Are expectations too high for rookie NHL players?

[flying v 604]

We always expect rookies to come out hot out of the gate, but is it good if they start off slowly and then naturally progress into being better? The term "bust" gets used too often for any player that slightly doesn't reach expectations, so I want to discuss how people feel about how some first rounders the past 5-7 years have been playing, and if it's right to deem them a bust or not

I think it's more of people putting unrealistic expectations of certain players.
I think when a 2nd overall pick like Kakko struggles I see way too many people making excuses.
There are plenty of kids that dominate right from their D1 and 2 seasons.
Petey dominated the SHL and the NHL despite his size. Quinn and his small body showed even in his D+1 season he was ready tho in a small sample size.
Obviously some kids need more time but for the most part the ones that become elite it's pretty obvious within their first few seasons after being drafted.

 

[Advanced stats]

Matthews/Laine/Mcdavid/Eichel spoiled us with Suberb, unrealistic rookie seasons.

When that's the recent golden standard, anything else looks "meh"

 

[Satire]

Sedin twins took almost 5 years to break into the league properly. Development isn't linear. Some of the best players in the game today didn't exactly have rookie seasons that blew the roofs off the joint (Draisatl, Kuch, and Mackinnon come to mind...)

 

[7even]

Matthews scoring 40 goals as a rookie was a once in a generation season.

Careful now, the Oilers board is about to screenshot you

 

[FractionTwo]

Careful now, the Oilers board is about to screenshot you

Matthews season WAS once in a generation for a rookie though

 

[GOilers88]

No not really, if you want the league defining superstar label, you need to impress your first year.

McDavid, Crosby, Ovi have been top NHL players since the first day they stepped on the ice and that's why they're who they are.

So when someone like Hughes/Laf has a poor rookie year, thats fine, not every 18/19 year old is ready but that also comes with lowered expectations for their ceilings. Makes you think they'll simply be very good, not the year in year out Hart contender that some really high picks become.

I think this is the problem. It almost seems like a general expectation that every first overall pick has to be an impact player immediately because we've been lucky to see a handful of them since 2000. It's the media and fans that overhype and put these labels and super high expectations on these kids, and they're the ones that rip them apart and tear them down when those expectations and labels aren't met.


To the OP, absolutely I think people have ridiculous expectations for teenagers. Young man's game or not that's still boys playing against men.

 

[Rangers79]

Yep. Most players, even the best and most amazing sometimes take a few years to get going. That's normal and what should be expected.

 

[johan f]

Seems youths are being pampered and few nowadays are mature.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

If you look at sheer numbers--there are almost always less than 10 18 year olds in the NHL, and they typically struggle mightily. Less than 20 19 year olds, and they're the same. Quite a few more 20 years olds--but most prospects really start breaking in at 21 and 22, regardless of age and draft rank (though the 18 and 19 year olds are most often 1st rounders shoehorned onto shitty teams due to talent in spite of lack of preparedness).

The Crosbys, McDavids, Matthews--those are the exceptions but they get treated like the rules around these parts.

Once you get past 21--that's when I start to worry a little (exception--college).

 

[El Travo]

It takes time for kids to learn what works and what doesn't work against grown men. It takes an insane amount of raw skill to come into the league and dominate on day one. The problem is people act like every 1st-Overall pick should be able to jump right into the NHL flawlessly.

 

[Name Nameless]

At least it's really unfair to compare 18 or 19 year old guys with 23-year olds with several years of experience from the KHL.

 

[MadLuke]

Matthews season WAS once in a generation for a rookie though

Was Laine the same year that far or McDavid (if we consider Crosby-Ovechkin-Malkin a different generation).

It is certainly a not every draft and probably not even every 5 draft year, if we define a generation to be 20 year;s or so I am not sure it was once in a generation level, if we define in hockey a generation of player a 10 year's window, maybe.

But since the 90s, Lindros, Selanne, ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Kane etc... are all in that conversation to have had a rookie season similar to Matthews level, Matthews I am not sure is in the top #40 in nhl history for most point in a rookie season, #9 in a 20 year's windows of 1998-199 to 2018-2019

 

[OscarsCards]

Which rookies are you talking about? The rookie qualifies as player under 26 on September 15 and has played less than 25 games within one season or more than 6 games in any two preceding seasons.

There is a huge difference between players who plays his first pro season or second season rookie or even player who plays his first NHL season after spending time in AHL or Europe. So which rookies are you talking about?

 

[MessierII]

Yes, but the league has really transitioned into a young mans game, so it kind of makes sense slightly, but still completely unreasonable for rookies.

