At Neutral Zone our analytics department is constantly looking at the best ways to approach evaluations and rankings and using every resource available to ensure the highest level of accuracy. One area we have been focusing on has been the NCAA Recruiting Class Rankings and CHL Draft Class Rankings.
Here we will be taking a look back at the 2019-2020 NCAA Mens D1 All-League players as voted on by the coaches and analyzing the three main metrics we measure; their age, the league they came out of and their star rating. We’ll break down each and have supplementary information for those who are really into the data and want to read up more on each metric. We chose the All-Tournament selections because it’s voted on by coaches who work with these players on coach against them and have the best insight as to who are the highest performers. Metrics like goals or plus minus or others aren’t entirely accurate representations for a players impact to his team or their effectiveness, especially among defenseman.
Who are the All-League Selections in NCAA D1?
NCHC
First-Team All-League
Goaltender: Hunter Shepard (Minn Duluth) NAHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Ian Mitchell (Denver) AJHL 4.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Scott Perunovich (Minn Duluth) USHL 4.25 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Hugh McGing (WMU) USHL 4.5 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Cole Koepke (Minn Duluth) USHL 4.25 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Jordan Kawaguchi (North Dakota) BCHL 4.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Second-Team All-League
Goaltender: David Hrenak (St. Cloud) USHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Jack Ahcan (St. Cloud) USHL 4.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Matt Kiersted (North Dakota) USHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Gordie Green (Miami-Ohio) USHL 4.0 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Forward: Emilio Pettersen (Denver) USHL 4.75 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Forward: Chris Wilkie* (Colorado) USHL 4.25 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Third-Team All-League
Goaltender: Adam Scheel (North Dakota) BCHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Colton Poolman (No. Dakota) BCHL 4.25 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Mattias Samuelsson (WMU) NTDP 5.0 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Forward: Taylor Ward (Nebraska-Omaha) BCHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Westin Michaud* (North Dakota) NAHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Forward: Nick Poehling (St. Cloud) USHL 4.0 Star (1996 Birth Year)
All-Rookie Team
Goaltender: Magnus Chrona (Denver) EURO 4.25 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Brandon Scanlin (N-Omaha) AJHL 4.0 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Ronnie Attard (WMU) USHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Bobby Brink (Denver) USHL 4.75 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Forward: Shane Pinto (North Dakota) USHL 4.5 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Forward: Joey Abate (Nebraska-Omaha) USHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
HOCKEY EAST
First-Team All-League
Goaltender: Jeremy Swayman (Maine) USHL 4.5 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Michael Callahan (Providence) USHL 4.25 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: David Farrance (BU) NTDP 4.5 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Jack Dugan (Providence) USHL 4.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: John Leonard (UMass Amherst) USHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Tyler Madden (Northeastern) USHL 4.5 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Second-Team All-League
Goaltender: Spencer Knight (BC) NTDP 5.0 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Ben Finkelstein (BC) USHL 4.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Ryan Shea (Northeastern) USHL 4.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Wyatt Newpower (UCONN) MN HS 3.75 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Forward: Mitchell Fossier (Maine) USHL 3.75 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Alex Newhook (BC) BCHL 5.0 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Forward: Tyce Thompson (Providence) USHL 4.25 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Third-Team All-League
Goaltender: Tyler Wall (UMass Lowell) GOJHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Max Gildon (UNH) NTDP 4.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Jesper Mattila (BC) EURO 4.0 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Jake McLaughlin (UMA) USHL 3.5 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: David Cotton (BC) USHL 4.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Forward: Patrick Harper (BU) USHL 4.5 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Trevor Zegras (BU) NTDP 5.0 Star (2001 Birth Year)
All-Rookie Team
Goaltender: Spencer Knight (BC) NTDP 5.0 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Declan Carlile (Merrimack) USHL 4.25 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Zac Jones (UMass Amherst) USHL 4.0 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Forward: Matt Boldy (BC) NTDP 5.0 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Forward: Vladislav Firstov (UCONN) USHL 4.5 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Forward: Alex Newhook (BC) BCHL 5.0 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Forward: Trevor Zegras (BU) NTDP 5.0 Star (2001 Birth Year)
ECAC
First-Team All-League
Goaltender: Frank Marotte (Clarkson) CCHL 3.5 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Yanni Kaldis (Cornell) BCHL 4.5 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Jack Rathbone (Harvard) NE Prep 4.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Morgan Barron (Cornell) ON Prep 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Nick Abruzzese (Harvard) USHL 4.0 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Drew O’Connor (Dartmouth) NCDC 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Second-Team All-League
