Hunter Shinkaruk - Part II

[Ryp37]

Yeah once again numbers have shown
A.Impact NHL players play under 152 games in the AHL
B.Score around a .7PPG
C.Maintain a .4 PPG once called up to the NHL

Not gonna look up these numbers for Y2ks list but I bet they fit the bill

Next years a huge year for Hunter

 

[carolinacanuck]

In this instance Y2K is making a lot of sense.

There is a lot of talk about what the "Vast majority of players" have done but Shinkaruk's in a different situation that most if not all of them. He's gone through a major surgery that ended his final Jr year real early.

I understand looking at others to compare development to see where a prospect is in the large perspective, but when the prospect has something within his situation that drastically alters development, comparing him to others who haven't gone though the same isn't going to give a clear/accurate picture of where he is development wise.

glad i'm not the only one who agrees here. Y2K is owning this argument.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Yes you are.

Here are some players who played more than 1 year in the AHL and have had success in the NHL:

Tyler Johnson
Ondrej Palat
Gustav Nyquist
Valteri Filppula (one year in the AHL but a couple years in the Finnish league after being drafted)
Tomas Tatar
David Desharnais
Tomas Plekanec
Mark Stone
Mike Hoffman
Jason Pominville
Mikko Koivu spent a few years in Finland and then a year in the AHL.
Jiri Hudler spent time in the Czech league, had a brief 12 game stint in the NHL, followed by 3 full years in the AHL

but I'm sure you'll find some way to throw out most of the guys from this list like you always do. I await the "Hudler et al don't count because they have dark hair and Shinkaruk has light hair."

Great list! Thanks.
The other thing is that now with the KHL, Finnish league and SHL, a number of prospects who would likely have spent time in the AHL are spending time in those leagues honing their skills before coming to the NHL.
The playoffs this year and the season next year will give us a better read on where he's at.

 

[arttk]

God people are sensitive, it's like you cannot say one thing bad about Shinkrauk or even be neutral about him. A successful development year for majority of a prospect would normally defined as hitting the AHL, adapting fast and then dominating and at the end of the season prove that he is ready for the NHL. That is the IDEAL best case scenario, that is a GOOD development year because that will almost guarantee the prospect can hang in the NHL.
Hunters year can be described as, successful if the expectation is injury recovery and showing that he can get back to where he was. He has yet to show us that he can dominate at that level (sample size) and give us more guarantees that he can hang in the NHL. I don't see how that is bashing him, it's calling it how it is, none of us are saying he will bust, but calling it a good year is not right. Yeah it's good he has recovered but it's not good because he hasn't dominate yet and we all understand the circumstance but in reality is he will need to dominate and needs to donthay next year.

Edit : posting on mobile. Ugh

 

[Huggy]

Worth noting that some of those players listed were older than Shinkaruk in their first AHL season.

Koivu and Flippula were 21 as AHL rookies. Nyquist was 22 as an AHL rookie.

And shinkaruk is the only one to recover from season ending hip surgery as a 19 yr old

 

[Huggy]

God people are sensitive, it's like you cannot say one thing bad about Shinkrauk or even be neutral about him. A successful development year for majority of a prospect would normally defined as hitting the AHL, adapting fast and then dominating and at the end of the season prove that he is ready for the NHL. That is the IDEAL best case scenario, that is a GOOD development year because that will almost guarantee the prospect can hang in the NHL.
Hunters year can be described as, successful if the expectation is injury recovery and showing that he can get back to where he was. He has yet to show us that he can dominate at that level (sample size) and give us more guarantees that he can hang in the NHL. I don't see how that is bashing him, it's calling it how it is, none of us are saying he will bust, but calling it a good year is not right. Yeah it's good he has recovered but it's not good because he hasn't dominate yet and we all understand the circumstance but in reality is he will need to dominate and needs to donthay next year.

Edit : posting on mobile. Ugh

No thats not a good development year. Its a perfect one, and an outlier for all ahl players.

 

[arttk]

No thats not a good development year. Its a perfect one, and an outlier for all ahl players.

Sorry for having high expectations and standards.
Hell if you look around, most blue chips plays well enough to get a callup in their rookie AHL season. Hell sportier played well enough to earn a callup recently no ?