Has it though? Every team that’s won a cup for years now has been a vet team. Really since the pens and hawks and kings first one no young core has won a cup.

 

[jetsforever]

This is an aside but when people always mention Matthews' great rookie season in these threads, can they mention Laine as well?
Matthews had 5 goals (1 hat trick) in his first 4 games, Laine had 4 (1 hat trick), and they had similar numbers for the whole season.

 

[jetsforever]

Usually the 'generational'-type guys are immediately good like Crosby/Ovi/McD but look at a guy like Dr Drai who started very mildly and then became an absolute monster.

 

[SupremeNachos]

We always expect rookies to come out hot out of the gate, but is it good if they start off slowly and then naturally progress into being better? The term "bust" gets used too often for any player that slightly doesn't reach expectations, so I want to discuss how people feel about how some first rounders the past 5-7 years have been playing, and if it's right to deem them a bust or not

3 of the big 4 sports have become a "play them now" and hope for the best. Too many owners/GMs want to win immediately and think picking players in the top 3 means they can play right away.

 

[SupremeNachos]

Usually the 'generational'-type guys are immediately good like Crosby/Ovi/McD but look at a guy like Dr Drai who started very mildly and then became an absolute monster.

I'd say even Drai is a bit of an exception. Having McJesus takes a lot of the pressure off him to be The guy but it's not like the Oilers are some well run franchise that's been known to develop talent the past 15yrs.

 

[Crow]

McDavid would have had a far better season than anyone recently, including Matthew’s IMO. He was on pace for over a PPG when he got hit by the man dog.

 

[MadLuke]

I'd say even Drai is a bit of an exception. Having McJesus takes a lot of the pressure off him to be The guy but it's not like the Oilers are some well run franchise that's been known to develop talent the past 15yrs.

If you mean art ross winer are the exception that sound trivial of course, but among Art ross winner how many took some time before being contender for the art ross versus right away before 21, is it not Drai closer to the "norm" th the McDavid type more the exception in that regard ?

Usually the 'generational'-type guys are immediately good like Crosby/Ovi/McD but look at a guy like Dr Drai who started very mildly and then became an absolute monster.

The only exception in that regard is arguably Howe (in an era where getting first line first PP minute was quite different than now).

 

[Shinjuku Calling]

No.

 

[bsu]

2-3 full seasons to start making first real judgements

3-4 for final judgments

 

[Dicky113]

Depends on the rookie. Some live up to the hype in year one which separates them from the rest

 

[BlueBaron]

I'm not sure if the OP meant in general or specifically here on HF.

I think expectations have a lot to do with the state of the team. HF is obviously more interested in rookies than most due to the nature of the site. I can say I spend a lot more time watching our rookies and prospects when we are bad than when we are a playoff team.

In my time as a Leaf fan I have expected exactly one player to have an immediate impact in the NHL and he did. AM34 was a better goal scorer than I expected but was top 6 ready from day one (sorry Ottawa ). I did not think Schenn would be NHL ready.....

Contrast that to Marner who I was sure was going back to junior. Now in recent years we have had a lot of later first round pick and I never expect them to be in the league soon, but I am more conservative than most of my Leaf tribe.

I remember when we drafted Timmy. I had a lot of arguments with other Leaf fans who thought he would be league ready instantly and top 4 soon there after. To be fair he did drop due to mono but there was no reality where he was physically ready for the NHL, now here we are and he's just on the cusp of making the team.

Which leads to my conclusion. Position matters. My general expectations are as follows.

First over all: Should instantly enter the league unless its a good team with a freak pick.
Forward top 5 pick: No more than one extra year.
Forward first round pick: Two or three years
D-man top 5 pick : No more than one extra year
D-man first rounder: Three or four years
Goalie top 5 pick: He better instantly be instantly ready if you are stupid enough to draft a goalie this high.
Goalie first round pick: Only god knows

 

[chauron]

The phenomena is true especially among hfboards fans, some people seem to only look at stats and numbers and might forget about watching the game itself. Not sure how much it applies to general audience or especially casual fans.

No not really, if you want the league defining superstar label, you need to impress your first year.

McDavid, Crosby, Ovi have been top NHL players since the first day they stepped on the ice and that's why they're who they are.

So when someone like Hughes/Laf has a poor rookie year, thats fine, not every 18/19 year old is ready but that also comes with lowered expectations for their ceilings. Makes you think they'll simply be very good, not the year in year out Hart contender that some really high picks become.

There are a lot of late bloomers who peak much later, like Marchand. Nobody cares now that he wasn’t a superstar when he arrived to the league.