2015 Draft Thread: McEichel Pt. 4

[sabrebuild]

The hype for this draft is well deserved

Notable NCAA players in their draft year:
Jack Eichel - 23 GP, 15 G, 25 A, 40 PTS (1.74 PPG)
Zach Parise - 39 GP, 26 G, 35 A, 61 PTS (1.56 PPG)
Dany Heatley - 38 GP, 28 G, 28 A, 56 PTS (1.47 PPG)
Thomas Vanek - 45 GP, 31 G, 31 A, 62 PTS (1.38 PPG)
Phil Kessel - 39 GP, 18 G, 33 A, 51 PTS (1.31 PPG)
Jonathan Toews - 42 GP, 22 G, 17 A, 39 PTS (0.93 PPG)

First CHL player taken in their draft year (last 8 seasons):
Connor McDavid - 27 GP, 24 G, 45 A, 69 PTS (2.56 PPG)
John Tavares - 56 GP, 58 GP, 46 A, 104 PTS (1.86 PPG)
Taylor Hall - 57 GP, 40 G, 66 A, 106 PTS (1.86 PPG)
Sam Reinhart - 60 GP, 36 G, 69 A, 105 PTS (1.75 PPG)
Steven Stamkos - 61 GP, 58 G, 47 A, 105 PTS (1.72 PPG)
Nathan MacKinnon - 44 GP, 32 G, 43 A, 75 PTS (1.70 PPG)
Nail Yakupov - 42 GP, 31 G, 38 A, 69 PTS (1.64 PPG)
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins - 69 GP, 31 G, 75 A, 106 PTS (1.54 PPG)

The almost full point a game more that McDavid scores in the same year as Mackinnon, along with every other top draft pick is mighty big.

 

[Zip15]

The almost full point a game more that McDavid scores in the same year as Mackinnon, along with every other top draft pick is mighty big.

While I think McDavid is a better prospect than MacKinnon, keep in mind that MacKinnon never played a game of junior hockey as an 18 year-old. He was three months from his 18th birthday when he was drafted, and went right into the NHL. Given how much age matters at that level, MacK would've put up huge numbers if he got to play some of another season.

 

[sabrebuild]

While I think McDavid is a better prospect than MacKinnon, keep in mind that MacKinnon never played a game of junior hockey as an 18 year-old. He was three months from his 18th birthday when he was drafted, and went right into the NHL. Given how much age matters at that level, MacK would've put up huge numbers if he got to play some of another season.

I'm sure he would, but the way you say that implies that McDavid is a year older than him. Its more like 7 months, which is not nothing, but it doesn't mean a ton. How about this, if you go the other way, McDavid put up the exact same ppg on Erie last year as Mack did in his draft year. So when McDavid was 5 months younger he was at the same level as Mackinnon, on a team with Drouin. And arguably McDavid was not nearly as physically developed at the same age as Mack.

I'm not saying Mack is a slouch by any measure, but that is a pretty big difference in production, even compared to other top picks post draft year, Reinhart is below 2 pts a game. Even Drouin in his post year, after getting a taste of NHL speed only put up 2.34, with no major injuries to get over and the extra year. McDavid is a Crosby level freak.

 

[Paxon]

I'm sure he would, but the way you say that implies that McDavid is a year older than him. Its more like 7 months, which is not nothing, but it doesn't mean a ton. How about this, if you go the other way, McDavid put up the exact same ppg on Erie last year as Mack did in his draft year. So when McDavid was 5 months younger he was at the same level as Mackinnon, on a team with Drouin. And arguably McDavid was not nearly as physically developed at the same age as Mack.

I'm not saying Mack is a slouch by any measure, but that is a pretty big difference in production, even compared to other top picks post draft year, Reinhart is below 2 pts a game. Even Drouin in his post year, after getting a taste of NHL speed only put up 2.34, with no major injuries to get over and the extra year. McDavid is a Crosby level freak.

It should also be noted that McDavid last season and MacKinnon in his draft season were both in their 2nd OHL seasons, while McDavid is now in his 3rd.

 

[sabrebuild]

It should also be noted that McDavid last season and MacKinnon in his draft season were both in their 2nd OHL seasons, while McDavid is now in his 3rd.

Honest question. How much stock should be put into that. People bring that up all the time, but to be fair it's not like this is the NHL with an extreme level of video time or a sustained type of game by the players and teams from year to year. The OHL by its age group and development cycle has constant turnover. The extra year of major junior experience is certainly something, but most of the guys that get that time, including McDavid, are played in lesser roles and lesser minutes than they would if they had stayed down the extra year. Is that really better for their development than the elite guy that played 25 minutes a game on his Midget team? I don't know, but I feel like it is a very minor benefit if any. I think that is much more of a benefit to the team and league than it is to the individual player.

 

[Paxon]

Honest question. How much stock should be put into that. People bring that up all the time, but to be fair it's not like this is the NHL with an extreme level of video time or a sustained type of game by the players and teams from year to year. The OHL by its age group and development cycle has constant turnover. The extra year of major junior experience is certainly something, but most of the guys that get that time, including McDavid, are played in lesser roles and lesser minutes than they would if they had stayed down the extra year. Is that really better for their development than the elite guy that played 25 minutes a game on his Midget team? I don't know, but I feel like it is a very minor benefit if any. I think that is much more of a benefit to the team and league than it is to the individual player.