Goaltender: Owen Savory (RPI) GOJHL 3.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Will Reilly (RPI) BCHL 4.0 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Connor McCarthy (Clarkson) BCHL 4.0 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Curtis Hall (Yale) USHL 4.5 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Forward: Odeen Tufto (Quinnipiac) USHL 4.0 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Forward: Jack Drury (Harvard) USHL 4.5 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Third-Team All-League
Goaltender: Matthew Galajda (Cornell) BCHL 3.75 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Alex Green (Cornell) USHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Peter Diliberatore (QU) NE Prep 4.5 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Forward: Haralds Egle (Clarkson) USHL 4.0 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Josh Dunne (Clarkson) USHL 4.25 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Devin Brosseau (Clarkson) BCHL 4.0 Star (1995 Birth Year)
All-Rookie Team
Goaltender: Mitchell Gibson (Harvard) USHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Henry Thrun (Harvard) NTDP 4.25 Star (2001 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Dylan Anhorn (Union) BCHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Nick Abruzzese (Harvard) USHL 4.0 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Gabriel Seger (Union) NAHL 3.5 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: John Farinacci (Harvard) NE Prep 4.5 Star (2001 Birth Year)
WCHA
First-Team All-League
Goaltender: Dryden McKay (Minnesota St) USHL 3.75 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Alec Rauhauser (BGU) USHL 4.25 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Connor Mackey (Minn. St) USHL 4.0 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Steven Jandric (Alaska) BCHL 3.75 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Forward: Adam Brady (Bemidji St) USHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Forward: Marc Michaelis (Minnesota St) USHL 4.0 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Second-Team All-League
Goaltender: Zach Driscoll* (Bemidji St) USHL 4.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Phillip Beaulieu (NMU) USHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Tommy Muck (Bemidji St) USHL 3.75 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Max Humitz (Lake Superior) USHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Forward: Parker Tuomie (Minnesota St) USHL 4.5 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Forward: Griffin Loughran (NMU) USHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Third-Team All-League
Goaltender: Matt Jurusik (Michigan Tech) USHL 3.75 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Ian Scheid (Minnesota St.) USHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Elias Rosen (Bemidji St.) USHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Darien Craighead (NMU) BCHL 4.25 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Forward: Owen Sillinger (Bemidji St.) BCHL 4.25 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Forward: Connor Ford (Bowling Green) USHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
All-Rookie Team
Goaltender: John Hawthorne (NMU) BCHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Jake Willets (Ferris St) NAHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Elias Rosen (Bemidji St.) USHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Nathan Smith (Minn. St) USHL 4.5 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Louis Boudon (Lake Superior) NAHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Lucas Sowder (Minnesota St.) BCHL 4.0 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Atlantic
First-Team All-League
Goaltender: Zacharias Skog (AIC) USHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Brennan Kapcheck (AIC) NAHL 3.75 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Mike Lee* (Sacred Heart) BCHL 4.0 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Jakov Novak (Bentley) NAHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Austin McIlmurray (Sacred Heart) BCHL 3.75 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Blake Christensen (AIC) BCHL 3.5 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Second-Team All-League
Goaltender: Justin Kapelmaster* (RMU) NAHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Patrik Demel (AIC) NAHL 3.5 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Adam Brubacher (RIT) BCHL 3.5 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Forward: Nick Hutchison (Canisius) BCHL 3.75 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Forward: Matt Hoover (Canisius) USHL 4.25 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Dominic Franco (Army) BCHL 3.75 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Third-Team All-League
Goaltender: Josh Benson (Sacred Heart) NAHL 3.5 Star (1997 Birth Year)
Goaltender: Logan Drackett (RIT) AJHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Brandon Koch (Air Force) BCHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Matt Stief (Canisius) BCHL 3.75 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Jack Billings* (Niagara) CCHL 3.0 Star (1995 Birth Year)
Forward: Hugo Reinhardt (AIC) USHL 3.5 Star (1996 Birth Year)
Forward: Martin Mellberg (AIC) NAHL 3.5 Star (1995 Birth Year)
All Rookie Team
Goaltender: Chad Veltri (Niagara) USHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Anthony Firriolo (Army) NAHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Defenseman: Brandon Koch (Air Force) BCHL 3.75 Star (1999 Birth Year)
Forward: Braeden Tuck (Sacred Heart) BCHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
Forward: Elijiah Gonsalves (RIT) OJHL 3.75 Star (2000 Birth Year)
Forward: Matt Gosiewski (Bentley) BCHL 3.75 Star (1998 Birth Year)
**Note there is no Big 10 Hockey All Tournament announcements as of the date of this article. They said on their league website it would be released March 17th but it’s March 21st and still not released. We’ll update our numbers once that is published.
