Prospect Info: Jesperi Kotkaniemi (1st round pick, 3OA 2018 - signed ELC) - Post-development camp edition

[Estimated_Prophet]

Welcome back.

Thanks lol

 

[Mrb1p]

I think a decent gauge for a 1C would be if a C is a top 20 C more years than not. If a player pulls that off they were a 1C. If not they weren't. Though obviously rankings are personal. In terms of some universally recognized and accepted grading system, I don't think that yet exists.

That could make sense, but then, why do we draw the line at 20? What is the real difference between 18 19 20 and 21 22 23 ? I think its too narrow as a criteria.

 

[Mrb1p]

A true 1c is a 1c on half of the teams. A player who cannot be a 1c on more than half of the teams is only there by default and is not a true 1c......end of discussion

What if hes a 1C on 14 of the 31 teams ? Thats not half but its damn close.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

A true 1c is a 1c on half of the teams. A player who cannot be a 1c on more than half of the teams is only there by default and is not a true 1c......end of discussion

That's pretty much how I see it. Though called it "legit C".

 

[GHJimmy]

Don't get it why everyone's crying about centres in the 31 teams.... We drafted a centre and he may or may not be a 1C but be happy we got something better than a scrap certainly better than Droiun in centre

 

[LaP]

A true 1c is a 1c on half of the teams. A player who cannot be a 1c on more than half of the teams is only there by default and is not a true 1c......end of discussion

I 100% agree with this.

 

[LaP]

Let's talk 60 point centers. I don't think anyone would argue that Patrice Bergeron is a 1C, and clearly a superior player to Ryan O'Reilly. But they both produce similar point totals. In the last 4 seasons Ryan and Patrice have both produced about the same number of points in the same number of games, slight advantage going to Patrice.

It strikes me that we need a way to distinguish why Ryan is not a 1C but Patrice is, as point totals really won't do.

That's cherry picking though. Bergeron is older than ROR btw and his prime is behind him.

Bergeron average in career is 62.5 every 82 games.
Toews average in career is 69.8 points every 82 games
ROR average in career is 53 points every 82 games
Malkin 97
Crosby 105.6
Backstrom 80.3
Thronton 78.3
Kuznetsov 63.9
Kopitar 73.6
Tavares 76.1
Krejci 60.7
E. Staal 69.1

I'm trying to figure out how a 10 points difference is almost the same production ... There's a BIG gap between ROR, Bergeron and Toews (and the others). You don't build a team around a 4 years prime. That's a way too short window to win a cup. You want your 1st line center to be a legitimate 1st line center. One who legitimately was one for at least 10 years.

ROR in my book is not a first line center anyway not for now. Will he have an handful of first line quality career years when he'll retire? Sure. But he's not a first line center you can rely on and build a team around. He just is not unless he take the next step next season.

 

[Shad]

No, they're number 1 C's, as some teams have no number 1 C's, such as the Habs.

It's the 31st best centers based on the definition.

This. I have no idea what people are talking about with arbitrary numbers such as 20 and 15. There are 31 1c in the league. 31 1g, 31 1d, etc.. There can't be 30 or 32, unless a team is added or subtracted to the league. If Kotkaniemi ends up at 31 or better, he is a 1c. If he ends up at 15 or better, he is an above average 1c. At 16 or worse, he is a below average 1c.

 

[NotProkofievian]

That's cherry picking though. Bergeron is older than ROR btw and his prime is behind him.

Bergeron average in career is 62.5 every 82 games.
Toews average in career is 69.8 points every 82 games
ROR average in career is 53 points every 82 games
Malkin 97
Crosby 105.6
Backstrom 80.3
Thronton 78.3
Kuznetsov 63.9
Kopitar 73.6
Tavares 76.1
Krejci 60.7
E. Staal 69.1

A 4 seasons average is cherry picking? That's one big cherry.

From 2014-15 to 2017-18, ROR produced 231 points in 306 games.

From 2014-15 to 2017-18 Bergeron produced 239 points in 304 games.

I'm trying to figure out how a 10 points difference is almost the same production ... There's a BIG gap between ROR, Bergeron and Toews (and the others). You don't build a team around a 4 years prime. That's a way too short window to win a cup. You want your 1st line center to be a legitimate 1st line center. One who legitimately was one for at least 10 years.

ROR in my book is not a first line center anyway not for now. Will he have an handful of first line quality career years when he'll retire? Sure. But he's not a first line center you can rely on and build a team around. He just is not unless he take the next step next season.

My argument is specifically that ROR is not and has never been a 1C, but that point totals wouldn't tell you that, alone.

