Does Improvement Matter?
by Scott Reynolds on May 5, 2011 1:15 PM MDT
in Prospects
Email
Print
One of the things mentioned to either pump a player up or beat him down at the draft is whether or not he's improved during his draft year. It's one of the big knocks on Sean Couturier who had a great season in 2009-10, but only increased his points per game this season by 13.2%. People were expecting a bigger step forward, and when others in his draft class took that big step up, Couturier started to fall down the charts. After the jump, I'll take a look at all of the forwards drafted out of the CHL in the first round between 1999 and 2006 (min. 50 GP in draft year) who also played in the CHL in the year before their draft year. Was a big jump in production a positive indicator as these players moved into the NHL?
First up, here's the chart, which I think is pretty self-explanatory (playoff points are included in the totals):
The median improvement here is 62.0% (Kyle Chipchura), so we'll use that as the cut-off between "lots of improvement" and "not much improvement". That's pretty arbitrary, but what are you going do. If we go back to the chart I used in an earlier post, we can then look at how each group does translating their offense (CHL points per game in their draft year, this time regular season only since that's the data I used in the previous post) to the NHL (career points per game; if the player does not have 50 GP, his NHL PPG counts as 0):
By way of reminder, the correlation between these two variables for the whole group is good but not great (Pearson's r = 0.47). For the "not much improvement" group, the correlation is quite a bit stronger, and actually very good (Pearson's r = 0.70). For the "Lots of Improvement" group, the correlation is worse than the overall group (Pearson's r = 0.31), and for the smaller "No previous season" group, it's still positive, but very weak (Pearson's r = 0.14). So what does that mean? Well, the first caution is sample size. Each of the two main groups is just twenty-five players, so these results aren't definitive. That said, I think it means that we know a lot more about the players who have been consistent over a two-year period. The level they've established in junior is more likely to translate to the NHL, which is good to know! For those taking a big step, or who haven't previously played in the CHL, their level of ability is much less clear. They might significantly overperform or underperform their draft-year totals, but you don't really know which it's going to be (it looks to me like there are extreme examples on both sides).
So what about this year's prospects? Here's what they've done this season (including playoffs):
The safe bets in this group are Sean Couturier, Gabriel Landeskog, and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (although he's awfully close to the cut-off). Jonathan Huberdeau and Ryan Strome, meanwhile, are much riskier picks. Being a pretty conservative fellow, my tentative list would then favor the safe picks, even though one of the other two may well end up being the best player. As such, I'll update my tentative draft list to read Couturier - Nugent-Hopkins - Huberdeau - Strome - Landeskog.
24 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Scattered thoughs on the table
Some big names at the bottom of that list. I think it would be more important also to factor in what the raw data increase was. Its pretty easy to have a large percent increase over a smaller base (i.e. Justin Williams, Steve Downie, Ben Eager) compared to those who were already producing at a high-to-very-high level (i.e. Crosby, Bourchard, Nash). Crosby’s increase was actually higher than some players near the top of the table, and close to many others.
Also, not sure if its a function of being in the Q, but Couturier’s PPG in both years ranks him behind only Crosby and Bouchard (also from the Q). His Draft Year – 1 PPG is higher than most everyone’s Draft Year PPG too. Encouraging signs if EDM decides to draft him.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure whether to go with percentage increase or raw totals, but decided to go with percentage since I thought that would do a better job of showing which guys really came up out of nowhere, and I wanted to contrast them with the more steady guys.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on May 5, 2011 2:12 PM MDT up reply actions
Of note though is that Couturier is a late birthday so his Draft Year -1 is his 17 year old CHL season while for the majority of the players on the list their Draft Year -1 it’s their 16 year old season.
I’ll list the players who are late birthdays below and, if available, their PPG in their 16 year old season (Draft Year -2) to help eyeball the differences between the players better.
Justin Williams
Marcel Hossa
Alexandre Picard (only 6 games)
Chris Stewart
Joffrey Lupul
Michael Grabner
Colby Armstrong (only 1 game)
Derick Brassard (only 10 games)
Boyd Gordon – 0.55
Nick Foligno
Nikita Alexeev
Alex Bourret – 0.46
Eric Staal – 0.78
Raffi Torres
Dustin Brown – 0.85
Scottie Upshall
Sean Couturier – 0.53
Gabriel Landeskog
I didn’t realize this until I made the list but not a single late birthday in the “lots of improvement” group made their CHL team as a 16 year old, likely indicating that they had a big rate of improvement between their 16 and 17 year old seasons as well. It’s an interesting result I wasn’t expecting but I’m not sure what it really means.
Agreed with this assessment
Percentages are too dependent on the base values to draw meaningful conclusions in their absence.