Part I: Age Factor
One of the most interesting and impactful studies we have done on NCAA hockey is the impact of age. Unlike the CHL where the age gap is spread over 4 years (16 year olds are the youngest, 20 year olds are the oldest) the NCAA has a 6-8 year age gap and that is significant given the ages where the body of an 18 year old can be much different than the body of a 24 year old.
We have analyzed how older players performed versus younger players as freshman back in 2016 when the issue of 21 year old freshman was a hot topic in this article.
This piece breaks down how 18 year old freshman do against 19 year olds and 20 year olds and 21 year olds. Overall it showed their was a clear pattern the younger the better in just about every metric; i.e. games played, goals, assists, etc. However, we have seen some trends going the other way it is was a real reason for us to take a look under the hood again and re-evaluate how we do our recruiting class rankings.
So what do the awards tell us about age in relation to age. Chart 1 breaks down all the different leagues and correlates that with what birth year the players were who won the awards. We see vastly different numbers given the league it is coming from. For example, the All-Rookie team from Hockey East was made up of two 19 year olds and five 18 year olds. Compare that with Atlantic which was made up of five 21 year olds and one 20 year old. So we broke the leagues up into Total (includes all league) and then ECAC, Hockey East and ECAC. This just gives a better understanding of the differences between the league data because the totals don’t give a totally accurate depiction of the trends in college hockey.
Table #1 All-League Selections by Birth Year
| First Team | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| NCHC | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| ECAC | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| WCHA | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 8 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 3 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Second Team | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| NCHC | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| ECAC | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| WCHA | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 7 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 0 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Third Team | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| NCHC | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| ECAC | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| WCHA | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Rookie Team | |||||||
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |
| NCHC | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Hockey East | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | |||
| ECAC | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | |||
| WCHA | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Atlantic | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Totals | 10 | 8 | 5 | 8 | |||
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 1 | 6 | 4 | 8 |
What Graphic #1 shows are a few interesting data points. First, we see there is a major difference between different leagues/conferences in regards to the players ages. This makes sense given their historical recruiting patterns; Atlantic and WHCA programs typically commit 19 and 20 year old prospects whereas Hockey East and NCHC are typically committing players before the age of 18 and those prospects matriculate earlier.
Another key point shown here is that the two worst performing areas for First – Third Teams are 2001s and 2000’s which shows the high-end NHL draft pick talent that are 18 and 19 years old are not performing at the same level as lower ranked older talent who have been in the league for multiple seasons. This would give evidence that time in the league does matter and players perform better with more experience. This alone wouldn’t prove the “late development” theory that college hockey provides giving prospects a longer time horizon before going pro but it certainly shows the difficulty of the league when first round NHL picks are not the best players in the league.
Table #2 First-Third Team All-League Cumulative Data by Birth Year
| Totals | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| All Leagues | 21 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 3 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 6 | 6 | 12 | 17 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
| WCHA/Atlantic | 15 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| All Leagues | 22.58% | 16.13% | 20.43% | 21.51% | 10.75% | 5.38% | 3.23% |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 10.53% | 10.53% | 21.05% | 29.82% | 14.04% | 8.77% | 5.26% |
| WCHA/Atlantic | 41.67% | 25.00% | 19.44% | 8.33% | 5.56% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Graphic #2 shows the difference between the ECAC/Hockey East/NCHC and the Atlantic/WCHA leagues. The main difference is shown on 1995 and 1996’s which are the oldest players in college hockey; the WCHA/Atlantic this represents over two-thirds (67%) of the players in their All-League selections whereas the ECAC/HE/NCHC it represents just 21% of their selections. The ECAC/HE/NCHC data would show a bell curve which where the majority of prospects are in the 1997-1998 birth years and the fairly equally spread out between the 1995-1996 and the 1999-2001’s.
