Sam Gagner - #2 In The Oilers Top 25 Under 25
Player development is not a linear function. It doesn't fit into a normal distribution, either. For most players, developing into an effective NHL player is a process marked by incremental improvements in the smallest parts of their games. Along the way, progress is often impeded by factors like injuries, trades, promotions, league changes, military service, coaching, coaching changes and family matters. Most of all, player development is affected by NHL teams and personnel management. There's no way to put a nice bow on a box and present it as player development, in fact, player development is like a cubist painting - messy, chaotic, broken and random.
Sam Gagner is a wonderful player. He's had a rocky start to his career, because as my esteemed colleague Jonathan Willis notes "If this were a real NHL team with real NHL management, he'd still have at least a year left in his ELC." Gagner was rushed into the NHL in order to please a cranky fan base, a fan base forced to watch the teams heart shipped away to Long Island. Since then Gagner has played a regular role on all four lines, played with rookies and veterans, killed penalties, manned the power play, required to play with more heart, more grit, more skill, and more toughness, but always in a constant state of flux. Gagner is currently playing his fourth professional season under his third coach and third group of assistant coaches and fifth general manager.
Despite all of this, Gagner has slowly progressed as a professional. Though his faceoff percentage continues to lag, the rest of his game is NHL quality. He's only 21 years old already has 270 NHL games under his belt, though, as described above, those games have been played for a very bad franchise in a tempestuous era.
Sam Gagner's progression is obvious here. His qualcomp is increasing each year and his raw Corsi numbers aren't suffering...So Penner, Gagner and Hemsky are the only guys on the team constantly pushing play up the ice, and at the same time moving their plots to the right of the graph. Given their success as a line last season, it seems that these three may make a formidable first line.
Gagner has held serve this time around in second place as Ben has bumped him up a spot, Bruce dropped him two spots, Jonathan dropped him a spot and Scott held stead in second. In the comments of Taylor Hall's summer rankings post, I said "The decision between Gagner and Hall was the most difficult of the list for me..." and it remains so. Because of that, I moved Gagner into a tie for first.
Gagner's stock has plummeted on the Oilers Fan Opinion Exchange, with some very bright people asking to trade the young center. With his stock at an all-time low, why am I moving him up the ladder? The answer is simple - comparables.
Lowetide likes Vincent Damphousse and Doug GIlmour, Jonathan has Jim Fox, Bobby Carpenter, Vincent Damphousse, Pat Falloon, or Tim Connolly in his comparable list and all are interesting comparisons. Regular reader Matt.N likes Sam's dad Dave as a comparable. In September, I took a different approach to statistical comps for Gagner. Riffing off of Jonathan's wonderful normalization work, I chose to normalize every forward in NHL history for era effects and then find all forwards under the age of 21 that were in the range (+/- 15% of P/G) of Gagner in one of their three NHL seasons, and didn't go terribly off of the rails or take off towards superstardom shortly thereafter. Height be damned, 1980 be damned, who can we find for Gagner that matches up solely by the math?
The list was interesting and included some names that most wouldn't associate with Gagner: Kirk Muller, Dan Quinn, Jeremy Roenick, Bobby Carpenter, Bobby Clarke, Dave Keon, Brian Bellows, Rod Brind'Amour, Vincent Damphousse, Peter Zezel, and Doug Gilmour. Three of them stood out for being very close statistical matches for Gagner - Carpenter, Keon and Clarke. In that article I wrote:
Mention Bobby Clarke and Sam Gagner in the same breath and there is a certain portion of the Oilers' fanbase that may faint. However, it is Clarke's 21-year-old season that is within striking distance for Gagner in 2011. In order to keep pace with Keon and Carpenter, Gagner would have to post an actual, non-adjusted season similar to 76 GP, 19G - 48A for a total of 67 points. To keep pace with Clarke, Gagner would need 76 GP, 18G - 37A for 55 points.
A quick check of Gagner's numbers shows him with 29 points in 49 games. To match Clarke's 55 points, Gagner would need to score 26 points in his last 33 games, a number certainly attainable with good health for Ales Hemsky, Dustin Penner and Shawn Horcoff.
