With leagues around the world winding down their seasons, and the 2025 NHL Draft just a month and a half out, we are entering draft rankings season. As is typical, NHL Central Scouting was the first major public service to finalize its 2025 NHL Draft ranking. We’ll be watching closely as the reputable lists continue to roll in because we publish a consensus ranking called the “Big Board.” The Big Board usually drops a week or two before the draft.
In the mean time, with all regular-season data in the books, we have our final “data-only” draft prospect watchlist for you. This year we did a preseason watchlist and a midseason version too, if you want to see what things looked like earlier in the process.
The Data Score watchlist
We organize our watchlist by “Data Score,” a rough metric we came up with here at Sound Of Hockey. Data Score begins with the bedrock of an NHL equivalency (“NHLe”). NHLe is a method to compare the scoring proficiency of players in the various professional and junior leagues across the globe. I used Thibaud Chatel’s model, which is the most up-to-date public research in the area. Check out Chatel’s Substack for an in-depth discussion of NHLe. For this project, I used Chatel’s newest model, which has been updated to account for 2024-25 season data, and applied it to player scoring data from the 2024-25 regular season.
From that basic NHLe, I then make adjustments for age, height, and position, as well as a modest upward adjustment to the NHLe for low-scoring, draft-eligible players playing in high-level professional leagues. I then normalize the resulting output and call it the prospect’s “Data Score.” This number no longer projects NHL scoring but is (hopefully) useful in describing the relative strength of prospects. I’ve gone through the methodology in more detail previously here and here.
Answering a few additional questions up front: First, this is a skater-only list. Second, I use a 15-games-played minimum threshold to be included on the watchlist. Third, scoring from international events (such as the World Junior Championship) is not included. Fourth, data from all levels of club play is included in calculating “Data Score.” However, for simplicity, the watchlist below actually displays the scoring data for only the highest league reached by the player. (For example, Radim Mrtka’s line displays his 10 games in the Czech Extraliga, Czechia’s highest pro league, before coming to North America to play in the WHL for the Seattle Thunderbirds and compiling three goals and 32 assists in 43 games.)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don’t consider this a prospect “ranking” in the traditional sense. I am not engaging in the challenging process of subjective prospect-to-prospect comparison here. Instead, I’m simply providing a list based on scoring and other translatable measures to facilitate further analysis or discussion. I suspect this is how the best-run NHL teams use NHLe data or other data-based measures.
Without further ado, here are the top-200 first-time-eligible draft prospects in Data Score:
Here are the top-200 re-draft prospects (prospects that were previously eligible but didn’t get selected) in Data Score:
The full Data Score watchlist is approximately 9000 entries long and will be made available shortly to Sound Of Hockey patrons.
Big picture data takeaways
This draft has solid high-end talent and depth in the forward group playing in the CHL. The Canadian-born class is also solid, generally speaking. It looks relatively weak in most other areas
The very top of the draft is, at best, average. Defenseman Matthew Schaefer and forward Michael Misa are blue chip players, but their data profiles fall short of last year’s top pick, Macklin Celebrini. Indeed, two other players from the 2024 class, Zeev Buium and Zayne Parekh, arguably had better data than anyone here. (To be clear, as a scouting matter, I’d prefer Schaefer to Buium or Parekh.)
The blue line class is also thin at the top. Schaefer is the only blueliner in the top 16 on the watchlist.
The European class is relatively barren, saved only by two Swedish forwards from Djurgårdens IF, Anton Frondell and Victor Eklund, each of whom could go in the top 10. Czechia’s towering defenseman Mrtka may also be drafted in that range, but it wouldn’t be surprising if no other European players get selected in the first round.
Finally, after a strong run, it was a down year from the United States National Team Development Program. At this point, I think it would be an upset if any Program player is drafted in the first round.
Focusing on first-time eligible prospects, the OHL continues to be the top development league. The top four prospects on the watchlist, defenseman Schaefer and forwards Misa, Porter Martone, and Jake O’Brien, all hail from the OHL. The OHL also has 30 of the top 200 first-time-eligible players on the watchlist, more than any other league. The WHL tracks in second with two top players, Ben Kindel and Cole Reschny, checking in at Nos. 5 and 6 on the watchlist, and 29 players overall on the list. The first non-CHL player on the watchlist is NCAA forward James Hagens at No. 7.