 

[Jyrki21]

Suggesting a player has an overwhelming chance of not making the NHL is essentially calling him a bust.

This is patently untrue. And I'll prove it: the odds are still not great that, say, Andrey Pedan becomes an NHL regular. Yet he is definitely not a bust -- people are actually very excited about him. But the numbers still make him very far from a sure thing. Gustav Forsling doesn't have great odds of making the NHL. People were excited about him, and upset that he was traded. Nikita Tryamkin is even less likely to make it than those other guys. Still not a bust.

I like vanuck's weather analogy. Busting means the issue has passed. Tracking progress, and being realistic about the odds does not mean writing a guy off. Most drafted players don't make it.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Let me define "development" so we are all on the same page:

Development

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/development

Now with that being said, let's take a look at what his first pro coach has said about him this year:



http://www.theprovince.com/sports/C...karuk+progress+stat+sheet/10755091/story.html

and from Jim Benning in the same article:



And a more recent article:



http://www.uticaod.com/article/20150328/NEWS/150329263/10889/SPORTS

By all accounts it has been a successful year of development for Hunter Shinkaruk. He had a slow start due to a bad injury last year. This was compounded by him needing to learn how to become a pro and play the pro game. Not every player develops at the same rate, and Shinkaruk's development was delayed a bit due to the injury, but by all accounts he was tracking quite well. The numbers may not have been there, so the stat watchers were banging their drums, but those who have watched him (some on this board who have made several positive observations about him), his own coach, and NHL GM have commented on how he has progressed throughout the year. Recently the numbers have caught up to his progress and he's looking like a very good prospect once again.

How you can call this a poor development year I have no idea, but hopefully this will help you understand why this has actually been a good development year for him.

Of course there is going to be some sort of development. He's 20 years old. Some sort of progress or growth is an extremely low bar to judge any prospect by though. Shinkaruk doesn't just have to improve on his own last season, he needs to progress ahead of his peers. That's how you judge prospects, against their peers, not their own last season. By your definition Schroeder has had good development years every year since entering the AHL.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I often think it's a fine line between making excuses for prospects who don't progress and judging them too soon. In this case, I think there's enough evidence from those who watched him that Shinkaruk spent a large portion of this year recovering from a pretty significant injury.
A 12 game streak doesn't really provide enough evidence that he's progressing but playoffs and next season will give more data to compare him to his peers.
If he struggles next year then clearly there's reason for a lot of concern based on the career paths of most other prospects who develop into top 6 players.
Really, I think most people are saying the same thing about him.

 

[CanaFan]

Of course there is going to be some sort of development. He's 20 years old. Some sort of progress or growth is an extremely low bar to judge any prospect by though. Shinkaruk doesn't just have to improve on his own last season, he needs to progress ahead of his peers. That's how you judge prospects, against their peers, not their own last season. By your definition Schroeder has had good development years every year since entering the AHL.

No, that's what insecure fans do. A player's progress (or lack of) has nothing to do with other players, except maybe those within the same organization. Hunter's situation is different from other players and so his progress should be judged differently. Just because Poirier or Burkowsky had better years doesn't say anything about Hunter's development. He will make it (or not) on his own. Impatient fans comparing him to player X or player Y will have nothing to do with it.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Sorry for having high expectations and standards.
Hell if you look around, most blue chips plays well enough to get a callup in their rookie AHL season. Hell sportier played well enough to earn a callup recently no ?

yes but you are using high expectations as if its the norm when this season proved it wasn't true. AHL rookie scoring proves it.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Seems like the vast majority of guys listed there established themselves as top tier scorers in the AHL in their first season.

which players established themselves as a top tier scorer in their first AHL season outside a lockout year and at the same age as Hunter?

 

[Askel]

The worst part about the injury for Hunters development isn't about this year, its that he missed almost all of last year. The good part is that he is progressing, hopefully he takes another step next year and is a viable call up option in the second half.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

The worst part about the injury for Hunters development isn't about this year, its that he missed almost all of last year. The good part is that he is progressing, hopefully he takes another step next year and is a viable call up option in the second half.

no kidding. Strength wise, is there a more important development year than the year before you go Pro?