 

[NotProkofievian]

That could make sense, but then, why do we draw the line at 20? What is the real difference between 18 19 20 and 21 22 23 ? I think its too narrow as a criteria.

You will have to draw a line somewhere, and as we're seeing, if you base your ranking on a single number, you're likely to end up a jabroni. Moreover, what makes a 1C a 1C is the value of his play. It's possible to have a 1C for 1 year.

What does a 1C do that is so valuable, and how is it quantified? Not everything can be quantified just yet (we don't have playmaking data at all), but some things can.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Bergeron has low seasons of 50 and highs of 70+, just like Toews used to have. As long as ROR doesnt put up more point hes not gonna be a 1C. He was PPG this year, has 70 points seasons, high 60s and 50s. Plus phenomenal defense, on another level than ROR Id say.

I would definitely say, given that ROR is essentially never a plus player. Here's the funny thing, that doesn't mean he's terrible defensively. This year he was, but in years previous he's been a minus player because his team doesn't score when he's on the ice. In almost 1100 5v5 minutes last year, Buffalo scored a grand total of 38 goals. Sorry, but if your 1C wastes about a 3rd of your 5v5 time while your team only scored 30 something goals your team is going nowhere. That's something that Tomas Plekanec can do.

Other guys like Johansen, Turris, Zibanejad, Monahan, etc. Wouldnt be ranked as 1Cs either. Theyre 2Cs, kind of like Plekanec used to be.

I value offensive production and being able to generate offense higher than most though, which is why I wouldnt rank these guys as 1C, even though their offensive produxtion is just a tad under 70. I also consider the head to head, if any given C can beat the best Cs in the lead in a series of game, then its likely hes a 1C.

Another way of putting it could be; the ability to be "the guy" on a first line. But then youd have to define what qualifies as a first line and what The guy means.

I might actually draw the line between Johansen/Monahan and Turris/Zibanejad.

 

[NotProkofievian]

No, you did not. What you showed was that your misinterpretation of my criteria would lead one to rank inferior players ahead of superior players. You argued against a straw man, at no point did I ever suggest that Plekanec was a #1 and Malkin was not.

For me, number 1 centre means among the top-31 centers in the league. I'm not assuming that all 31 teams are equal as you implied. I know that they're not equal. Some teams might have 3 players at center better than any one on another team.

It's an abstract label, same as all of the similar labels in hockey. If the league had true parity then you might have a case where the top 31 centers were split among the 31 teams, and even then you probably wouldn't.

I owe you a retraction. I mixed yours and DGS's arguments. You indeed never implied that the top C's of the 31 teams were the 31 1C's, you only stated that there were 31 1Cs.

I would still like to see how you perform this ranking. What sort of things do 1Cs do that 2Cs and lesser players don't?

 

[BaseballCoach]

For me, number 1 centre means among the top-31 centers in the league. I'm not assuming that all 31 teams are equal as you implied. I know that they're not equal. Some teams might have 3 players at center better than any one on another team.

DaChampion is da champ on this one. The top 31Cs are 1Cs. There are 31 teams so the math is clear. Now if you aspire to be a playoff contender, you would want your 1C to be in the top 16 at least. Just like you would not want your 1G to be 25th best.

And because of the importance of the C position, and if your real goal is at least a conference final, it is probably better for the 1C to be top 1-10. It's possible to get to a Conference final without one, but with a top-5 goalie, a Norris-contending defenceman, and a 40-50 goal winger sniper, like say Washington did and even won it all, but I hope it's clear that if your best players are in the 17-31 level at each position, your chances of going far are nil.

Now we can look at Vegas as a potential counter-example. It's a tough one because first of all, the four best teams in the league were all in the East beating each other up and losing points to each other in the regular season, as well as falling one by one in the playoffs.

But what did Vegas really go to war with?

They had the 3rd top goalscorer in the league, and 3 of the top 44 point-getters (more than double the league average). And they were not just offence-only. They held down BOTH the top spots in the league in plus-minus.

Their number 1 goaltender was 2nd in the league for save percentage and goals against average among all goalies who played more than half the games, but he was actually FIRST if you count only playoff teams, as Antti Raanta was the only guy ahead of him.

Finally, the Vegas defence corps was top-5 in fewest giveaways.

So yes, the VGK did go far without a dominating 1C, but they did have other important dominating players (and were probably STILL only the 5th best team).

 

[DAChampion]

I owe you a retraction. I mixed yours and DGS's arguments. You indeed never implied that the top C's of the 31 teams were the 31 1C's, you only stated that there were 31 1Cs.

I would still like to see how you perform this ranking. What sort of things do 1Cs do that 2Cs and lesser players don't?