This is consistent with patterns we see in recruiting; WCHA and Atlantic recruit older players that are usually lower ranked. Those older players stay for 4 years typically and the data would show their best players are typically juniors and seniors. The ECAC/HE/NCHC recruit younger, higher rated prospects and some of their top end do not make it to their sophomore, junior or senior season because they sign pro contracts so they don’t have as many 1995’s or 1996s as the other leagues but they do have more 1999-2001’s. The middle group of 1997 and 1998’s are in both leagues; they might be juniors and seniors in the Hockey East while being freshman and sophomores in the Atlantic but the overlap is why that is the apex of the bell curve.
This season was a great example of the role age plays in NCAA hockey performance as NTDP had the best NHL draft it’s ever had with over 10 prospects drafted in the first two rounds and playing college hockey as an 18 year old. Despite their impressive talent and ability, you see just 3 out of 93 prospects on All-League teams that are 2001’s. There was 8 First-Round NHL picks that were freshman in college hockey this year; there were an additional 8 players drafted in the second round of the NHL Draft and we are seeing just 3 of those 16 NHL top 60 picks in the All-League selections. Also, no 2000 or 2001 was selected in the first team in any league; so those 3 selections were 2nd and 3rd Team. **Note that Big 10 Selections have not yet been released and prospects like Alex Turcotte, Cole Caufield, Cam York and John Beecher could change those number but they haven’t been released yet (as of March 22nd).
Table #3 All Rookie Team Cumulative Data by Birth Year
| Rookie Team | |||||||
| 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |
| NCHC | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Hockey East | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | |||
| ECAC | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | |||
| WCHA | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Atlantic | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Totals | 10 | 8 | 5 | 8 | |||
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 1 | 6 | 4 | 8 | |||
The Chart here is interesting in that it shows yet again the age difference between Atlantic/WCHA and the ECAC/HE/NCHC. Of the 10 selections for all Rookie teams among the 1998’s (oldest freshman in college hockey) 9 of the 10 came out of Atlantic/WCHA and only 1 from ECAC/HE/NCHC. Conversely, of the 2000 and 2001’s representing All-Rookie Team 12 of 13 came from ECAC/HE/NCHC while just 1 came from WCHA/Atlantic.
Table #4 All Rookie Team Cumulative Data by Birth Year as a Percentage
| Totals | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 |
| All Leagues | 32.26% | 25.81% | 16.13% | 25.81% |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 5.26% | 31.58% | 21.05% | 42.11% |
| WCHA/Atlantic | 75.00% | 16.67% | 8.33% | 0.00% |
This chart is important in that it shows a relatively equal spread of talent across the different age groups which is interesting considering that there are 4 different years of freshman from 18-21 years old. If you break it out by leagues it’s not as equal; in the Atlantic/WHCA 75% of their All-Rookie teams are 21 year old freshman whereas ECAC/HE/NCHC that is the lowest percentage at that age group at 5% whereas 18 year olds are the highest at 42%. Again, the ECAC/HE/NCHC programs recruit younger, higher rated prospects so that is visible in their all-rookie teams while Atlantic/WCHA are recruiting older players and therefore their best rookies are 20-21 years old.
This data would tend to make on believe that fast forward one or two seasons this 2001 class would dominate the All-League selections; however, that isn’t necessarily true because of those 8 All-Rookie team selections in the 2001 birth year, a percentage of them will sign pro after this season and then typically a bigger percentage will go after their sophomore year leaving the high end of that age group under-represented in the NCAA.
