Hunter Shinkaruk - Part III

[sirwilliam]

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.

Yup, agreed. I was hoping he'd start scoring a little sooner into the second half, but Hunter's sitting at over a PPG in his last 10 games, with 8 goals in that stretch. Considering that the AHL is even lower scoring than the NHL right now, that's quite a feat.

If he stays close to his recent scoring pace into next season he'll see some games for sure.

Click to read more...

 

[Stonz]

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.

Alright then, how big a factor did the injury play in his performance on a monthly basis?

 

[MS]

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 he's improved from the start of the year. That isn't the question.

In your words, he spent most of the year struggling because he was working to get back the explosiveness he'd lost through the injury.

Sorry, but that isn't a 'good development year'. That's getting back to where you were before. And that isn't where you want a guy to be at 20 years old.

Again, if Jared McCann tears his knee tomorrow, has surgery, and spends all season next year struggling while working to get back his confidence and explosive skating, and finally gets his game together right at the end of the season, that hasn't been a good year for his development. He'll have improved from the start, but he hasn't advanced himself from a point where he was previously, before the injury. A good development year for McCann next year would be destroying the OHL, making the WJC team, and putting himself in a position to be favoured for an NHL roster spot in 16-17.

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.

Exactly.

People get so satisfied with small improvements and then are confused why a player is a bust 3 years down the line.

Schroeder is a perfect example, and I had this discussion over and over with y2kcanucks on him as well. He got better every year. But guys who make it separate themselves quickly.

Shinkaruk improved over the course of the year. Great. But he got, at the end of the year, back to where you would have hoped he was at the beginning.

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.

Exactly.

Especially when the '10%' comment is based on SOMETHING THAT HASN'T EVEN HAPPENED YET.

Right now all I've said is that Shinkaruk's chances of success have dropped from 50% (which is a pretty hard-and-fast starting number for players taken where he was) to maybe 30% after his injury and two years of stagnation.

I don't see how this is such a controversial statement. Unless you're a fanboy who doesn't have a grasp of the success rate of draft picks to begin with.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Of course he's improved from the start of the year. That isn't the question.

In your words, he spent most of the year struggling because he was working to get back the explosiveness he'd lost through the injury.

Sorry, but that isn't a 'good development year'. That's getting back to where you were before. And that isn't where you want a guy to be at 20 years old.

Again, if Jared McCann tears his knee tomorrow, has surgery, and spends all season next year struggling while working to get back his confidence and explosive skating, and finally gets his game together right at the end of the season, that hasn't been a good year for his development. He'll have improved from the start, but he hasn't advanced himself from a point where he was previously, before the injury. A good development year for McCann next year would be destroying the OHL, making the WJC team, and putting himself in a position to be favoured for an NHL roster spot in 16-17.

Way to ignore most of what I said.

I also stated that he needed to learn how to play the pro game. Not only was he trying to get back to full speed returning from injury, but he's also in his first pro season, learning that some of the cute moves that he could make to deke out players with no future in hockey when he was in junior weren't going to work in the pros. He also needed to get stronger. All of these things he has done.

You keep saying it was a bad developmental year for him. Fine. Believe that if you wish. I disagree. People who have watched him first hand disagree. His coach and the Canucks GM disagree. But hey, stat watching knows better than people who are in the game and watch him firsthand on a daily basis right?

Exactly.

People get so satisfied with small improvements and then are confused why a player is a bust 3 years down the line.

Schroeder is a perfect example, and I had this discussion over and over with y2kcanucks on him as well. He got better every year. But guys who make it separate themselves quickly.

Shinkaruk improved over the course of the year. Great. But he got, at the end of the year, back to where you would have hoped he was at the beginning.

If Shinkaruk had made small improvements then that's noteworthy also. But by all accounts he has made big improvements. What about this don't you understand? And as I've already stated, not every guy who makes it makes the jump immediately. There are numerous players who played overseas for a few years before coming over (in leagues that can even be considered lesser than the AHL). There are players who have played more than one year in the AHL and still made it. Why do you feel the need to slant your argument in such a way that paints everything Shinkaruk did this year in a negative light?

Exactly.

Especially when the '10%' comment is based on SOMETHING THAT HASN'T EVEN HAPPENED YET.