What is your suggestion here? Would you prefer the data be organized using a minimum base value?
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on May 5, 2011 4:02 PM MDT up reply actions
Sorry, I think I expressed my thoughts poorly. I think the issue here is how unfair this metric is to players who were already producing at a high rate in their draft year-1. You mention that the big knock on Couturier’s ppg only increased 13.2%, but he was already producing at 1.39 ppg in draft year-1. Is it reasonable to expect a 62.0% improvement on 1.39 ppg? I don’t think so. If we factor in his late birthday, then we might look at his draft year -2 when his ppg was only 0.53.. and the improvement from 0.53 to 1.39 ppg is significant.
That said, I’m not certain on what the best metric would be, especially without some more context
That inherent unfairness is more or less what I’m trying to measure. I’m looking for the guys who “came out of nowhere” and seeing whether or not they do as well as or better than the guys who had steadier production over a couple of years. Part of what I was trying to establish in this study was whether or not the criticism of Couturier and others (“lack of improvement”) is a good one. After doing this (and before doing this too!) it seems to me that it’s not a good criticism.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on May 6, 2011 2:16 PM MDT up reply actions
I understand that the sample size is might become even more of a problem, but it would be interesting to see whether the splitting the group in to more than two subgroups would produce more interesting results. Let’s say something like “little improvement” (x<=34%), “not much improvement” (34<x<62), “moderate improvement” (62<x<120) and “lots of improvement” (x>120).
Interesting but leaves me wondering
Loved the article Scott, great question to be asking and great job compiling the numbers.
I’m still not sure whether it means I like a guy that doesn’t improve or a guy that does.
What bothers me about Couturier is that he’s a big guy that didn’t improve. Size is important at the NHL level, so shouldn’t it be an even bigger advantage in Junior, where lots of players are even smaller?
I “feel” that if you are pushing six and a half feet tall AND are loaded with talent you should be able to dominate, especially in the weakest of the CHL leagues, which it doesn’t seem Couter did (I’m assuming that’s his hockey nickname). That said I know talking about feelings on this site is a problem, so if someone is willing to prove me wrong analytically I’ll gladly concede the point, if I even made one.
One thing to remember about Couturier is the scope of his responsibilities. He became his team’s #1 faceoff option. His playing time increased, but a significant portion of that time was on the penalty kill. Conventional wisdom holds (and I don’t know that anyone has studied this) an increase in penalty kill time will decrease a player’s effectiveness in other facets.
If he were like Nugent-Hopkins and getting loads of power play time without other responsibilities, I think we could expect him to improve significantly. But given his ES dominance and other responsibilities, I don’t think lack of improvement is a factor. In fact, I’m more impressed by his faceoff load and penalty kill responsibilities than I am with any of the aforementioned players’ scoring increases.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
For “conventional wisdom” I’m a little surprised I never heard that before. Not saying I disagree, just I’m more likely to agree with your statement wondering if it has been studied.
I do know that Gretzky, Kurri and Messier spent a lot of time killing penalties back in The Day, and my conclusion was it made them More effective.
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
by Bruce McCurdy on May 6, 2011 1:12 PM MDT up reply actions
That was also 25 years ago when a 2 minute shift was considered short. The game has changed a lot since then.
There’s only so much icetime in a game and generally when a player gets more responsibilites in one situation he gets less in another.
You generally don’t tack on an extra 2 minutes of PK duty to a 20 minute per night forward, you usually take away that icetime from other areas.
Going on the PK, in this era, means doing a lot of work for virtually no offensive reward. You get an exhausting 35-45 second shift (shorter if Khabi or Toskala is your goalie) with very little chance to produce offensively.
I’d also argue that a PK shift for a forward is far more tiring than an ES one, meaning that you have less in the tank when it comes to take your next shift, leaving you further behind.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
That was also 25 years ago when a 2 minute shift was considered short. The game has changed a lot since then.
I’ll agree with the second statement but the first is BS. Sorry to be an argumentative s.o.b. but that’s just too massive an overstatement to let pass. Other than the occasional Strudwick-type clusterfuck, two minute shifts have been a thing of the past for Way longer than 25 years. As for when two-minute shifts were considered “short”, that would be before my time and I date back to the early 60s. Back in the days of 12-man rosters, maybe. Or the rover. Shifts today may be shorter than the ‘80s, but at most we’re talking about cutting back from 60 to 45 seconds on average and I would think less than that.
On the PK the Oilers would always roll through three shifts in two minutes, even if the first group was also the third group they’d have a break unless they totally got hemmed in as can happen even today.
Anyway, I probably should never bring up the G.O.D. as a counterexample, because that dynasty team laughed in the face of conventional wisdom on many different fronts, PK scoring most certainly being one of them. In the current parity-laden day of generic teams I would think Derek’s statement largely holds true, with some exceptions.