Age Conclusion:
We see consistency in the patterns between age of players and their success among the Atlantic/WHCA and the ECAC/HE/NCHC. NZ’s recruiting class rankings algorithm however is looking at this data and will be making adjustments to how we weight age going forward. What we have learned is the data from 2016 that formed the NCAA Recruiting Class Freshman data is skewed on both sides; first players like Jack Eichel who completely dominated as an 18 year old freshman could be seen as an outlier and when you take his production out and especially when you take the top 3 youngest players it dramatically changes the narrative. Also, there is a decent percentage of 21 year old freshman who are non-scholarship players or recruited walkons and when you take those players out of the equation and limit to players who played at least 10 games that season it changes the narrative for older players. In general we are seeing that it makes sense why the top recruiting powers don’t win every year because 18 and 19 year old freshman represent just 8 out of 93 All-League selections and many of the top players in the All-Rookie teams will never see their third or fourth year in NCAA. This data shows time in the league does matter as the best players in these respective leagues are highly weighted towards juniors and seniors.
“We need to keep running more tests across CHL and NCAA DIII and perform similar analytics like this, but my estimate is that younger players will be given less weight in the updated algorithm and older players will be given more weight,” said Brendan Collins who built the recruiting class algorithm.
Part II: League Factor
League data can be seen from two different lenses; it can be a measuring stick for the players ability and it can give some regional information as well. Typically BCHL is a majority western canaidan player league and the majority of the USHL is Midwestern US recruits for example. However, the USHL is a free league to play in whereas the OJHL is pay to play so the talent level of USHL is higher than OJHL and just by virtue of playing in the league assumes a certain level of ability or credibility.
We breakdown all the leagues players came out of before coming to NCAA DI below.
Table #5 All-League Selection Breakdown by Pre-NCAA League
| First Team | USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | Prep/HS | CCHL | EURO | NCDC | GOJHL |
| NCHC | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ECAC | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| WCHA | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 15 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Second Team | USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | HS/Prep | CCHL | EURO | NCDC | GOJHL |
| NCHC | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ECAC | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| WCHA | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 20 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 13 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Third Team | USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | HS/Prep | CCHL | EURO | NCDC | GOJHL |
| NCHC | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| ECAC | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WCHA | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 12 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 7 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
This isn’t surprising; we see the top 2 leagues in North America (USHL and BCHL) accounting for over 70% of All-Tournament selections. One area we have been seeing over the past 3 years is the parity in junior hockey has decreased and the top performing freshman the past 3 seasons are coming out of fewer leagues.
Table #6 Cumulative Pre-NCAA League Breakdown among All-League Selections
| USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | HS/Prep | CCHL | EURO | NCDC | GOJHL | |
| Totals | 47 | 21 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 29 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Atlantic/WCHA | 18 | 11 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | HS/Prep | CCHL | EURO | NCDC | GOJHL | |
| Totals | 50.5% | 22.6% | 8.6% | 5.4% | 2.2% | 4.3% | 2.2% | 1.1% | 1.1% | 2.2% |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 51.8% | 17.9% | 3.6% | 8.9% | 1.8% | 7.1% | 1.8% | 1.8% | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Atlantic/WCHA | 48.6% | 29.7% | 16.2% | 0.0% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Unlike age breakdown where we saw massive differences between birth years in their success between Atlantic/WCHA and ECAC/HE/NCHC however here it’s pretty similar. The USHL represents half the award winners and the BCHL represents about a quarter on average. The biggest difference is the Atlnatic/WCHA has about 16% of their selections coming out of NAHL whereas ECAC/HE/NCHC is getting that 16% from NTDP and HS/Prep and not NAHL. Other than that there isn’t much difference so the totals are actually indicative of the overall trend across the NCAA.
Table #7 All-Rookie Team Breakdown by Pre-NCAA League
| Rookie Team | USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | HS/Prep | OJHL | CCHL | EURO |
| NCHC | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Hockey East | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ECAC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WCHA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 12 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 9 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
The freshman show a more balanced overall look but the majority still coming from two leagues (USHL/BCHL) and over 85% coming from the top 4 producers: USHL, BCHL, NTDP and NAHL.