OK, thank you.

As for the ranking, there is no perfect ranking of hockey players. I don't have one and I submit that nobody else has one.

For example, somebody suggested "65-point centers", but that doesn't work. It doesn't distinguish between goals and assists, even strength and power play time, it's dependent on line mates and ice time, the error due to Poisson statistics is very large, and it ignores defensive play.

Personally, I would reduce the weight of power play points as there are fewer of those in the playoffs. Right there I'm making a subjective decision -- I'm saying that the playoffs are important. Most "statistical" arguments, and most awards, are based entirely on regular season play. That is a good example of why an objective ranking is impossible.

I would place no importance on face-off percentage. It's a very context-dependent statistic, the differences between players are extremely small, and its effects already accounted for by the other statistics. Counting FO% is double counting. However, there are plenty of people who obsess over the difference between a 50% face-off guy and a 52% face-off guy.

Similarly with penalty killing. It may be nice if your top player can play on the PK, but it also increases his fatigue and his risk of injury. A team is better off getting bottom-6 guys who can play the PK, so as to maximize the value of its top-6 forwards. If a team's top forward is on the PK, then it's likely mismanaging assets. An exception might be the guys who can actually create offense on the penalty kill, as Martin St-Louis used to do. But otherwise, the top forwards should hit the ice immediately after the penalty kill, or when there's 10 seconds left.

 

[DAChampion]

Referring back to Kotkaniemi, I do not have an informed opinion on his potential as an NHL centre. I'm not sure how many people on this board have a clue on this player to be honest, as he plays in Europe and not in the CHL.

I'm going to go by what I've read, and respond generically: His strength is intelligence, rather than outstanding physical talents. He has a respectable chance to be a first or second line centre at the NHL, but few are arguing that he'll be an elite centre. This is what Elite Prospects says:
A smart forward with a dangerous shot, Kotkaniemi possesses a high hockey IQ and determination with the skills to back it up. Positions himself well and often seems to be a step ahead of plays. Stickhandling and creativity allow him to split professional defences as a teenager. Decent size and frame, yet a very capable skater. (Matias Strozyk, 2017)
As far as I can tell, all scouting reports are making similar comments. I honestly don't know if this is a consensus due to everybody observing the same thing, or because one person evaluated Kotkaniemi, and other websites are simply managing copy/paste operations.

Anyway, given that these are his strengths, the best thing for Kotkaniemi is obviously to not be rushed to the NHL. He should spend at least one more year in the FEL nurturing his hockey IQ by playing a lot of minutes, and maybe adding 5-10 lbs of muscle to his frame. Then maybe do a year in the AHL. My instinct is that if hockey IQ is a player's best asset, then he can best develop by getting a lot of ice time. Confidence matters as well, and also being placed in a position to succeed. Thus, playing 10 minutes a game on the 4th line wing is not ideal.

My suggestion that he be allowed to develop is non-generic. For example, I think that if a player's best assets are his physical gifts rather than his hockey IQ, he might be a good candidate to be rushed to the NHL. Let him come in as an 18 year-old and score a lot of goals.

If we are to trust the scouting reports (should we?), then Kotkaniemi will not be an elite centre. That is all the more reason to keep him off the roster. The Habs need more top-5 picks. They need additional great players if they are to have a genuine 2022-2027 (approximate) Cup window.

 

[Habs]

Yes.... and yet?

Scouting reports are lame, take them with a grain of salt.

 

[Scriptor]

You know who wasnt talked about a franchise player from the get go but is now ? Dahlin. He was no where just two years ago.

He has 1C potential, just like Galchenyuk had it, you don't get drafted 3rd overall if you don't have it.





Does that sound like someone whos not a potential 1c ?

That's kind of funny. In the first quote, it's Kotkaniemi that compares his style to that of Malkin. In the second quote, we surely are forgetting the token, "We are discussing style, not necessarily level of talent," disclaimer that accompanies these scouting reports.

If you read hundreds of scouting reports, they become copy/pastes of other reports, with exact phrasing being copied from one player to the other regarding their skating, their on-ice vision, their transition game, etc. To the point where average posters with average hockey knowledge can do the same and make themselves pass off as knowledgeable.

If you took them (scouting reports) at face value every year, along with the style comparisons, there'd be at least 50-60 star to elite players graduating into the NHL for each draft. Average players, in the end, would later come across as complete busts compared to the optimistic projections and comparisons found in the scouting reports. That's just not the case. Let's get real.

I get the excitement of having nabbed a C with the #3 overall pick, but head scouts and GMs are sometimes also guilty of buying into the hype.