Right now all I've said is that Shinkaruk's chances of success have dropped from 50% (which is a pretty hard-and-fast starting number for players taken where he was) to maybe 30% after his injury and two years of stagnation.

I don't see how this is such a controversial statement. Unless you're a fanboy who doesn't have a grasp of the success rate of draft picks to begin with.

I disagree that his chances have dropped, but I'm also not here pulling random numbers out of my ass either.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

Of course he's improved from the start of the year. That isn't the question.

In your words, he spent most of the year struggling because he was working to get back the explosiveness he'd lost through the injury.

Sorry, but that isn't a 'good development year'. That's getting back to where you were before. And that isn't where you want a guy to be at 20 years old.

Again, if Jared McCann tears his knee tomorrow, has surgery, and spends all season next year struggling while working to get back his confidence and explosive skating, and finally gets his game together right at the end of the season, that hasn't been a good year for his development. He'll have improved from the start, but he hasn't advanced himself from a point where he was previously, before the injury. A good development year for McCann next year would be destroying the OHL, making the WJC team, and putting himself in a position to be favoured for an NHL roster spot in 16-17.



Exactly.

People get so satisfied with small improvements and then are confused why a player is a bust 3 years down the line.

Schroeder is a perfect example, and I had this discussion over and over with y2kcanucks on him as well. He got better every year. But guys who make it separate themselves quickly.

Shinkaruk improved over the course of the year. Great. But he got, at the end of the year, back to where you would have hoped he was at the beginning.



Exactly.

Especially when the '10%' comment is based on SOMETHING THAT HASN'T EVEN HAPPENED YET.

Right now all I've said is that Shinkaruk's chances of success have dropped from 50% (which is a pretty hard-and-fast starting number for players taken where he was) to maybe 30% after his injury and two years of stagnation.

I don't see how this is such a controversial statement. Unless you're a fanboy who doesn't have a grasp of the success rate of draft picks to begin with.

I don't have the post handy, but one of the oilers blogs a while back ran a study that showed basically that for CHL forwards, if you're not contributing well in the NHL by 22 you never will. The break point is a lot younger than we all think it is.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

Way to ignore most of what I said.







If Shinkaruk had made small improvements then that's noteworthy also. But by all accounts he has made big improvements. What about this don't you understand? And as I've already stated, not every guy who makes it makes the jump immediately. There are numerous players who played overseas for a few years before coming over (in leagues that can even be considered lesser than the AHL). There are players who have played more than one year in the AHL and still made it. Why do you feel the need to slant your argument in such a way that paints everything Shinkaruk did this year in a negative light?

Those players aren't usually CHL developed and hardly applicable to Shinkaruk.

 

[JA]

Hunter needed a lot of work when he was first drafted. As long as he has been improving, that's all that matters.

These were my observations after his first training camp with the Canucks.

Hunter's greatest weakness thus far has been his lack of strength. He can not successfully battle for pucks as of yet; he is not physically strong enough to battle for pucks against the boards, and he has difficulty fighting off pressure from the opposition when he has the puck. He also seems lost much of the time as his positioning is not adequate in all three zones; he fails to reach many loose pucks before the opposition can in the offensive zone, and in the defensive zone is far too low. His timing is much slower than it should be, both when he decides to accelerate and when he chooses to release his wristshot. Both of his goals were the result of entries into the offensive zone with his teammates backing up the opposition; his shot, as we have seen, requires a slight delay before its release. The shot itself is tremendous, but he keeps the puck set on his stick for at least a moment before releasing it -- at times, his shots have been blocked as a result. He telegraphs it before releasing it. Hopefully he works on shooting the puck more quickly: the shot is quick and accurate, but the release is slow. It would be great for him to also develop a slap shot so that he may work along the right side more effectively on the powerplay in the future.

I've kept track of some of the things he needs to work on. These posts are in chronological order, dated between September 23, 2013 and September 27, 2013:

09-23-2013, 11:40 PM

There are a lot of things Hunter appears able to improve on:

1. His positioning. Quite often he doesn't appear open in the neutral zone and thus when he receives passes he can only ever dump the puck in from the left side. The only time anything ever happens on the rush with him is when the opponent commits a turnover at the blue line, generating an odd-man rush.