 

[shortshorts]

Yes you are.

Here are some players who played more than 1 year in the AHL and have had success in the NHL:

Tyler Johnson
Ondrej Palat
Gustav Nyquist
Valteri Filppula (one year in the AHL but a couple years in the Finnish league after being drafted)
Tomas Tatar
David Desharnais
Tomas Plekanec
Mark Stone
Mike Hoffman
Jason Pominville
Mikko Koivu spent a few years in Finland and then a year in the AHL.
Jiri Hudler spent time in the Czech league, had a brief 12 game stint in the NHL, followed by 3 full years in the AHL

but I'm sure you'll find some way to throw out most of the guys from this list like you always do. I await the "Hudler et al don't count because they have dark hair and Shinkaruk has light hair."

Everyone on your list quickly established themselves as high scoring players in each respective league in their first year

Shinkaruk's injury lends to the premise that we need to be slightly more patient, but the fact of the matter is he needs to show that type of production next year or he's not likely to make the NHL.

No one should be saying Shinkaruk is a bust, or is doing well - because he is neither at this point.

which players established themselves as a top tier scorer in their first AHL season outside a lockout year and at the same age as Hunter?

Would be interesting to look at a more refined search, but hard (time-consuming) to do I imagine.

 

[arttk]

yes but you are using high expectations as if its the norm when this season proved it wasn't true. AHL rookie scoring proves it.

Considering some posters are saying that Shinkaruk was talked to be a top 5 pick and how this is going to be a steal of a player, having high expectations doesn't sound unreasonable.

If he was a true blue chipper, that kind of progress would be expected. Like I said, he has an injury, we all understand that, looks like he has recovered and I look forward to seeing what he can do in the playoffs.

 

[Proto]

I think I said before the season I wanted to see him at .75PPG + by the second half. It looks like it took him an extra month or two to get right over that I was hoping, but he's about where I wanted him to be at the end of the season. If he continues this play moving into next year, he'll be back on track to be a legit top-end prospect.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Everyone on your list quickly established themselves as high scoring players in each respective league in their first year

Shinkaruk's injury lends to the premise that we need to be slightly more patient, but the fact of the matter is he needs to show that type of production next year or he's not likely to make the NHL.

No one should be saying Shinkaruk is a bust, or is doing well - because he is neither at this point.



Would be interesting to look at a more refined search, but hard (time-consuming) to do I imagine.

And that's essentially what I've been saying from Day 1.

Basically what he's accomplished in the AHL this year, I'm happy with. Now next year he needs to put up top numbers. What a certain other poster was saying is that if Shinkaruk is in the AHL again next year that he has a 10% chance of making the NHL (essentially going down to bust territory). He also stated that this was a terrible developmental year for him. Both comments are wrong.

 

[Stonz]

Some people have an awfully hard time understanding that saying "the odds are against him" is not the same as saying "He's going to bust."

Being concerned with a player's pace of progression, suggesting his odds of making it are diminishing, and believing it's still possible for him to make it, are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Some people have an awfully hard time understanding that saying "the odds are against him" is not the same as saying "He's going to bust."

Being concerned with a player's pace of progression, suggesting his odds of making it are diminishing, and believing it's still possible for him to make it, are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Except the only ones really stating that are the stat watchers who don't have a clue about how he has actually been progressing.

And IMO, saying someone only has a 10% chance of making it is essentially calling a 1st round pick a bust.

 

[Stonz]

Except the only ones really stating that are the stat watchers who don't have a clue about how he has actually been progressing.

And IMO, saying someone only has a 10% chance of making it is essentially calling a 1st round pick a bust.

You're so hung up on being right, you've lost sight of what he's really saying. When perhaps only 50% of late 1st round picks actually make it to begin with, it's not that far a drop in odds when progression isn't immediate. Even taking the list you presented without eliminating those players that posted a much higher AHL ppg than Hunter has in their first AHL season, what percentage of late 1st round picks in those draft years do they represent? Unless its a lot higher than 10%, your list does nothing to refute his assertion.

He's not calling him a bust. He's simply suggesting the odds of a player in his situation aren't great based on historical data. Data that I suspect he's spent a lot more time researching than you have.