It's a pretty big deal in a general sense. I'd say on average it's at least as important as age gap. This is the highest level of amateur hockey. Every year of experience is important. Midgets is just not comparable experience. Guys like McDavid, MacKinnon, and significantly lesser prospects walk all over midgets. McDavid put up 209 points the year before joining the OHL. Imagine what he'd have done if he played the next year there. The talent level rises each level of hockey you go up.

The point about lesser time in juniors doens't really hold up because they're all given more limited time in their first juniors season, then get more in their second year, then even more in their third year, so each successive year of experience brings exponentially more value.

 

[sabrebuild]

It's a pretty big deal in a general sense. I'd say on average it's at least as important as age gap. This is the highest level of amateur hockey. Every year of experience is important. Midgets is just not comparable experience. Guys like McDavid, MacKinnon, and significantly lesser prospects walk all over midgets. McDavid put up 209 points the year before joining the OHL. Imagine what he'd have done if he played the next year there. The talent level rises each level of hockey you go up.

The point about lesser time in juniors doens't really hold up because they're all given more limited time in their first juniors season, then get more in their second year, then even more in their third year, so each successive year of experience brings exponentially more value.

I can believe that there is some benefit to getting a feel for the league, but no way that it is as important as a significant age gap. The difference in ability between a full year of development is massive in both physical ability and mental understanding of the game. I guess to me the sample size is just too small to prove that a guy who got an extra year of junior at age 15 got a huge advantage from knowing the league by the draft, than another top end player who still had two full years of major junior.

I totally believe and agree that a player's first year in major junior is a big adjustment, Zacha for example. If he had been in the O last year, I'm pretty confident he would have put up much better numbers this year. But the benefit of one extra year, ehh I would love to see some tangible evidence that that was a big factor.

I know the W has more of these situations with their age rules, but the O has basically 4 guys?

 

[Paxon]

I can believe that there is some benefit to getting a feel for the league, but no way that it is as important as a significant age gap. The difference in ability between a full year of development is massive in both physical ability and mental understanding of the game. I guess to me the sample size is just too small to prove that a guy who got an extra year of junior at age 15 got a huge advantage from knowing the league by the draft, than another top end player who still had two full years of major junior.

I totally believe and agree that a player's first year in major junior is a big adjustment, Zacha for example. If he had been in the O last year, I'm pretty confident he would have put up much better numbers this year. But the benefit of one extra year, ehh I would love to see some tangible evidence that that was a big factor.

I know the W has more of these situations with their age rules, but the O has basically 4 guys?

But we aren't talking about a "full year of development" with age gaps, it's usually more like 3-8 months. We are talking about a full year of hockey development when there's one extra year of experience at top amateur levels. People don't physically develop at a constant rate just like they don't develop as players at a constant rate, which is why I'd only talk about this in a general sense. I don't know how anyone could say having 50% more experience at top level hockey isn't a big factor in a general sense.

 

[sabrebuild]

But we aren't talking about a "full year of development" with age gaps, it's usually more like 3-8 months. We are talking about a full year of hockey development when there's one extra year of experience at top amateur levels. People don't physically develop at a constant rate just like they don't develop as players at a constant rate, which is why I'd only talk about this in a general sense. I don't know how anyone could say having 50% more experience at top level hockey isn't a big factor in a general sense.

I guess saying it as big a factor as 8 months of developing in a general sense, is very ambiguous and intangible? Like i said I agree that there is some benefit to it, but I think it is relatively limited, compared to other aspects like maturing from a physical point and the regular repetition of training.

How would you distinguish this absolute benefit from the cost/benefit analysis that regularly goes on between keeping a guy in juniors over bringing him to the NHL? To be fair couldn't you say it is reasonable to believe that a guy might not benefit from playing at the highest level of competition they are eligible for? That it could in fact hurt their confidence, build skill against easier competition, etc. The usual concerns people bring up in regard to that jump?

It seems to me that elite level players are to some degree above this experience debate. Particularly offensive guys like McDavid, Crosby and Tavares, I have a hard time believing they achieved a notable betterment in their skill, as a finished product at say 18, than if they had not. Similar to other stars from the years before under-agers were allowed. Greatness is greatness.

As a side note this season sucks and has driven me to these unnecessary and long winded arguments over basic hockey canon. Feel free to ignore if it becomes to obnoxious.

 

[sabrebuild]

I wanted to mention that with Ekblad and defensemen in general I would respect this idea as having a bigger impact. I think defensemen really need the extra time to develop their judgment and timing, much more so than forwards. I haven't done a study or anything, but it's relatively a common thought that defense need time to develop and its not generally physical development.

If I had to guess I would bet there are a ton more forwards who jumped to the NHL and made impacts as 18-20 year olds than defensemen, with a restriction being both groups are chosen from similarly physically developed prospects.

