Dallas signs Lessard

[Vlad The Impaler]

Here is something to consider: Lessard's draft year was 6 years ago! He is the same age as Vincent Lecavalier, already closing in on 400 NHL GP and the captain of his team.

Lecavalier ain't the Bolts' captain anymore. If he was, they'd probably not be where they are today as he would be unable to captain a CHL squad competently if his life depended on it.

 

[Holly Gunning]

And turns 24 in the next month... Dallas got themselves a good player, but I don't know if we can even consider him a "prospect".

Here is something to consider: Lessard's draft year was 6 years ago! He is the same age as Vincent Lecavalier, already closing in on 400 NHL GP and the captain of his team.

I just find it interesting that he is the same age as guys like Heerema, Milan Kraft, Mathieu Chouinard and others that in all three cases have been given up on as "prospects" by multiple organizations. Surely all three could have been Hobey Baker Candidates if they were playing their senior year in college this year, although have already been labeled busts.

That being said, I am a huge supporter of the college game, and wish Junior the best of luck and hope he can break in as an "older" rookie like guys like Liles or Preissing did this year. Congratulations to Dallas on the signing, I just think we can do without his hype as the latest best "Prospect"

How useful is the Hobey Baker award in predicting NHL success? (Success being defined here as 400 games played which earns you a NHLPA pension)

The key here is age. As I argued above, players are constantly developing as they age and big numbers by a 22 year old are simply less impressive than big numbers by a 18 or 19 year old. The really good players start early and make an impact right away.

As evidence of that statement I took the Hobey Baker winners and looked at their age during their 1st college season (I calculated their age as of New Year's Day, roughly the mid point of the college season). I then looked their career NHL games played prior to this season on hockeydb.com and put their names afterwards. Without further ado here is the list:

All Hobey Baker Trophy winners
Age in Rookie Season, NHL Games Played, Player Name
17.5 449+ Miller, K
18.2 659 Kurvers
18.2 657+ Kariya
18.4 471+ Morrison
18.4 470+ Drury
18.4 140+ Leopold
18.5 758 Hrkac
18.7 115 Watson
18.8 80 Fusco, M
18.8 23+? Mottau
19.0 34 Emma
19.0 536 Pellerin
19.0 13 Manucci
19.1 1099 Broten (absolutely tore it up in 1st year)
19.1 12 Bonin, B
19.2 547+ Holzinger
20.2 175+ Krog
20.5 115 McPhee
20.6 ??? Lessard
21.2 21+ Senja

Mising DOB data:
? Fusco, S
? MacDonald

What to make of this? First every player that I had information on played at least a few games in the NHL. The two with missing DOB both played 0 NHL games. (I excluded goalies because that position is a different animal.) But if we define NHL success as playing long enough to earn a NHLPA pension then 9 out of 17 Baker winners have "made" the NHL (excluding J. Leopold since he is too young).

What is really striking is the age at 1st season. Of the youngest 6 all 6 were successes in the NHL. All the forwards were/are scoring top 6 guys in the NHL in their prime.

Of the older debuts only 3 of 11 made the league and two of the hits were basically 3rd line checking guys. (Broten is the biggest exception--I'm curious why he started so old, maybe there is a story there.)

So to apply this data analysis to the question at hand. When did Junior Lessard start his career? Where does he fit into the chart-->almost dead last. He is the 2nd oldest player in his rookie season who later went on to win the trophy. Again, he could shock the world and become a useful NHL player, but the odds are really stacked against this happing.

The Hobey Baker probably should have gone to Parise and where would he have fit in this scheme? His first year was at age 18.4 which would place him in the group of successful NHL players.

Now I'm not saying age is everything, you have to look at performance as well. If a guy starts young and sucks that may be a warning sign. But most of the successful ones start early and prosper. Take our Heatley for example, his first season he was 18.9 years old, but he was able to score 1.5 points per game at that age. Broten is the similar case of someone starting latter but really putting a hurt on the rest of the league.

The career pattern of the college players who fail is that they start older and their intial performance is not that dominating but they get progressively better (See Lessard's career numbers posted below). Part of this gradual improvement is a combination of physical maturity and increased experience. The really uber-talented guys come in and excel against players their own age or older in many cases.

Junior Lessard's career at MINN-Duluth
Age, Season, Points per game
20.6 1st season .33 PPG
21.6 2nd Season .77 PPG
22.6 3rd Season .93 PPG
23.6 4th Season 1.39 PPG

 

[Daniel_Tkaczuk]

How useful is the Hobey Baker award in predicting NHL success?

I am really not sure if there is that much of a science to it. Some years have better nominees than others... it's the same as the CHL. Are Varlamov and Ling measures of pro-transferable hockey success? No. But Mario Lemieux and Joe Sakic were.

I doubt Lessard's age entering the league has anything to do with his impending success... that's being far too objective. It all depends on individual players, their sets of skills, and who they are drafted/signed by. If the opportunities are there and they have what the club is looking for, they'll succeed.

It is true that players who are older generally do better when they enter the pros, but this is because they earned their keep (e.g. Martin St. Louis) as opposed to getting chances for political reasons or a team having drafted a player and not wanting to drop him without giving them a shot (e.g. Mike Mottau).

Now I'm not saying age is everything, you have to look at performance as well. If a guy starts young and sucks that may be a warning sign. But most of the successful ones start early and prosper.

What you're saying is that if you're good, you're good. And if you're not, you're not. It's as simple as that.

No award in amateur hockey is a measure of professional success. The skill level, however, is.