Table 8: All-Rookie Team as a Percentage of League
| USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | HS/Prep | OJHL | EURO | |
| Totals | 12 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 9 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Atlantic/WCHA | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| USHL | BCHL | NAHL | NTDP | AJHL | HS/Prep | OJHL | EURO | |
| Totals | 38.7% | 22.6% | 12.9% | 12.9% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 3.2% |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 45.0% | 10.0% | 5.0% | 20.0% | 5.0% | 5.0% | 5.0% | 5.0% |
| Atlantic/WCHA | 27.3% | 45.5% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
While the percentage breakdown of all Rookie Team isn’t entirely mirroring the All-League data it is comparable in that BCHL and USHL represent a majority of the players selected and the Atlantic/WCHA have a quarter of their selections are from NAHL whereas ECAC/HE/NCHC have only 5% from that league and a quarter of their selections coming from NTDP and HS/Prep.
League Conclusion:
Each league in junior hockey, midget hockey, prep and high school are given a weight based on historical averages of how players coming out of those leagues perform in their freshman or rookie year in NCAA/CHL. The data we used was from 2005-2015 but in the past 5 years we are seeing some changes in junior hockey where there is more consolidation into the premier leagues and less players coming from outside the top 2-4 leagues. Part of this is the Canadian/US exchange rate is making it difficult for Canadians to come to US colleges unless they are given good scholarship packages. Also a contributing factor is the pay to play model vs free model which makes a big difference in where the talented players will go.
Where NZ will need to re-visit in the algorithm, as evidenced here, is the weight differential between the top leagues and the middle and bottom tier leagues. Also, the highest weighted “league” even though it’s not technically a league, is NTDP and with just 4 players on their team getting All-Rookie honors makes them look less dominate. We believe once Big 10 releases their All-Rookie team NTDP will see at least 3 more and could see upwards to 5 more from NTDP to juice that number up but still the NTDP as a whole has underperformed the past 3 years in regards to freshman year success. “I believe the order is correct in regards to weighting going from NTDP at the top to USHL to BCHL to NAHL to AJHL to HS/Prep, etc.” said Collins. “However, the differentials are what need tweaking because in 2005-2015 data while the league rank was the same, it was in general closer to one another where now we are seeing the USHL and BCHL pulling away and that needs to be reflected in the weighting system. The difference between a middle of the road BCHL team and a middle of the road NAHL or CCHL or NCDC is quite different today where it wasn’t 5 or 10 years ago.”
Part III: Star Rating Factor
The NZ Star Rating system is the most indicative of the three metrics in predicting future success. The star rating is a ranking system of a player’s CURRENT ability in relation to other players in that age group across North America. There are, on average, less than a handful of 5-star prospects entering NCAA each year; like Jack Dugan for example out of Providence was our highest rated 1998 Born Prospect two years ago but was a 4.75 star rated player. To give that some context a 5.0 star 1998 prospect was Clayton Keller who was headed into his NHL rookie year when Dugan was headed into his NCAA freshman year.
However, it is important to understand that the star rating by itself doesn’t tell the full story and it stops after they go to school so a 3.75 player in junior could go to college, get on a weight program and develop with great coaching to become a 4.0 or 4.25 while the reverse could happen to a 4.25 prospect out of junior who digresses when he’s given less playing time and has less confidence and can’t translate his game. Another factor here is age; a 23 year old 3.75 star prospect in his third year in the league is likely better today than the 18 year old 4.5 star prospect coming into his freshman year. Below we will break down the different star ratings were of players before they made it to college and look for patterns.