No one wants him to fail. No one is claiming he will fail. He's not telling you that you can't win that pull on the slot machine, only that your odds aren't great.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Another long-winded post, with some decent info in it. But nothing you said actually refutes the statement you took issue with. Unless you're able to quantify just how much of his struggles were directly attributable to the injury?

I didn't say it was a lot, I didn't say it was a little. All I said was that it was difficult to determine to what extent the injury was a factor.

Sorry if my posts are too long for you to handle. I take whatever space I require to get my points across. If you do such in a smaller amount of space all the power to you. I wasn't aware the length of a post was measured as acceptable or un.

"it was difficult to determine to what extent the injury was a factor."

It wasn't difficult to determine if you watched him struggle with his hockey skills on a DAILY basis. His progression to being a player with all of his abilities returned to a high quality was a slow, gradual, arduous process. If you choose to pooh-pooh that without any first hand observation, you do that. I'll stick to my season long observation based analysis.

All the statistics in the world for all players drafted since God made hockey are fine and dandy and do tell the tale for most players. We all know how hard it is to make it to the show and most players regardless of their draft after the first 10-15 rarely make a big splash. All I said was his injury was a major factor in this season's results. I'll use the eyes analysis on this one over all the statistics. Next season he most likely drops into the statistical pool.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Sorry if my posts are too long for you to handle. I take whatever space I require to get my points across. If you do such in a smaller amount of space all the power to you. I wasn't aware the length of a post was measured as acceptable or un.

"it was difficult to determine to what extent the injury was a factor."

It wasn't difficult to determine if you watched him struggle with his hockey skills on a DAILY basis. His progression to being a player with all of his abilities returned to a high quality was a slow, gradual, arduous process. If you choose to pooh-pooh that without any first hand observation, you do that. I'll stick to my season long observation based analysis.

All the statistics in the world for all players drafted since God made hockey are fine and dandy and do tell the tale for most players. We all know how hard it is to make it to the show and most players regardless of their draft after the first 10-15 rarely make a big splash. All I said was his injury was a major factor in this season's results. I'll use the eyes analysis on this one over all the statistics. Next season he most likely drops into the statistical pool.

Keep the posts coming! And don't worry about the length.
Always look forward to your first hand analysis.

 

[CanaFan]

Everyone on your list quickly established themselves as high scoring players in each respective league in their first year

No, that is how it is being used but a simple check of the stats shows it is being used in a very misleading way.

Sorted by PPG in first AHL season. First 7 players (plus Hunter) in blue have PPG's that are reasonably similar and could be easily impacted by linemates, ice time, and PP usage. None of those 7 players have numbers significantly better than Hunters, and that isn't even factoring his injury.

Second group definitely established themselves very quickly in the AHL, but 4 of them (grey) are at least a year older than Hunter (Deharnais was +2 years). Not to mention Koivu, Filppula, and Deharnais all played at a pro level BEFORE they got the AHL while Hunter is making the jump from CHL/junior.

There are really only 2 players who are comparable to Hunter this year, namely Mark Stone (put up .7 PPG at age 20 out of CHL) and Jiri Hudler (.86 PPG at 19 out of Czech league). And this notion that elite players come in, put up one big season, and breeze onto the NHL is another falsehood, at least using the players in this list. 5 players spent at least 3 full seasons in the AHL while 5 spent at least 2 (Nyquist looks like 3 but his first season at 21 he played only 8 games). Only Filppulla and Koivu left after only a single season in the A.

So no, this list certainly does not show that "Everyone on your list quickly established themselves as high scoring players in each respective league in their first year". Their progression was more or less like Hunter's, albeit maybe a bit 'smoother' due to his surgery and rehab time. Some certainly did establish themselves a bit better however you cannot ignore what being a year or two older or having played pro already does in terms of prepping these kids for the AHL level.

That isn't to say I believe Hunter is necessarily a blue chipper or destined for a top line role in the NHL, as my views on him are more as a useful secondary scorer. But people need to stop using this list as some sort of evidence that his first season must be PPG or else he can never reach the heights of the great Ondrej Palat or David Deharnais. Simply not correct.