness, finishing ability
40. Eric Nilson, F, Orebro (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: AHL top-six center
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, forechecking, competitiveness, defensive instincts
41. Vaclav Nestrasil, F, Muskegon (USHL)
NHL projection: Top-six power forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical winger
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Size, motor, two-way play, puck skill
42. Benjamin Kevan, F, Des Moines (USHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six speedster
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, transition offense
43. Ivan Ryabkin, F, Muskegon (USHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six power forward
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Quick release, creativity, physicality
44. Daniil Prokhorov, F, St. Petersburg (MHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six power forward
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Size, strength, physicality, heavy shot
45. Carter Amico, D, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 transition defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Mobility, transition defense, physicality, size
46. Max Psenicka, D, Portland (WHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 two-way defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Instincts, mobility, gap control, puck moving
47. Luca Romano, F, Kitchener (OHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six, two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking speedster
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Speed, transition play, motor
48. Alexander Zharovsky, F, Ufa (MHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring winger
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Puck handling, instincts, creativity
49. Kurban Limatov, D, Moscow (MHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair, two-way defenseman
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Skating, mobility, aggressiveness, physicality
50. Mason West, F, Edina (USHS)
NHL projection: Middle-six physical forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical forward
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Strength, physicality, size, mobility
51. Kristian Epperson, F, Saginaw (OHL)
NHL projection: Third-line scoring winger
NHL floor: AHL top-six forward
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, playmaking, hockey sense
52. Matthew Gard, F, Red Deer (WHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Strength, size, defensive play, motor
53. William Horcoff, F, Michigan (NCAA)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical presence
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, strength, size, wall play
54. Jacob Rombach, D, Lincoln (USHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, puck retrievals, motor
55. Peyton Kettles, D, Swift Current (WHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, size, physicality
56. Hayden Paupanekis, F, Kelowna (WHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six defensive center
NHL floor: Fourth-line center
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Competitiveness, size, defensive play
57. David Bedkowski, D, Owen Sound (OHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-pair shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, size, strong stick, penalty killing
58. Ethan Czata, F, Niagara (OHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: AHL depth
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Penalty killing, physicality, hard skill
59. Haoxi “Simon” Wang, D, Oshawa (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair two-way defenseman
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, mobility, size, transition defense
60. Theo Stockselius, F, Djurgardens (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way forward
NHL floor: AHL depth
Projection confidence: Low confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Hockey sense, hard skill, playmaking
61. Eddie Genborg, F, Linkoping (SHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking winger
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical winger
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, two-way play, motor
62. Charlie Trethewey, D, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 two-way defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, physicality, heavy shot, skating
63. Alexei Medvedev, G, London (OHL)
NHL projection: 1B NHL goaltender
NHL floor: Reliable NHL backup
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Positioning, competitiveness, anticipation, athleticism
64. L.J. Mooney, F, USNTDP (USA)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way scoring depth
NHL floor: AHL top-six scoring forward
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, motor
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut