The Progression of Sam Gagner: A Comparative Approach
Photo by Lisa McRitchie, All rights reserved.
Sam Gagner is probably one of the Oilers' more controversial players among the fanbase: he's described as everything from a future first line centre to an expendable smurf. His detractors point out that he's played four years in the league and has only just matched his rookie year's scoring rate, while his boosters remind us that he's only twenty-one years-old.
(I've adopted both positions, depending on my mood and who I was trying to antagonize, so I think I can evaluate this without bias.)
How has Sam Gagner's career path to date compared to those of other players to enter the league at eighteen? A fellow named Michael provided some food for thought over at Lowetide by comparing Gagner's rookie season to those of players who entered the league at the same age. I'll replicate and follow up on his work after the jump.
Since the 1994-1995 season, twenty-four forwards have played a minimum of thirty games in the NHL as eighteen year-olds (defined as playing during the season in which they would be eighteen years-old February 1). This is an elite crew, and Sam Gagner's eighteen year old season makes him look like a giant among...slightly smaller giants, I guess. Here are the twenty-four, sorted in descending order of points per game:
| Player | P/G |
| Sidney Crosby | 1.26 |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | 0.78 |
| Jeff Skinner | 0.74 |
| Sam Gagner | 0.62 |
| Steven Stamkos | 0.58 |
| Patrice Bergeron | 0.55 |
| Rick Nash | 0.53 |
| Jeff Friesen | 0.52 |
| Jordan Staal | 0.52 |
| Marian Gaborik | 0.51 |
| Patrick Marleau | 0.43 |
| Tim Connolly | 0.42 |
| Pierre-Marc Bouchard | 0.40 |
| Nathan Horton | 0.40 |
| Evander Kane | 0.39 |
| Radek Dvorak | 0.35 |
| Vincent Lecavalier | 0.34 |
| Ryan O`Reilly | 0.32 |
| Dainius Zubrus | 0.31 |
| Manny Malhotra | 0.22 |
| Scott Hartnell | 0.21 |
| Brent Burns | 0.17 |
| Jason Wiemer | 0.14 |
| Joe Thornton | 0.13 |
There is no shame in being behind Sidney Crosby, Ilya Kovalchuk, or Jeff Skinner, and Gagner's ahead of some pretty terrific players. On the other hand, one cannot help but to look at where Joe Thornton is on the list and suspect that performance as an eighteen year old may not be the ideal predictor of one's overall career path. Onward.
The following is all players who played at least thirty games during their nineteen year-old season, for whom that season was their second in the league (i.e. approximately the same group as above, plus a few who didn't clear the thirty game threshold in their first year, minus a few who didn't clear it in their second year or who have yet to play a second year).
Players in green are those who were ahead of Gagner on the last list; those in red were behind him.
| Player | P/G |
| Sidney Crosby | 1.52 |
| Steven Stamkos | 1.16 |
| Marian Gaborik | 0.86 |
| Vincent Lecavalier | 0.84 |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | 0.83 |
| Alexandre Daigle | 0.79 |
| Rick Nash | 0.71 |
| Evander Kane | 0.61 |
| Chris Gratton | 0.59 |
| Jeff Friesen | 0.58 |
| Patrick Marleau | 0.56 |
| Scott Hartnell | 0.55 |
| Sam Gagner | 0.54 |
| Joe Thornton | 0.51 |
| Tim Connolly | 0.5 |
| Radek Dvorak | 0.5 |
| Dainius Zubrus | 0.48 |
| David Legwand | 0.39 |
| Oleg Saprykin | 0.39 |
| Pierre-Marc Bouchard | 0.36 |
| Ryan O`Reilly | 0.36 |
| Jordan Staal | 0.34 |
| Kyle Turris | 0.32 |
| Stephen Weiss | 0.27 |
| Jason Wiemer | 0.27 |
| Ryan Smyth | 0.23 |
| Richard Park | 0.18 |
This table is slightly less encouraging: of the sixteen players behind Gagner on the last list who also appear on this one, fully half have passed him. Moreover, we can see a clear division between the two: by and large, the red players above Gagner went on to excel in the league as offensive talents, while those below him (Joe Thornton and Jordan Staal excepted) did not. Meanwhile, the guys who were above him as eighteen year olds are still above him, except more so.
When we look at the seasons of twenty year-old third year players, the results are more heartening:
| Player | P/G |
| Sidney Crosby | 1.36 |
| Steven Stamkos | 1.14 |
| Ilya Kovalchuk | 1.07 |
| Marian Gaborik | 0.8 |
| Jeff Friesen | 0.76 |
| Vincent Lecavalier | 0.75 |
| Ryan Smyth | 0.74 |
| Joe Thornton | 0.74 |
| Sam Gagner | 0.60 |
| Jordan Staal | 0.6 |
| Stephen Weiss | 0.58 |
| Radek Dvorak | 0.56 |
| Tim Connolly | 0.55 |
| David Legwand | 0.51 |
| Patrick Marleau | 0.49 |
| Chris Gratton | 0.46 |
| Sergei Krivokrasov | 0.46 |
| Scott Hartnell | 0.41 |
| Alexandre Daigle | 0.34 |
| Manny Malhotra | 0.24 |
| Jason Wiemer | 0.22 |
| Dainius Zubrus | 0.20 |
| Wayne Primeau | 0.13 |
The two players who have passed Gagner turned out pretty well, so no shame tracking worse than them. No shame in being tied with Jordan Staal, either, though Staal's production took a big jump from his second year to his third, and Gagner's didn't. Meanwhile, Gagner himself passed four: we might not be too excited that he's tracking better than Alexandre Daigle at this point, but that jump over Patrick Marleau looks pretty interesting - we'll have to keep an eye on that.
Twenty-one year old fourth year players:
| Player | P/G |
| Sidney Crosby | 1.34 |
| Joe Thornton | 0.99 |
| Jeff Friesen | 0.80 |
| Chris Gratton | 0.76 |
| Patrick Poulin | 0.67 |
| Patrick Marleau | 0.64 |
| Alexandre Daigle | 0.62 |
| Marian Gaborik | 0.62 |
| Sam Gagner | 0.62 |
| Jordan Staal | 0.60 |
| Dainius Zubrus | 0.58 |
| Scott Hartnell | 0.56 |
| Radek Dvorak | 0.52 |
| Ryan Smyth | 0.51 |
| Vincent Lecavalier | 0.49 |
| David Legwand | 0.48 |
| Jason Allison | 0.47 |
| Michal Grosek | 0.44 |
| Oleg Saprykin | 0.44 |
| Curtis Brown | 0.38 |
| Sergei Krivokrasov | 0.35 |
| Tim Connolly | 0.31 |
| Jason Wiemer | 0.28 |
| Martin Lapointe | 0.26 |
| Manny Malhotra | 0.19 |
| Wayne Primeau | 0.17 |
This is a mixed bag. It's certainly a positive thing that Gagner's jumped back ahead of Ryan Smyth and Vincent Lecavalier, both of whom would count as pretty optimistic comps (in terms of total output, not playing style). On the other hand, his leap-frogging of Daigle and Marleau was short-lived, as both are back above him - likewise Chris Gratton, another player who was ahead of Gagner as a nineteen year-old but behind him as a twenty year-old. Interestingly, Gagner is still tracking very closely with Jordan Staal.
Where did these players go from there? I've gone ahead and pulled their twenty-two year-old seasons, for the sake of comparison. I've also included Gagner's twenty-one year-old season, not because I expect his twenty-two year-old season to be identical, but to provide some kind of visual linkage between this chart and the preceding ones.
| Player | P/G |
| Jaromir Jagr | 1.46 |
| Sidney Crosby | 1.35 |
| Owen Nolan | 1.07 |
| Joe Thornton | 1.03 |
| Jason Allison | 1.02 |
| Vincent Lecavalier | 0.98 |
| Chris Gratton | 0.76 |
| David Legwand | 0.75 |
| Jeff Friesen | 0.73 |
| Geoff Sanderson | 0.7 |
| Jordan Staal | 0.7 |
| Radek Dvorak | 0.62 |
| Sam Gagner | 0.62 |
| Curtis Brown | 0.6 |
| Alexandre Daigle | 0.56 |
| Patrick Marleau | 0.56 |
| Michal Grosek | 0.45 |
| Ryan Smyth | 0.44 |
| Dainius Zubrus | 0.43 |
| Oleg Saprykin | 0.42 |
| Sergei Krivokrasov | 0.36 |
| Patrick Poulin | 0.35 |
| Rico Fata | 0.3 |
| Jason Wiemer | 0.27 |
| Wayne Primeau | 0.19 |
| Manny Malhotra | 0.17 |
| Martin Lapointe | 0.16 |
(If you're wondering where Jagr, Nolan, and Sanderson came from all of a sudden, it's because I'm only using data since 1994-1995, and their comparator seasons for the previous tables took place before that. As such, they're not really useful comparators, as we only have one data point. Also because, in most cases, they were beating the tar out of Sam Gagner at this point in their careers.)
Staal's gained some clearance on Gagner's twenty-one year old season, but his performance is within the range of reasonable expectations on Gagner next year. Lecavalier's jumped well ahead, but we all knew that was coming. To me, the two most interesting names in this chart are, again, Patrick Marleau and Alexandre Daigle, both of whom fell behind Gagner's twenty-one year old season. Both of those players alternated perfectly between being ahead of Gagner and behind him, a fact which I think tells us something significant: even this far into his career, Sam Gagner could be Patrick Marleau or he could be Alexandre Daigle (though Daigle's flameout by most accounts had something to do with his personality, so we'll cross our fingers that Gagner can avoid that fate). Those are probably the outer markers. Gagner could also be the guy who matched Gagner's twenty-one year old clip at twenty-two, Radek Dvorak, which would be a happier thought if we weren't using exclusively offensive metrics to reach that finding. Or he could be Jordan Staal.
We set out to figure out who was right between the doubters and the boosters, and the only answer we've found is that we don't know yet (which, as I understand it, makes me right for arguing both sides). One point in the boosters' favour, however, is their emphasis on his age: if this exercise has shown us anything, it's that even with five years' experience under their belts, players' careers are not set in stone at the age of twenty-two. In the critics' defense, since his second season Gagner's fluctuated between ninth and thirteenth in a comparator group that remained roughly the same size; the promise of his rookie season seems very unlikely to be realized.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On Further Analysis
I think that it is worth noting that if divide all of the players in the lists by their weights, and then multiply that number by the position that their team finished in the standings, and then multiply that number again by the average attendance in percent for the teams they played for – that Sam Gagner finishes first in every year!
I think that is a statistic that cannot be ignored!
by book!e on Apr 4, 2011 12:08 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Interesting stuff. Of course, comparison by points alone is pretty one-dimensional. Jordan Staal for example has been cast in a defensive role playing with plugs against opposition toughs, getting more PK time than PP time, is way bigger, better on faceoffs, yada yada. Meanwhile Sam Gagner is a RH shot …
Writer for The Cult of Hockey, The Copper & Blue, and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
All certainly true – that’s part of why I tried to look at specific players, so we could bear that sort of thing in mind. I actually thought that Marleau was very much an offense-first guy, though after checking I see that he’s first among Sharks’ forwards (20 games minimum) in PK TOI/60 (as compared to third in PP TOI/60), which suggests that I may have been mistaken there, and provides a little less reason for optimism that Gagner will turn into him.
A complete analysis would take into account the player’s role (as measured by QualComp, QualTeam, situational icetime, and all the rest), but such an analysis cannot be accommodated within my amateurishness.
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 4, 2011 11:17 AM MDT up reply actions
Sam Gagner – 4 years in and we still don’t know what you are?
The bigger question is – considering what we could get for him considering his age and moderate success, would it be worthwhile to trade him before we know what he is? How much do you need to be offered to consider trading him now?
That’s one of many questions about Sam Gagner which I’m not confident in my ability to answer. That man is a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma, all stuffed into a smurf’s body.
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 4, 2011 2:38 PM MDT up reply actions
I think that is the real question. Looking at the players on that list, after 4 years I think we, for the most part, knew what they were. We knew what they were good at, for the most part, and we knew where they were trending. With Gagner, we don’t. How can that be?
Part of that, I think, is the way the Oilers use him. If we (a) had a real offensive centre and (b) played him on the wing with said centre we might know by now if we have Martin St. Louis-lite. And that’s about the absolute best we could have hope for given his size. St. Louis can score and can be creative with the puck, both things we hoped Gagner can do. But by playing the wing, St. Louis doesn’t have to line up against 6’4" centres and win draws or start plays. He only needs to use his skills and smarts to advance the flow. Granted, he has benefited by playing with Vinnie, Richards, and Stamkos, but that has allowed him to develop as an effective winger in a big man’s game.
Not only has Gagner not had that type of opportunity, my view is he has been set up to fail. Not necessarily on purpose, but by the hand the Oilers’ coaching staff has been dealt through lack of depth at centre and injuries to players like Horcoff for long stretches. He does not appear to be a premium centre in the NHL. The role asks too much of him given his physical limitations (size, strenght, foot speed).
I admit, I may be somewhat biased. Going into the draft, I was hoping for Alzner or Voracek. Alzner was gone (damn Caps) but Voracek was on the board). Interesting to compare his last three seasons to Gagner, especially since he too has played on a weak team with no real offensive centre.
Voracek:
2008-09 0.48
2009-10 0.62
2010-11 0.60
Gagner
2008-09 0.54
2009-10 0.60
2010-11 0.62
No significant differences, except, of course Gagner has one more season under his belt (and therefore one would hope better), is one year closer to free agency, and is 30 pounds lighter. Oh, and Gagner seems to play about 16 games less per season.
Wonder if we could flip him to Columbus for Voracek, the player we should have taken? I hear they are still looking for centres.
I think you make some good points, and I’d do the Gagner for Voracek deal for basically the reasons that you identify, but I take issue with “after 4 years I think we, for the most part, knew what they were”. In their fourth years, Marleau and Daigle were producing at the same rate offensively. So were Smyth and Dvorak.
Any trade right now involving Sam Gagner would be a risk for both sides: the Oilers would be running the risk that he’d turn out to be a first line centre (I maintain that that’s still a possibility, though I sure wouldn’t put money on it at even odds) and the team acquiring would be running the risk that he’d be a small, injury prone, skill player who can only produce against soft opposition. We still don’t know what Sam Gagner is, and I don’t think that’s telling.
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 5, 2011 7:37 PM MDT up reply actions
4 years in I think it was well known Daigle was an idiot, Marleau wore the mantle of top dog like an anchor and was good but not great (at least until paired with Thornton, who could take the anchor from him) , Smyth could score dirty goals but was not a playmaker and Dvorak was topped out. Smyth might be the exception on those 4, as I have less clear memories of when his game became evident.
I agree any trade would be risky. Put Gagner with Thornton, Vinnie, Kopitar, Carter, Bergeron/Krecji, Richards, or any other top centre and he could explode. And then the masses would be crying fowl how we let him go. Problem is we don’t have a Thornton/Vinnie/Kopitar/Carter/Bergeron/Krecji/Richards to play him with and if we get one, apparently Hemsky will be on one side and Hall on the other. Oilers are in a tough spot on this one.
I think one of the main reasons people hate on Gagner, is exactly what I see when I look at this list. Yes, he puts up points. But look at the guys ahead of him. Crosby. Kovalchuk. Thorton. Gaborik. Smyth. These are all players that played a major role and made a huge impact on thier teams. Gagner, while still keeping up, is not an impact player. Hes second fiddle and hasnt shown (yet) that he will made the next step.