Breaking down the first-time eligible prospects by nationality, Canada has the most prospects by far in terms of volume (74 of 200) and total “Data Score” value. The United States trails by a significant margin and is followed by Russia, Sweden, and Finland, in that order.
Prospects notes
As mentioned, one use of the watchlist is to identify players that lack public buzz and notoriety as potentially undervalued targets. A few names stand out at the top. Kindel is No. 5 of the watchlist, despite being ranked 21st among North American skaters by NHL Central Scouting. Likewise, Reschny is No. 6 on the watchlist and No. 25 for NHL Central Scouting. Both players are 5-foot-10 and likely fall into the “size concern” category, but both have been highly active and engaged as junior players (though in slightly different ways). Each could be a nice value for a team in the mid-to-late first round.
Most notable, perhaps, are two BCHL players, Jeremy Loranger and Kale Dach, who check in at 16 and 18 on the watchlist, respectively. Loranger led the BCHL in scoring with 105 points, which was the fifth-most by a BCHL player in the last 15 years. His production puts him among the company of Bradly Nadeau, Tyson Jost, Alex Newhook, and Kent Johnson. Even so, he is barely ranked by most public sources. Size will certainly be an issue for Loranger (5-foot-8), but the data likely warrants at least a flyer pick. If teams are willing to roll the dice on the 5-foot-7 Cameron Schmidt (No. 43 for NHL Central Scouting), they should at least consider Loranger too.
Dach has bit more size (5-foot-11) and a very strong BCHL scoring profile (87 points, second in the BCHL). Even so, he, too, may be significantly undervalued by NHL Central Scouting, which has him as the No. 136 North American skater. The data suggests there may be more there.
What’s next?
Our 2025 NHL Draft coverage is just getting into gear here at Sound Of Hockey. As the draft gets closer, we’re planning to publish the Big Board, a seven-round Seattle Kraken mock draft, and much more. If you need more in the short term, check out our recent first-round mock draft, our post-Lottery analysis of five players who could be available to the Kraken at the No. 8 overall pick, or just drop us a question or comment below. You can also reach us on X @deepseahockey or @sound_hockey or on BlueSky @deepseahockey or @soundofhockey.com.
Header photo of Seattle Thunderbirds defenseman Radim Mrtka taken by Brian Liesse, courtesy Seattle Thunderbirds.
Curtis Isacke
Curtis is a Sound Of Hockey contributor and member of the Kraken press corps. Curtis is an attorney by day, and he has read the NHL collective bargaining agreement and bylaws so you don’t have to. He can be found analyzing the Kraken, NHL Draft, and other hockey topics on Twitter and Bluesky @deepseahockey.
I like Dach at the 2nd round level, if he is still there. He has speed and size at such a young age. I do not consider scoring at such a young age at this point.
Hagens, Desnoyers, and Frondell are all way lower on this list than the consensus draft lists that I’ve seen, plus I haven’t even heard of Kindel. The Kraken evidently use this type of data evaluation in their drafting, so maybe that’s a name I should get familiar with….
I don’t know… Buium was No.2 on last year’s list and they passed on him at No.8… with an obvious need for a defenseman.
Agreed. I don’t think Seattle drafts based on data at the top. I think they look to consensus from their scouts and analysts at the top of the draft. Later in the draft (or at times in the mid-rounds) my impression is that they do go for scoring data players more heavily than your average team. Think Caswell and Fibigr last year. But the first pick is a different story.
So is Kindel a player we should be looking at for No.38 overall or is he someone whose very likely to fall between Seattle’s picks?
I can’t see a 1.5+ ppg draft year WHL player making it out the first round, particularly one who plays good defense like Kindel. Jagger Firkus may have had a better offensive reputation coming out but he was thought of as a big slider when he landed in the early second round with 1.2 ppg in his draft year.
Looks like Simon Wang isn’t even in your top 200. Have seen others have him suggested to be a 2nd rounder or late 1st even.
Also way higher on Kindel than other models as others have noted.