Table #9 All-League Selctions Broken Down by NZ Amateur Star Rating
| First Team | 3.5 | 3.75 | 4 | 4.25 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 5 |
| NCHC | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| ECAC | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| WCHA | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 2 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| Second Team | 3.5 | 3.75 | 4 | 4.25 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 5 |
| NCHC | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| ECAC | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| WCHA | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 3 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 1 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 |
| Third Team | 3.5 | 3.75 | 4 | 4.25 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 5 |
| NCHC | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Hockey East | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| ECAC | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| WCHA | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 5 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 1 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Rookie Team | 3.5 | 3.75 | 4 | 4.25 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 5 |
| NCHC | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Hockey East | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| ECAC | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| WCHA | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Atlantic | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 1 | 14 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
Table #10 All-League Cumulative Data by NZ Amateur Star Rating
| 3.5 | 3.75 | 4 | 4.25 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 5 | |
| Total | 10 | 27 | 21 | 12 | 14 | 5 | 4 |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 3 | 8 | 15 | 7 | 14 | 5 | 4 |
| WCHA/Atlantic | 7 | 19 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3.5 | 3.75 | 4 | 4.25 | 4.5 | 4.75 | 5 | |
| Total | 10.75% | 29.03% | 22.58% | 12.90% | 15.05% | 5.38% | 4.30% |
| ECAC/HE/NCHC | 5.36% | 14.29% | 26.79% | 12.50% | 25.00% | 8.93% | 7.14% |
| WCHA/Atlantic | 18.92% | 51.35% | 16.22% | 13.51% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Again, we are seeing the same patterns we saw in age factor where the ECAC/HE/NCHC are recruiting younger and more talented players as 40% of their talent pool in all-league are from 4.50 – 5.0 star prospects whereas the WCHA/Atlantic are recruiting older, lesser rated prospects where 51% of their prospects are 3.75’s and 70% are between 3.5-3.75. They have no prospects over 4.25’s which makes sense because 4.25 star prospects and higher will not be 20 and 21 year old freshman typically; they are likely to be 18 and 19 year old freshman.
Another important factor to keep in mind is availability; while there are only 23 prospects ranked 4.5 or higher out of the 93 prospects; this is because 4.5 star or higher represent less than 4% of the NCAA DI population so the fact they represent 25% of all conferences is impressive. Not only that, but once Big 10 releases their all-conference teams those numbers could get up to 35%.
Star Rating Conclusion
We see the highest number of selections at the 3.75 and 4.0 star ratings which makes sense because those two star ratings encompass over 65% of the NCAA DI player pool so its reflective here where they represent 51% of the All-League selections. Also, the 3.75 and 4.0 star prospects are mostly seniors and juniors; which is relevant because players ranked at that level prior to NCAA don’t typically have the early departures to pro hockey the way 4.25-5.0 star prospects do, meaning they stay all four years of college. Jack Eichel for example is a 1996; which would make him a typical junior or senior in half the NCAA leagues. If BU didn’t lose anyone to the NHL, their team this past season would have had Clayton Keller, Dante Fabbro, Chad Krys, Joel Farabee and Shane Bowers. So for some programs early departures have a real impact which is the “risk” of recruiting 4.5 star prospects or better.
What is next for the Neutral Zone Recruting Class Rankings:
In this study we have analyzed the data; we have looked at where the best players in their respective leagues came from, what their age was and what they were rated by NZ before playing NCAA hockey. That analysis showed several interesting facts; however we focus on three main findings in this report.
- Age Data showed that despite the freshman success of the younger players (18-19 year old freshman), 85 of 93 All-League selections between First and Third Teams were 20 year olds or older. Therefore, despite young top end talent; they aren’t the best players in their respective leagues in their rookie year.
- Pre-NCAA League Data showed that over 70% of the All-League selections came out of 2 leagues: USHL (50%) and BCHL (22%). Currently the difference in weight between say the AJHL and USHL is about 18% and recent data shows that gaps needs to be far more significant.
- Star Rating Data because it is tied to a players age ahs a strong correlation to what we see in age data study and while All Rookie Teams are dominated by younger prospects in most leagues; the overall highest number for selections from First-Third Teams are 3.75 and 4.0 star prospects aged 22-24. This shows the value of four-year college players as we can see clearly that time in the league matters in relation to a players growth and performance. To a lesser extent the star rating data shows the impact of early departures from the top echelon players (4.5 star and above) has on the elite programs.
“We have more work to be done, we have to analyze all the CHL Draft Ranks and we need to analyze NCAA DIII as well,” admitted Collins. “I believe given the most recent 5 years’ worth of data that we will be increasing the weight age plays in performance and I believe we’ll be widening the talent margin between leagues. These are two areas that appear to be misrepresented in our current algorithm. There has been a shift in junior hockey behavior where the best players are leaving their hometowns and local leagues to play in the USHL or BCHL and the talent margin between those leagues the next three have widened and the margin between the mid tier and bottom tier junior leagues has especially widened and that isn’t accurately reflected in our current algorithm.”
Neutral Zone will be doing more analysis over the next month and hopes to have an updated algorithm by June 1st for the NCAA/CHL recruiting and draft classes.