In the offensive zone, he drifts along the boards sometimes and misses the puck. He looks ineffective deep in the offensive zone. His line can never generate any sustained pressure and though he tries to fight for pucks, he doesn't seem strong enough yet to fight off the opposition and make things happen offensively. He doesn't have much of a presence on the forecheck along the boards. He works hard and crashes the slot and front of the net well, but he can't control the puck along the boards against the opposition.

In the defensive zone, he's far too low on his side, sometimes being as low as the left faceoff dot. He leaves the opposing defenseman open much of the time, providing him time and space to create offense. One positive is that he sometimes places himself in good position to block shots, but he never challenges the opposing defender. When the puck is deep along the boards on his side of the defensive zone, he isn't at the boards to help out. In general, he doesn't move his feet much in the defensive zone. His defensive positioning requires improvement.

2. His shot/speed of his release. I've talked to a few people regarding his shot, and it seems he doesn't have much of a slap shot -- or if he does, the wind up is quite lengthy. He delays his wrist shot, which is effective at junior-level hockey but won't work well in the NHL where a quick release is required. In a few of the games thus far, he has received the puck in a good scoring position and has opted not to shoot, looking for the shot but waiting too long; a few of his shots have been blocked, at other times he has decided not to shoot as the goalie has adjusted to cut off his angle. He has received the puck at the right side of the offensive zone from his teammates and has had opportunities to one-time pucks but elects not to. He has a nice wrist shot, but the timing of it is delayed. His slap shot needs work.

3. His skating. He seems quicker when he has the puck, and does not seem to move his feet well without it except for in a few instances. At times he has shown flashes of great speed, but most of the time he skates at a slower pace and does not use that speed to his advantage on the forecheck. He has the speed, but doesn't seem comfortable using it in certain situations. He seems feisty and wants to be physical, and hustling in appropriate situations would help him make a better impact in general. He does not seem to know when to skate at certain speeds.

4. His strength. This will occur naturally as his body matures but will help him immensely in the future. He may be able to help develop his strength through proper training; that's obvious. If he becomes more difficult to contain, he'll become a greater threat offensively. He has tried making moves around the opposition with his speed and hands, but has thus far been pushed off the puck. Against Edmonton on Saturday night, he tried one such deke to the outside on the rush. He isn't strong enough to play the way he wants to just yet. He can't play an aggressive offensive game without strength, so we can look forward to this improving over the next few seasons.

He's fairly raw. He's a very good prospect and I'm quite optimistic about him as a potential top-six NHL forward in the future, but like so many others he requires more "seasoning," in my opinion. If he works on several aspects of his game in the CHL and potentially in the AHL when he's eligible, he'll be in better position to be successful in the future.

09-24-2013, 10:51 PM

Hunter again looked to be outmatched much of the time tonight, though to be fair the Canucks as a whole did not exactly play their strongest game. He had a lot of trouble retrieving pucks along the boards in all three zones of the ice. At times he played on the second line, at times on the third line. Without the puck, Hunter suddenly seems that much slower. His positioning makes it difficult for him to reach pucks in time, and he is generally knocked off the puck when he has it. He needs to learn where to be and how to use his speed effectively with and without the puck.

Most of the issues addressed in my last post appeared again tonight. He doesn't seem ready to play in the NHL yet. I don't think he would be very effective if he were to play for the Canucks this season. He hardly touched the puck despite having 14:59 of TOI tonight. He can start the year with the team, but I don't think he should remain with the Canucks this year beyond a handful of games.

09-25-2013, 01:30 AM

These photos by Jeff Vinnick and Derek Leung illustrate some of the problems with Hunter's strength right now:

Forcing him to continue this for another several weeks would only hinder his development, in my opinion. He isn't physically mature enough yet to fight off the opposition along the boards and retrieve pucks successfully. We all certainly want him to succeed, but pushing him into the NHL early is not going to help him.

Hunter has two shots on goal combined in the last four preseason games (58 minutes 9 seconds total ice time). He had three shots in his first preseason game against San Jose and had no shots tonight. One of his shots in the first Edmonton game went wide (the two-on-one chance), but even if one counts that as a shot, he has only taken three in nearly an hour of ice time since scoring his goal last week.

09-26-2013, 12:29 AM

Those pictures are pretty misleading as only two involve real hits where he has been knocked down. He's given about as good as he's taken in the pre-season and knocked other players down. Really impressed with his compete level. And to top it off he's shown some real strong offensive skills while playing moslty with rookies.
Having said that, I think the best course is for him to get a few NHL games and then go back and have another great year. Really impressed with his first camp! Kids going to be a real good one.

He can hit, there's no question about that. Most of those falls occurred during puck battles along the boards, though. He isn't falling from being hit as much as he is from being pushed and shoved when trying to gain possession of the puck. He isn't strong enough yet to fight off pressure from the opposition, and he looks lost a lot of the time when the Canucks try to move the puck around in the offensive zone. He surely wants to compete. He just isn't physically able to yet and hasn't yet developed the hockey sense and presence of mind to make use of his skills and position himself effectively. He can develop those qualities; the kid's still only 18 years old as of today.

I was listening to TEAM 1040 this morning, and Canucks commentator Dave Tomlinson echoed most of these observations. I think most of us would agree Hunter isn't ready to step in to the NHL just yet.

09-27-2013, 01:10 AM

Nice goal today. This might have been his best game since his game against Edmonton last Saturday. It means a lot that he performed well against a veteran roster.



I saw him live today at Rogers Arena, which gave me an opportunity to watch what he was doing away from the puck and outside of what the camera would have captured. It was great to see him score in the preseason finale against the Rangers' veteran lineup. He still has trouble with his positioning and with his strength along the boards, and he doesn't hustle at the appropriate times. There are times when his speed is noticeable; at such times he appears to accelerate quicker than most of the other players on the ice. Unfortunately, this only ever happens when he's trying to spring free for an offensive opportunity or when he thinks the puck will land on his stick. Unfortunately, once he is impeded on the rush he loses all of his momentum since he can not fight off the check. Defensively, he still gets in trouble for being too deep in the defensive zone. He blocked another shot today, which was a positive.

After he scored his goal tonight, his play became much more noticeable for an extended period of time. Once his teammates began to make passes to him in the neutral zone, he looked a lot more energized than he did at any other point in the past week. He squandered two opportunities to shoot the puck in the slot, though one can argue he was trying not to be selfish with the puck; he might also have been nervous. He needs to learn when to pass and when to shoot. He made a few good plays in the offensive zone.

On one particular play, it was clear there was an issue with his positioning on the breakout. Yannick Weber was behind the Canucks' net looking for a pass to make; Hunter was circling around the right side of the defensive zone with two Rangers players covering that side. He needed to be on the left side to support the breakout but did not make himself available. That's part of the problem with his positioning; hopefully he'll figure it out with experience.

I've noticed he works a lot better on the right side than he does on the left. The coaching staff may wish to experiment with him as a right winger instead. He wouldn't have to turn as much as he does to receive pucks off the rush; I think that hinders his ability to generate speed on the rush. He gallops when he gains possession of the puck on the right side. On the left side, he usually turns toward the pass, and then flips the puck in to the offensive zone because the opposing defenseman has stood him up at the blue line by the time he turns back to face forward. He effectively traps himself most of the time whenever he tries to lead the rush from the left side.

...

The much safer route would be for him to return to the WHL for another season and work on those things at a solid pace.

...

If he plays like he did in the last few games, I don't think there's any doubt he'll need to return to Medicine Hat to have the right opportunities to learn with and without the puck. The problems were all still there today, but he showed he could generate chances offensively too.

It's a lot easier to make the transition when one has a sense of control, even when one isn't physically strong. If he's going to contribute nothing while being pushed around, that's a different story. The deciding factor as to whether he should stay is whether he can create opportunities offensively every game. The next handful of games will make it clear what the team should do with him this season. The fact that it's ambiguous now is a positive sign. If he has learned all he can learn in the WHL and is creating opportunities in a Canucks sweater, then taking the next step in the NHL would seem fair to develop his offensive talents. If he can't do a whole lot yet in the NHL, it would be best to send him back down. Physically, he isn't ready. His positioning and other various aspects of his game need major improvement. The timing of his shot and decision-making need to be worked on. He shows glimpses of enough offensive skill to remain in the NHL, though. One would think he could develop his decision-making skills at a faster rate in the NHL than in the WHL, where he might not be challenged to make NHL-caliber split-second decisions.

