My goal here is to eliminate this fog of propaganda that surrounds this player. He is playing absolutely marginal hockey and has been for well over a year.
Here's what I think happened: we all (myself included) fell in love with the guy in that Pittsburgh series. We decided "here's what he already is - elite defensively and capable of a hat trick on the road in the playoffs - and here's what he will be: 60 points and Selkes".
None of that has materialized, and in fact he has regressed. Nobody even refutes these basic points: he is not a great skater (or at least, his speed and burst are average to below average). He can't shoot. He can't pass. He doesn't create.
I am also not sure whether he's elite defensively, or merely responsible and high-IQ.
I just want real critical discussion about him Jojo, that's all. He's not what we hoped he'd be.
Got it. Thank you.
I get why he's so controversial. He sort of exists at a crossroads between stats and the eye test. I would almost call him a forward version of Muzzin in that both elicit the, "He's definitely good, but not as good as those numbers say," from those that don't see value in shot metrics.
With that being said, is it possible that he may only be an average skater, and he may not have a particuarly good shot, and he may only be an average passer, but he still puts the sum of it all together with some fantastic board work and the cliched hockey intelligence and makes it all work for more than the sum of his parts?
For the record, I think it's vital to not throw out any source of good information. I get my dander up when either side of the tired debate says the other is worthless. With that being said, I do believe that shot metrics help us understand so many of the things our eyes see, but our brains filter out. I'm trying to avoid using a statistical argument, but I do just want to point out that he shows quite well in ES primary shot assists in relation to his teammates (2nd to Giroux in many aspects), so he can't be THAT poor of a passer.
This brings me around to the question of being a disappointment. He's such a damn weird player in regard to how he was developed. I absolutely do believe they stunted his offensive growth, much as they're now doing to Morin to a lesser degree.
I remember draft day. The talk was "We may have gotten a future 1C!" If you were of that opinion, then you would feel he's a disappointment. It's tough for me to put much stock in what my opinion was at the time because I didn't watch Juniors in 2011. My opinion was mostly formed based upon the opinions of the media, so my expectations don't mean a damn thing.
So instead, I prefer to say that we have ways to proxy possession, those measures are more reliable than point production, and he shows quite well in them against quite tough competition. That's enough for me to call him an effective player. Give me enough effective players and I'm going to win a lot of games, no matter what each can and can't do.