 

[Paxon]

I guess saying it as big a factor as 8 months of developing in a general sense, is very ambiguous and intangible? Like i said I agree that there is some benefit to it, but I think it is relatively limited, compared to other aspects like maturing from a physical point and the regular repetition of training.

How would you distinguish this absolute benefit from the cost/benefit analysis that regularly goes on between keeping a guy in juniors over bringing him to the NHL? To be fair couldn't you say it is reasonable to believe that a guy might not benefit from playing at the highest level of competition they are eligible for? That it could in fact hurt their confidence, build skill against easier competition, etc. The usual concerns people bring up in regard to that jump?

It seems to me that elite level players are to some degree above this experience debate. Particularly offensive guys like McDavid, Crosby and Tavares, I have a hard time believing they achieved a notable betterment in their skill, as a finished product at say 18, than if they had not. Similar to other stars from the years before under-agers were allowed. Greatness is greatness.

As a side note this season sucks and has driven me to these unnecessary and long winded arguments over basic hockey canon. Feel free to ignore if it becomes to obnoxious.

If you're ready to play a level up, playing a level up is better so long as you aren't playing on the fourth line, which McDavid wasn't. I'd say that's a general maxim to go by. Considering the arbitrary nature of the cut-off for juniors, a kid who gets into juniors a year earlier has an advantage a year or two down the line over the kid who was born a couple months apart and got to juniors the next season. Does that advantage last forever? No, at least it needn't. But in that third season of player A's (second season for player B), I'd say it makes a pretty big difference. Both would generally face the same limitations in season one, which means they take a step up from that in season two, and a further step in season three. If one guy's in his third season and has comfortably grown into being the centerpiece of his team, that has to be an advantage, all other things being equal, over a guy just starting to get used to a big role in his second season.

I'm not raising this argument to shed doubt over McDavid being considerably better than MacKinnon, because he's considerably better than MacKinnon. I just think any time people bring up age gaps they should bring up developmental gaps as well so that both can be considered to whatever degree people want to. In McDavid's case he advantages in both age (8 months older) and experience (1 season of juniors) over MacKinnon at the same point relative to their drafts.

 

[Ralonzo]

Erie vs Ottawa:

- Watching Ottawa players is tough because it's like staring at a barbershop pole
- Konecny looks fired up, really good first shift with 2 strong forechecks, a steal and a cross crease feed on a walkout from behind the net
- That Otter did about as well as Kitty Genovese in that fight vs Bell
- Baptiste on the Strome line, creating with speed and feeding to teammate who can't convert
- McDavid on the McDavid line, creating with speed and feeding to teammate who can't convert

 

[1972]

Everyone always uses the term "XXXX is too good for juniors" and it usually isn't true. Connor McDavid is clearly to good for juniors, he honestly doesn't even break a sweat he is so good out here. By my account he created a scoring chance every single shift. Zero doubt he is an impact player in the NHL next year.

 

[couture23]

Guys I'm at the game. He is flying. So damn fast even the Ottawa crowd is amazed.

 

[sabrebuild]

Everyone always uses the term "XXXX is too good for juniors" and it usually isn't true. Connor McDavid is clearly to good for juniors, he honestly doesn't even break a sweat he is so good out here. By my account he created a scoring chance every single shift. Zero doubt he is an impact player in the NHL next year.

I have seen him live in Erie several times. He has legitimately toyed with people this year, regularly.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

McDavid with some sick vision to set up a PP goal

 

[Sabre the Win]

Guys I'm at the game. He is flying. So damn fast even the Ottawa crowd is amazed.

People we're cheering his goals at Ice Dog games before just because he's so talented.

 

[couture23]

Also impressed with Travis Dermott on Erie. He sniped McDavid's set up.

Strome also just put the team on his back for a nice goal.

 

[sabrebuild]

Also impressed with Travis Dermott on Erie. He sniped McDavid's set up.

Strome also just put the team on his back for a nice goal.

A buddy of mine who has season tickets loves Dermott. Says he plays very smart yet nasty all the time. The times I saw him he looked pretty solid. I think he is draft eligible this year? I can't remember, but I would be down to spend a second or third on him.

 

[couture23]

A buddy of mine who has season tickets loves Dermott. Says he plays very smart yet nasty all the time. The times I saw him he looked pretty solid. I think he is draft eligible this year? I can't remember, but I would be down to spend a second or third on him.

Yeah he's eligible this year.

 

[hizzoner]

Baptiste! He is playing well. Konecky looks great too. No need to talk about McDavid or Strome.....

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

just started watching Konecny, seen him maybe 5 times in the last month and he's yet to disappoint, guys got some fire in him, hes gotta rebound in the draft rankings by the time the picks get made

 

[couture23]

Leafs fan with a taped McDavid jersey here. No no he's ours.

 

[Ralonzo]

Biggest surprise to me so far this game is that Lintuniemi is stuffing McDavid 1-on-1. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

Maybe plan A should be to finish last and lose the lottery

 

[Savitar]

Eichel with 40 points with Minny! Have to say if we lose the lottery I would love to watch him and and Girgs put on an offensive clinic on The same line