Have any of the four criteria I listed above been improved upon? I've heard he has become stronger. I'd like to know what kind of game he has been playing down in Utica these past few months.

 

[shortshorts]

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

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.

2)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).

3)He also stated that this was a terrible developmental year for him. Both comments are wrong.

You aren't some mythical prophet. Every single Canuck fan said that.

#1. Other's aren't as happy with his season as you are - these are opinions and not fact that can't be disputed yet. Calling others stat watchers doesn't make your opinion any stronger.

#2. You should definitely read Stonz post about you missing the point. He's not calling him a bust. Based on historical evidence, the longer you stay in the AHL the less likely you are to making the NHL in an impactful way. Again, Stonz put it very clearly.

#3. Refer to #1. This is a matter of opinion, no one is wrong. Unless you're planning on going with your "I'm always right" Schtick.

 

[CanaFan]

I don't have the post handy, but one of the oilers blogs a while back ran a study that showed basically that for CHL forwards, if you're not contributing well in the NHL by 22 you never will. The break point is a lot younger than we all think it is.

Posted this in the last thread just as it got closed so I'll post it here again. Obviously need a bigger sample than just these handful of players but since it has been held up by some as 'evidence' that Hunter needs to blow through the AHL in his first season it seems appropriate as a piece of the conversation.

By my quick tally, at least 5 of these players were still in the AHL at age 22 and while I haven't checked on the others, it's probably a safe assumption that they weren't all "contributing well in the NHL" at age 22 (unless you mean simply playing in the NHL, which is different I suppose).

 

[Pip]

While the injury is obviously out of his control, I would say that a significant injury during an important development year almost automatically decreases the chances of the player working out, so while he should and did get extra patience, we can't just completely write off this year IMO. I would argue that he hasnt improved much as player since being drafted and while the injury is mostly to blame for that, it doesn't change the fact that it is concerning that he had such a rough year. I'm encouraged by his last 10-12 games or so, but the sample size seems too small to draw any significant conclusions from. Hope that he has a great playoffs to follow this up!

If he goes into next season and scores at .75 points per game + and pushes for a roster spot, then he'll have reestablished himself as a legitimate top 6 prospect in my mind.

 

[Pip]

I think my issue with that chart is that most of those guys seem to be lower picks, and those types aren't typically afforded the same opportunities to progress as quickly as a first round pick. But obviously it's hard to take much from such a small group of players, most likely cherry picked by Y2K

 

[Stonz]

Posted this in the last thread just as it got closed so I'll post it here again. Obviously need a bigger sample than just these handful of players but since it has been held up by some as 'evidence' that Hunter needs to blow through the AHL in his first season it seems appropriate as a piece of the conversation.

By my quick tally, at least 5 of these players were still in the AHL at age 22 and while I haven't checked on the others, it's probably a safe assumption that they weren't all "contributing well in the NHL" at age 22 (unless you mean simply playing in the NHL, which is different I suppose).

The list was originally presented with names only, no stats, in an apparent attempt to refute the assertion that only a small percentage of 1st round picks who spend more than one season in the AHL wind up making an impact in the NHL.

In your opinion, does this list disprove that assertion?

 

[WetcoastOrca]

]While the injury is obviously out of his control, I would say that a significant injury during an important development year almost automatically decreases the chances of the player working out, so while he should and did get extra patience, we can't just completely write off this year IMO. I would argue that he hasnt improved much as player since being drafted and while the injury is mostly to blame for that, it doesn't change the fact that it is concerning that he had such a rough year. I'm encouraged by his last 10-12 games or so, but the sample size seems too small to draw any significant conclusions from. Hope that he has a great playoffs to follow this up!

If he goes into next season and scores at .75 points per game + and pushes for a roster spot, then he'll have reestablished himself as a legitimate top 6 prospect in my mind.

Possibly. Mark Stone and Galchenyuk both suffered significant injuries in their draft years but they are looking like solid picks. Nichuskin and Virtanen also suffered significant injuries. I think it is becoming more common to see young prospects who require surgery and medical science has advanced so that the injuries need not be career threatening. It obviously depends somewhat on the type and severity of the injury.