The Gagner supporters will look at this list and tell us hes in great company and look what he might become. Gagner detractors will look at this list and ask why he isnt already there.
Insert Witty Comment Here
Well, he’s never going to be Crosby, Kovalchuk, Thornton, or Gaborik – he was behind the first two from the get-go, and the others passed him early and didn’t look back. But three of those guys are first overall picks</>, and the other was third overall, and all four of them have covered the bet (Gagner looks good compared to Patrick Stefan) – Gagner was never supposed to be as good as those guys, and burdening him with that kind of expectation would be ludicrous.
I don’t see any reason to believe that he couldn’t become as good as Smyth offensively, in a radically different role, since he’s been tracking ahead of Smyth almost all the way down the line. What’s your rationale for saying that he can’t become Ryan Smyth? At 22 there wasn’t necessarily much reason to believe that Ryan Smyth would become Ryan Smyth, either.
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 4, 2011 6:01 PM MDT up reply actions
(If it wasn’t obvious, I messed up the italics on that post – only “first overall picks” is supposed to be italicized.)
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 4, 2011 6:02 PM MDT up reply actions
Gagner detractors will look at this list and ask why he isn’t already there.
To which I respond – three coaches in four years, playing on a team that finished 19th, 21st, 30th, and 30th (probably), and never having a consistently healthy team and linemates likely played a role in why he hasn’t reached those lofty rookie season levels. He might get there and he might not but I wouldn’t bet against him yet.
Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and a frequenter of the time waster that is Twitter.
^ This
It’s hard to make any across the board comparisons because of the teams Gagner has been playing on, inconsistency of coaching and the roles he’s been asked to fill are for the most part not comparable. In all liklihood he would have exceeded 50 points this year and on this team, that would have been a major accomplishment.
Players drafted in the top 10 are supposed to make the players around them better, not the other way around. At least not after 4 years.
I think that is for top 3. After that you should expect good players and not potential elites
without honor, victory is hollow
You don’t necessarily have to be elite to make players around you better.
Going back to 2004 and older to get some track record at the NHL level, we see players in that group that include Suter, Michalek, Vanek, Phaneuf, Coburn, Carter (at 11), Pikanen, Whitney, Bouchard (when healthy), Weiss, Koivu, etc.. These guys either make the players around them better, or at least can hold thier own without being propped up, and I wouldn’t call them “elite”.
I think Sum’s issue is with the phrase “supposed to”. The majority of the guys you mention there have (to my mind) exceeded expectations based on draft number.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 8, 2011 10:16 AM MDT up reply actions
I guess that comes down to definitions. For me, those guys have not exceeded expectations. They aren’t Crosby or Ovechkin and they aren’t holding down third line duty either. If we can’t expect that out of 3-10 that’s pretty sad. If you didn’t beleive that, there is no way, for example, you could make the trade of your 2nd round through 7th round picks for a top 10 pick. That’s not to say they will all pan out that way, but it should be your expectation in my view. Then it becomes expectation x the probability. And if you aren’t meeting that expectation then you ended up on the wrong side of the probability equation.
I will be watching Alzner (2nd full NHL season, I think) and Voracek (4th NHL season) next season to see how they do and if they both step up I think it will say something as much about Sam as the stats do.
Gagner
I dont get your point. You show his avg ppg and it has been at .62 or close to it with the exception of his “sophomore jinx” year where it dropped to .52 or whatever. All your article shows me is that he has been very consistent while playing alongside mediocre players… Dont get me wrong, I dont think he will be our answer for the number 1 center position, but with a good set of wingers, like say Hemsky and Paajarvi I think they can put up some good numbers if they manage to stay healthy… You guys sometimes get way too wrapped up in all your numbers… watch the kid play the game instead of burying your head in the stats page. He has great hockey smarts and is very adept to feeding his wingers… Like I said, i look forward to seeing him play with some actual talent for a full season…. there now, you can go back to your calculators…. geeez..