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
by Bruce McCurdy on May 6, 2011 5:21 PM MDT up reply actions
Obviously there was a fair bit of exaggeration there, but there’s quite a bit of video evidence that suggests (at least for the Oilers and Gretzky in particular) that they took some exteremly long shifts.
I was watching the Oilers greatest games DVD’s about a month ago and about halfway through the Dec 30 1981 game vs the Flyers I noticed Gretzky on the ice for what seemed like an eternity. Sure enough I rewound it and timed and he was on the ice for 1:33, off for a shift, on for 1:22, off for a shift and on again for 1:18. I figured it was an anomaly because that was the game he was chasing 50 in 39.
I did the same thing for Games 1&5 of the 84 cup finals and the had 13 shifts over 1:20 in the first game and 12 shifts over 1:20 in the 2nd game.
I haven’t had a chance to do this with the 85,87,88 games yet but I did catch a couple of old Oiler games on the NHL network. I didn’t spend too much time but in both games I counted at least a half a dozen times in each game where he was on for well over a minute.
Anyways, the point was the game has changed so much since then that you can’t really compare how players played then vs now.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Well, the Great One was pretty exceptional in that respect right in his own day:
On top of his neurological advantages, Greztky seems to bring special qualities of metabolism to the game. With Gordie Howe, he shares an exceptional capacity to renew his energy resources quickly. Even when Howe had been out on the ice longer than any of his teammates he would be the first man on the bench to lift his head. Similarly with Gretzky, who often … has his best moments in the third period. When Dave Smith, a U of A exercise physiologist who tested all the Oilers in the spring of 1980, first saw the results of Gretzky’s test of recuperative abilities, he thought the machine had broken.
- Peter Gzowski, The Game of Our Lives, p.183
Good stuff, though, I was going to suggest looking at those old videos with the caveat that Gretzky would be off the charts in any event. You’re way ahead of the curve of that idea.
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
by Bruce McCurdy on May 6, 2011 7:47 PM MDT up reply actions
how did he not improve? his points per game went up. no, they didn’t explode upwards, but did john tavares’s numbers get better his 3rd year of junior? how many points do you want couturier to get?
it’s also significant that drummondville really has no other NHL drafted talent.
i wouldn’t be surprised if the guys whose numbers exploded upwards also saw a turning of luck in their draft year.
Yeah, to me it’s a matter of how much risk you want to take. The guys who improved a lot seem to have a much wider range of outcomes. I’m pretty conservative, so I’d take the “steady” guys early and then blow later picks on guys who showed substantial improvement.
As for Couturier, I think the lack of improvement in his offensive numbers is partially the result of a very high base. 1.39 points per game is already very good, so it’s hard to push the number that much higher, and 1.57 points per game is a fantastic result. Those two seasons give me more confidence that he’s not just having a lucky year. If he’s not the most dominant player in the league, he’s awfully close. It would have been great to see him over two points per game (obviously), but his actual performance is still very good.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on May 6, 2011 10:11 AM MDT up reply actions
As for Couturier, I think the lack of improvement in his offensive numbers is partially the result of a very high base. 1.39 points per game is already very good, so it’s hard to push the number that much higher, and 1.57 points per game is a fantastic result.
Exactly. He outscored all of the other forwards being discussed for the first overall pick in his draft -1 year. He followed that up by outscoring all but one. There wasn’t a lot of room for him to improve. To match RNHs jump in production this season he’d have had to score 2.21 points per game, which would be better than every player on the list not named Crosby.
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.
If Couter isn’t his nickname it damn well should be.
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.
It’s easier to spell, for sure. A lot of people seem to have a helluva time with Couturier.
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
by Bruce McCurdy on May 6, 2011 1:14 PM MDT up reply actions
COUTER!
It makes me sad to admit this to myself, but I honestly want him on this team just a little bit more now that I know I could refer to him as Couter.
Oiler nicknames normally suck. Add an s, y, er, or just drop the last syllable and you’ll cover off about 99% of them. This of course would fall into the category but at the same time most obviously does not suck. I approve.
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.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Oilers Schedule
Last 5 Games
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/07 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Anaheim
|
Thu 04/05 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Mon 04/02 | L 0 - 2 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/01 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: In praise of Jeff Carter, Mike Richards; ‘While The Men Watch’ criticism
- The John Tortorella origin story, including ground balls to the face
- NHL investigates Coyotes; Shane Doan explains tense Game 5 handshake with Kings’ Brown
- NHL Playoff Beard Watch: Blood, Sweat and Beards of unsung unshaven heroes
- Devils guarantee they’ll downplay 1994 conference finals for Game 6 vs. Rangers