 

[CanaFan]

I think my issue with that chart is that most of those guys seem to be lower picks, and those types aren't typically afforded the same opportunities to progress as quickly as a first round pick. But obviously it's hard to take much from such a small group of players, most likely cherry picked by Y2K

Ya my mistake, I thought it was initially posted by someone else to show that most players breeze through the A (the poster I initially replied to in the other thread referenced it as such). Obviously these are hand picked to represent Y2K's argument so while valid certainly aren't representative of all players (not that I said it was). A bigger sample of players is certainly needed, but this list at least shows that at least some players who are successful at the NHL level do take their time in the A.

 

[CanaFan]

The list was originally presented with names only, no stats, in an apparent attempt to refute the assertion that only a small percentage of 1st round picks who spend more than one season in the AHL wind up making an impact in the NHL.

In your opinion, does this list disprove that assertion?

See my post above regarding why I framed my response the way I did. But I agree this list doesnt win/lose the argument, but merely shows a counter to the "breezes through the A" argument. For every Gezlaf or Perry there is a Stone or Nyquist. Obviously the overall numbers need more elaboration, which is MS's point about declining odds of success with each year. But since I can't provide it, I'll bow out and go back to enjoying the show

 

[Stonz]

See my post above regarding why I framed my response the way I did. But I agree this list doesnt win/lose the argument, but merely shows a counter to the "breezes through the A" argument. For every Gezlaf or Perry there is a Stone or Nyquist. Obviously the overall numbers need more elaboration, which is MS's point about declining odds of success with each year. But since I can't provide it, I'll bow out and go back to enjoying the show

Fair enough. For the record, I wasn't angling for a certain response. There are a few posters on this board whose opinions on prospects & development I respect more than most. You and MS, regardless of whether or not you agree on everything, are at the top of that list. You both seem to have put in the time and effort to inform yourselves on the topic, and are typically well-reasoned in your assessments.

 

[MS]

Way to ignore most of what I said.

I also stated that he needed to learn how to play the pro game. Not only was he trying to get back to full speed returning from injury, but he's also in his first pro season, learning that some of the cute moves that he could make to deke out players with no future in hockey when he was in junior weren't going to work in the pros. He also needed to get stronger. All of these things he has done.

You keep saying it was a bad developmental year for him. Fine. Believe that if you wish. I disagree. People who have watched him first hand disagree. His coach and the Canucks GM disagree. But hey, stat watching knows better than people who are in the game and watch him firsthand on a daily basis right?





If Shinkaruk had made small improvements then that's noteworthy also. But by all accounts he has made big improvements. What about this don't you understand? And as I've already stated, not every guy who makes it makes the jump immediately. There are numerous players who played overseas for a few years before coming over (in leagues that can even be considered lesser than the AHL). There are players who have played more than one year in the AHL and still made it. Why do you feel the need to slant your argument in such a way that paints everything Shinkaruk did this year in a negative light?



I disagree that his chances have dropped, but I'm also not here pulling random numbers out of my ass either.

This is pointless.

Yes, I agree that it's terrific he's had a good finish to the season. And have said so repeatedly. I'm not remotely trying to put him in a 'negative light'. I'm trying to put him in a realistic light. You're trying to put my comments in a negative light by repeatedly saying I'm calling him a bust when I'm clearly not.

No, I don't agree that a season spent trying to get back up to speed after an injury is a good development year.

You haven't seen any more Utica games this year than I have and we've read the same game reports. I'm not 'stat watching' nearly as much as I'm going by the very negative reports for the first 65-70 games of Utica's season. He was clearly struggling badly for an extended period of time and was a healthy scratch as recently as a month ago.

It's great that he learned what junior moves don't work in pro. But again, most top-6 NHL forwards don't have to spend almost their entire 20 y/o season in the AHL figuring this out.

And the 10% number you keep re-quoting is if he spends all of next year in the AHL and doesn't play himself out of there. So you're yet again taking me out of context.

 

[Tiranis]

If we're going by all the reports from Utica, Shinkaruk's big improvements had to do with getting back his shiftiness and scoring touch, rather than improving beyond where he was prior to injuries. I think it would be fair to call this a good-to-great rehab year. I don't think it was a good developmental year. I don't think it ever is when you're coming off a major injury.

On the flip side, maybe you can say that this year counts for a bit less compared other first-year AHL players, given the extra adversity he had to overcome.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I don't have the post handy, but one of the oilers blogs a while back ran a study that showed basically that for CHL forwards, if you're not contributing well in the NHL by 22 you never will. The break point is a lot younger than we all think it is.