I actually haven’t watched Wang yet. I have one of his OHL games in the queue to get to. But I understand from other scouting reports that there is a lot to recommend him. That said, in a scoring-based model, <.6 ppg in 38 OJHL games, followed by 2 pts in 32 OHL games won't get him ranked in the top-200. Doesn't mean he can't/won't succeed as a big defensive defenseman with some good mobility, though. Logan Hensler is another example. He'll probably go high, but it won't be because of his draft year scoring.
I think Wang will take a long time to develop no matter what. So makes sense that with this model those type of prospects will fall through the cracks. I’m sure teams look at several different models when scouting players.
The defensemen is something I’ve been wondering about in these numbers… and with analytics in general. As mentioned, they’re not “rankings”, but I feel like more and more the measure of defensemen is being driven by scoring. I recognize there are adjustments here for multiple dimensions, but ultimately the “Data Score” seems to be quantified by scoring proficiency.
For me, I think two examples somewhat at the extremes illustrate the shortcomings of this analysis for some defensemen.
Jacob Slavin – just six goals and 27 points in 80 games this season… but widely regarded as one of the very best defensemen in the league.
Lane Hutson – five points in five games in the playoffs and as Luszczyszyn was raving about… a 60%+ expected goals share. However, he didn’t play on the PK, his offensive zone starts were around 90%, o-zone faceoffs were around 75%… and yet he still finished dash five. I know +/- has it’s flaws, but when the teams TOI leader is a defenseman who doesn’t play defense, it starts to make sense that folks around the league were saying to Pronman, “can you win with that guy”, meaning can you win in the playoffs… and yet he’s gonna win the Calder.
I’m curious about the idea of “positionless hockey”, but I’m not convinced defensemen don’t need to worry about defense.
Just some random thoughts…
Go Kraken!!!
I lot of good thoughts here. My main reaction is to agree. As much I want to caveat it by saying that this list is not meant as a “ranking,” and it’s just to supplement scouting work, we need to guard against de-valuing players who may have NHL-translatable traits unrelated to scoring.
The only footnote I put on it is this. Any attempt at projection for 17, 18 year olds is highly imperfect. This one included. There is research to suggest, though, that drafting a low-scoring “defensive” defensemen results in a lower hit rate than other profiles. The explanations I’ve seen for this tend to focus innate offensive feel/instincts. You either have it or you don’t, in some sense. Whereas defense can be more of an acquired skill. So players who can’t/don’t score at the junior levels are much more likely to be unusable for offensive reasons at the professional level. On the other hand, players who have more offense younger can lose some of it as they progress through the ranks and still be useful, provided they make strides in their defensive game. There are a lot of assumptions/generalities in there, and it’s fair, I think, to not agree with all of them. But that is theory behind using junior scoring data even when evaluating draft-eligible defensemen.
All of that said, again, if you have good scouting (or other data) reasons to take a defensive defenseman, I don’t think this kind of metric should stand in the way of that.
This sounds exactly right and seems consistent with the idea that defensemen take longer to develop. I belive I’ve heard you mention the hit rate on forwards towards at the top of the draft is higher than defensemen… and again that fits. Unfortunately, with the Kraken they’ve taken so few D it’s difficult to evaluate their “scouting” of the position, but if Evans is a case, they seem better than average.
Let Curtis Cook! As always, thanks for the analysis Curtis.
I was wondering if there would be any merit in trying to add an additional year of data to your model. Certainly going another year into the past for teenage players starts to get dicey in terms of how predictive it would be. But I also feel like one year of data could overemphasize someone having one good (or bad) year as opposed to revealing their true talent level. Case in point, I’ll have to take the scouting’s word that Schaefer is a sure-thing because the data score is relying on a really small sample this year (17 games) and the results last year weren’t that remarkable compared to his peers (17 points in 56 games).
Maybe, with appropriate discounting, incorporating data from 2 years could provide more insight into who might be an interesting pick after having a poorly timed down year right before the draft (or who to have skepticism about after an unexpectedly good year).
Very good thought. In fact, this was my plan for this year actually. Unfortunately, my data gathering from last season was lacking in some ways, and I didn’t want to circle back and re-create that work. However, it is my goal for future versions to have multiple years of data for the “Data Score.”