Sam Gagner is a 21-year-old forward with 270 NHL games on his resume. He's improved his underlying numbers during each of his professional seasons and he's well within striking distance of Bobby Clarke's traditional stats. That's plenty of evidence to support his selection as the number two player in the organization under the age of 25. Imagine if the Oilers wouldn't have mangled his development.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
First of all, great series.
You go into very good and thoughtful detail that few do.
I realize that you have more of a history of watching and tracking these guys, but ranking 89 over 14 by a couple basic measures seems wrong.
Scoring stats for 89 and 14 for this year: (among forwards having played at least 20 games)
QC
89 – 8/14
14- 2/14
QT
89- 3/14
14- 7/14
5v5 +/- per 60
89- 11/14
14- 8/14
So 14 plays tougher comp with lesser help and comes out ahead.
Relative Corsi stats for 89 and 14 this year:
QC
89- 4/14
14- 2/14
QT
89- 5/14
14- 2/14
RelCor
89- 4/14
14- 2/14
89 fares better by this metric, but still comes out behind 14.
14 has a couple of things going for him vs. 89 in regards to these metrics.
1) He’s played more with 10, which helps in some of these stats
2) He’s played more with 4, who shoots a lot which really helps the corsi stats.
I like 89 a lot, but I like 14 even more. My “saw him good” is watching him make the right play with the puck more often than most Oilers in all zones. He also can hold the puck until the very last moment, which buys him very valuable seconds. I think he is better than 89 in both of these factors.
I put some stock, but not as much as most into NHL games played. I actually think that physical and emotional maturity can be much more important. I think that games played in the lesser leagues can count as much as NHL games in terms of “experience”, and that actual age (as it correlates to emotional and physical maturity) plays a more important part in the progress of a player.
14 is a little younger than 89 and has played less NHL games, but is putting up some superior numbers, which is also why I rate him ahead of 89.
For me, the decision to put Gagner ahead of Eberle had a lot to do with what Gagner has been able to do over a longer period of time. Eberle has had a fantastic start and deserves to be credited for that, but we’re still only talking about forty or so games, and that’s just not enough time for me to feel comfortable slotting him ahead of a player with Gagner’s skill level who’s been tracking quite well over three and a half NHL seasons.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 1, 2011 12:51 AM MST up reply actions
I missed zone starts in the above.
89 is given better starting position, but also finishes better.
Ozone starts:
89 – 50.5 (5/14)
14- 48.2 (10/14)
Ozone finish:
89- 53.5 (2/14)
14- 49.1 (7/14)
Difference
89 +3.0% (too lazy to rank)
14 +0.90% (too lazy to rank)
I think that this again shows that 14 is getting more “veteran” ice time than 89, but 89 is still making good hay.
With regard to the Zone Shift stuff, it’s good to remember that the numbers have a tendency to swing towards 50% (I think the expected regression is about 70% based on some work Bruce has done), so Gagner’s number is actually quite a bit better relative to expectation. In fact, when he look at what’s expected (Gagner is expected to have a ZF of 50.2% and Eberle is expected to have a ZF of 49.3%), Gagner is beating his number substantially, while Eberle doesn’t quite get to the expected level (although the difference is tiny).
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 1, 2011 12:48 AM MST up reply actions
To clarify regarding NHL game experience and lesser league experience.
There is certainly a steep learning curve when a player hits the NHL.
The emotional and physical maturity of the player determines where on the curve that the player starts learning.
Some get comfortable in 50 games, some never get comfortable. (yes JFJ, we are speaking of you. Million dollar body, 5 cent head)
Derek If i remember correctly, you system of ranking is based on whether who would win a trade if a player A is traded for player B no?
Then you think that Hall and Gagner are interchangeable and will be a fair trade?
Rebuild is a convenient excuse for GMs who dont wish to do their jobs
Nope. That’s Jonathan’s system, I believe.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I think it’s mine actually, although it’s a bit more complicated. I always ask, “if these two players were both RFA’s today (no arb. rights and q.o. has been rejected), and were traded for one another, which side of the trade would I want to be on.” Of course, there’s other criteria that goes into making that decision, but that’s the “bottom line” question.
Abney, Abney, oh why TF did we have to pick Abney?
by Scott Reynolds on Feb 1, 2011 1:44 PM MST up reply actions

by 


