CanaFan quoted the bolded above, and for a good reason, because it's not true. It's true that most CHL forwards are contributing or just becoming full time NHLers by that age (If they ever will). An easy few minutes clicking away at hockeydb will show anyone that. I remember some of those guys at 22, and a bunch of them had very Linden Vey type rookie seasons. That is not "contributing well" in my books.

For that matter why is this entire conversation even in the Shinkaruk thread?? He turned 20 in the first month of the season. Might have made sense in a Baertschi or Vey thread, and by a purely statistical analysis Vey fits the model of having become a full time NHLer at the right time whereas Sven is almost certainly a bust. We all know it's not that simple right?

 

[MS]

While the injury is obviously out of his control, I would say that a significant injury during an important development year almost automatically decreases the chances of the player working out, so while he should and did get extra patience, we can't just completely write off this year IMO. I would argue that he hasnt improved much as player since being drafted and while the injury is mostly to blame for that, it doesn't change the fact that it is concerning that he had such a rough year. I'm encouraged by his last 10-12 games or so, but the sample size seems too small to draw any significant conclusions from. Hope that he has a great playoffs to follow this up!

If he goes into next season and scores at .75 points per game + and pushes for a roster spot, then he'll have reestablished himself as a legitimate top 6 prospect in my mind.

Bolded is basically my point.

Last year was a write-off, and if this year was spent mostly rehabbing his injury and getting back to speed, that's almost two full years where he was unable to build off the player he was at the time he was drafted.

You can't pretend that didn't happen and that now for 15-16 he's exactly the player he would have been had he been healthy for those two years. His odds of making the NHL have clearly fallen.

See my post above regarding why I framed my response the way I did. But I agree this list doesnt win/lose the argument, but merely shows a counter to the "breezes through the A" argument. For every Gezlaf or Perry there is a Stone or Nyquist. Obviously the overall numbers need more elaboration, which is MS's point about declining odds of success with each year. But since I can't provide it, I'll bow out and go back to enjoying the show

For every 10 Perrys there is a Stone.

As for the numbers :

I mentioned earlier that 21/43 forwards drafted #20-30 overall between 2004 and 2010 went on to NHL careers. About 50%.

But 14 of those 21 'hits' were in the NHL by the end of their 20 y/o season.

Of the 7 that weren't, 6 were still in the NCAA and one (Kuznetsov) was stuck in Russia.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that all of those 7 guys would have spent full AHL seasons and not touched the NHL.

That basically drops Shinkaruk from a 50% pool of guys when drafted to a 20% pool who haven't made that NHL step yet.

If we're going by all the reports from Utica, Shinkaruk's big improvements had to do with getting back his shiftiness and scoring touch, rather than improving beyond where he was prior to injuries. I think it would be fair to call this a good-to-great rehab year. I don't think it was a good developmental year. I don't think it ever is when you're coming off a major injury.

On the flip side, maybe you can say that this year counts for a bit less compared other first-year AHL players, given the extra adversity he had to overcome.

I would agree with the bolded.

 

[Dissonance]

Virtually everyone in this thread is saying the same thing.

Shinkaruk needs to be a top-line scorer in the AHL next season and be ready to push into the NHL, ideally get a bunch of games in Vancouver when injuries hit.

If he does that, he'll still be a contender for becoming an NHL regular, though not necessarily a sure thing. If he falls well short of that, or has a season like Niklas Jensen had this year, then there's huge cause for concern and the odds of busting will be extremely high.

Obviously there's room for interpretation on what "top-line scorer" means (0.7 PPG? 0.8?) and every player is a unique snowflake in a unique situation. And it's hard to craft hard cut-off lines that apply to every single prospect. But that's the general arc of things.

=======

Though if we do want a comparable, Tomas Fleischmann seems like a pretty good one. He struggled as a 20-year-old in the AHL. But then he came back the next year, dominated the league as a 21-year-old, and got an extended look in Washington. He still found himself back in Portland at the start of the following season, but by that point he was tracking well.

 

[y2kcanucks]

This is pointless.