I fully agree: just because statistics are the dominant tool for examining every other field of human endeavor is no reason to apply them to hockey.
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 5, 2011 3:08 PM MDT up reply actions
Besides that, players aren’t supposed to be “consistent” over their first four years in the league; they’re supposed to improve.
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 5, 2011 3:16 PM MDT up reply actions
And, when it comes to Gagner, what else is there to talk about? That’s my biggest knock on the guy. Even when we talk about Brule, we say, “well, he runs around and bangs out there”, and “he can win face-offs”. When we look at the list (avoiding the superstars) even the guys like Halpern, Staal, and Curtis Brown we could talk about other important factors they bring/brought to the game. I wouldn’t care about his ppg if he could bring similar things to Staal in face-offs, PK, shut-down role. Brown was pretty good defensively as well, if memory serves. If he’s not bringing numbers, what the hell else does Gagner bring?
Was Marleau bringing anything else at 21?* This is me arguing both sides again, because I’m also concerned about a guy who’s basically straight offense stalling offensively. But if we’re looking at what past players have done, that looks like an argument to give up on Patrick Marleau. Or, worse yet, Alex Daigle.
(Marleau’s scoring rates in his first five seasons: 0.43, 0.56, 0.49, 0.64, 0.56.)
*Sincere, as opposed to rhetorical, question: my impression is that he didn’t, but I’m certainly open to being proved wrong. He had size, of course, but was that size doing anything to help the Sharks win games?
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 5, 2011 7:57 PM MDT up reply actions
In 2001/02 Marleau had Ricci, Damphousse, and Selanne providing cover, but generally was not living up to expectations of being the man that would lead the Sharks to the promised land. And that held true until Thornton arrived and the pressure shifted to Thornton. He had 7 years of mediocrity before Thornton showed up. He started developing his PK skills in year 5 and was a second pairing PK forward by year 6 if I am reading the stats right.
The advantage Marleau had was with Damphousee and Ricci around, he didn’t need to bring much else and wasn’t put into the same situations as Sam. His face off percentage was also just under 50% but Damphousse and Ricci were very strong in the dot, so again, he didn’t have to be good.
But, I get your point. I don’t see Marleau (Marleau had the size, the face-off percentage in the ball park, and played almost every game) in Gagner though. Ignoring the Thornton effect, you could see a good second line centre emerging in San Jose as a worst case. 25 goals and a respectable plus minus (better than Selanne and Damphousse, and tied with Ricci). Not sure we are that clear with Gagner which makes the need to bring something more than ppg a key criteria for Gags at this point.
Incidentally, my thanks to whoever made my tables look less like shit, corrected my spelling of Tim Connolley’s name, etc.
by sarcasticidealist on Apr 5, 2011 3:12 PM MDT reply actions
Legwand's name
Seeing Legwand here surprises me. Gagner needs a 60ish point season next year to keep pace…
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
His GAON/60 is 3.81, second worst on the whole team (behind Alex Plante at ~4.3 – so yea, second worse for any sample size). Positive Corsi Rel (7.0) and his save percentage is terrible (876). Weak Corsi Rel QoC (0.008) and a good Corsi Rel QoT (2.166). P/60 is 1.91, pretty decent. So good and bad in equal measures.
Pretty mixed bag, but at least some of his AWFUL defensive numbers will be the way below Oilers average 5v5 sv %.
My take is that he is officially out of the ‘Potential #1 center’ running, and still not established as a good #2 center. He’s still damn young so there is still some room for him to overachieve.
http://hockeyzen.com - An Oilers blog
I was very high on Gagner in his draft year. To a degree, I still am.
Although I now don’t think he’ll ever be a reasonably effective first line centre, I am convinced that he can be an excellent second line centre if there is an exceptional first line ahead of him.
One other thing: People are quick to dismiss the fact that the team has been horrendous during his tenure here, but it is a reality that this has considerably hindered his, and others’, development.
Gretzky to Kurri...he scooooores!

by 



