Yes, I agree that it's terrific he's had a good finish to the season. And have said so repeatedly. I'm not remotely trying to put him in a 'negative light'. I'm trying to put him in a realistic light. You're trying to put my comments in a negative light by repeatedly saying I'm calling him a bust when I'm clearly not.

No, I don't agree that a season spent trying to get back up to speed after an injury is a good development year.

You haven't seen any more Utica games this year than I have and we've read the same game reports. I'm not 'stat watching' nearly as much as I'm going by the very negative reports for the first 65-70 games of Utica's season. He was clearly struggling badly for an extended period of time and was a healthy scratch as recently as a month ago.

It's great that he learned what junior moves don't work in pro. But again, most top-6 NHL forwards don't have to spend almost their entire 20 y/o season in the AHL figuring this out.

And the 10% number you keep re-quoting is if he spends all of next year in the AHL and doesn't play himself out of there. So you're yet again taking me out of context.

Reading comprehension then? Because I posted an interview from Benning and Green that suggest his performance wasn't "very negative" for the first 65-70 games. In fact, Green went as far to say that he's not even looking at his production, rather he's focusing on what he's doing on the ice and in that regard things have been going well.

Maybe you need to re-think your position and/or stop nit-picking bits and pieces of my argument which suit yours?

 

[CanaFan]

Bolded is basically my point.

For every 10 Perrys there is a Stone.

I'm not sure of this. I mean there aren't 10 Perry's in the entire NHL, yet there are dozens of Mark Stone-types. I suppose if your expectation for Hunter is to become a Perry-level player, then yes he should be blowing through the AHL already. But if your expectations are more middling - a middle 6 20-25 goal, 45-55 point one-dimensional winger - then I think he is tracking right along with other players of that caliber, especially when you factor in the potential impact of the injury. I certainly don't think these expectations need to be re-adjusted in light of the season he has had, however I guess if anyone had illusions of Patrick Kane still dancing around in their head then that should probably be dashed by now.

 

[Ernie]

On the flip side, maybe you can say that this year counts for a bit less compared other first-year AHL players, given the extra adversity he had to overcome.

It's not just the adversity this year. Most players get two additional years of junior before their first pro season. Shinkaruk got only 18 injury ravaged games.

It would take any player a while to get their timing back after being off for so long. Shinkaruk also had to deal with jumping up a level of competition at the same time.

With any prospect, you have to ask whether they have NHL level skills and the drive to get there. I think it's a significant positive that Shinkaruk has been able to stick with it and keep improving his game.

His skills still might not translate to the NHL, but in circumstances like this you can't just stick to some arbitrary timeline. Cole Cassels will be about the same age Shinkaruk is now when he starts his season with the Comets in the fall. If he puts up 11 points in 10 games, I think we'll be pretty ecstatic.

 

[MS]

Reading comprehension then? Because I posted an interview from Benning and Green that suggest his performance wasn't "very negative" for the first 65-70 games. In fact, Green went as far to say that he's not even looking at his production, rather he's focusing on what he's doing on the ice and in that regard things have been going well.

Maybe you need to re-think your position and/or stop nit-picking bits and pieces of my argument which suit yours?

The game reports from posters here for the first 70 games of the season were profoundly negative. And for the first 50 games in particular.

And who's nit-picking what? Seriously?

I'm not sure of this. I mean there aren't 10 Perry's in the entire NHL, yet there are dozens of Mark Stone-types. I suppose if your expectation for Hunter is to become a Perry-level player, then yes he should be blowing through the AHL already. But if your expectations are more middling - a middle 6 20-25 goal, 45-55 point one-dimensional winger - then I think he is tracking right along with other players of that caliber, especially when you factor in the potential impact of the injury. I certainly don't think these expectations need to be re-adjusted in light of the season he has had, however I guess if anyone had illusions of Patrick Kane still dancing around in their head then that should probably be dashed by now.

By 'Perrys' I meant guys that quickly went to the NHL with limited or no AHL time, not 'Perry-calibre' players.

Again, see my last post with some numbers. Once you take out the guys who were in the NHL by the end of their 20 y/o season, only 7/37 #1 pick forwards from 2004-2010 made the NHL. And all of those guys were in Europe or the NCAA for their 20 y/o season.

The vast majority of top-6 NHL forwards get to the NHL quickly once they hit NA pro hockey. Whether they're Perrys or whether they're 50-point guys.