There have been many #1 overall picks that never came close to reaching their projected upside, from the Alexandre Daigle picks to the Nail Yakupov picks.

As you remove yourself further down the draft order, the discrepancies become greater and greater and more and more frequent.

I'm just saying to beware anointing the second coming of Kotkaniemi so early in the game.

 

[LaP]

A 4 seasons average is cherry picking? That's one big cherry.

From 2014-15 to 2017-18, ROR produced 231 points in 306 games.

From 2014-15 to 2017-18 Bergeron produced 239 points in 304 games.




My argument is specifically that ROR is not and has never been a 1C, but that point totals wouldn't tell you that, alone.

Over a 15 to 20 years career it kind of is.

I think it boils down to what you think a first line center should be. For me it's a very important position (the most important in a team) and you should build your team around it. To build your team around one he must ideally be a guy with a long career. Winning teams almost always have a legitimate first line center who had a great career.

Maybe ROR did as good as Bergeron in the last 4 years. But Bergeron is pretty much past his prime. If you look at both career so far there's absolutely no doubt and there should not be any discussion that Bergeron had a significantly better career. Now ROR is 27 only and maybe he could be that guy in the next 5 years. But he has not proven so far that he can be a first line center of a contending team imo (unless this team has a very good goalie and a very good defense à la Nashville of course).

The impact he had with his teams so far has not been the one you expect from a legitimate 1st line center imo.

 

[Mrb1p]

You will have to draw a line somewhere, and as we're seeing, if you base your ranking on a single number, you're likely to end up a jabroni. Moreover, what makes a 1C a 1C is the value of his play. It's possible to have a 1C for 1 year.

What does a 1C do that is so valuable, and how is it quantified? Not everything can be quantified just yet (we don't have playmaking data at all), but some things can.

Sure, a player can have a career year, but if the player never comes close to that, hes not a 1C, and thats what were trying to figure out, not if said player had the value of a 1C in a specific year.

I would definitely say, given that ROR is essentially never a plus player. Here's the funny thing, that doesn't mean he's terrible defensively. This year he was, but in years previous he's been a minus player because his team doesn't score when he's on the ice. In almost 1100 5v5 minutes last year, Buffalo scored a grand total of 38 goals. Sorry, but if your 1C wastes about a 3rd of your 5v5 time while your team only scored 30 something goals your team is going nowhere. That's something that Tomas Plekanec can do.



I might actually draw the line between Johansen/Monahan and Turris/Zibanejad.

Drawing the line : i think theyre all similar players. RyJo had a peak from 13 to 16 where he was posting low end 1C numbers, but since then, hes making Domis number look decent. Now, Zibanejad and Turris look like true one C statistically, that I can agree.

With that said, we have too much emphasis concentrated on statistics rather than looking at their relative place in the list of centers. We'd have to establish a rough list, probably using groupings (Franchise/Elite, clear cut 1Cs, maybes, 2C's). This would allow to determine wether a center is a 1C, because if the leagues best center was Johansen, maybe a guy like Bozak would be an elite 1C, too.


I think it's also useful to split 1Cs in two or three categories, if you don't want to rank them. The first would be 1CS you can win with regardless of team composition, 1Cs you can win with if the center line is good enough and the "Oh mama, you're in deep trouble" kind (Drouin I'm lookin' at you.)

 

[Scriptor]

Referring back to Kotkaniemi, I do not have an informed opinion on his potential as an NHL centre. I'm not sure how many people on this board have a clue on this player to be honest, as he plays in Europe and not in the CHL.

I'm going to go by what I've read, and respond generically: His strength is intelligence, rather than outstanding physical talents. He has a respectable chance to be a first or second line centre at the NHL, but few are arguing that he'll be an elite centre. This is what Elite Prospects says:
A smart forward with a dangerous shot, Kotkaniemi possesses a high hockey IQ and determination with the skills to back it up. Positions himself well and often seems to be a step ahead of plays. Stickhandling and creativity allow him to split professional defences as a teenager. Decent size and frame, yet a very capable skater. (Matias Strozyk, 2017)
As far as I can tell, all scouting reports are making similar comments. I honestly don't know if this is a consensus due to everybody observing the same thing, or because one person evaluated Kotkaniemi, and other websites are simply managing copy/paste operations.

Anyway, given that these are his strengths, the best thing for Kotkaniemi is obviously to not be rushed to the NHL. He should spend at least one more year in the FEL nurturing his hockey IQ by playing a lot of minutes, and maybe adding 5-10 lbs of muscle to his frame. Then maybe do a year in the AHL. My instinct is that if hockey IQ is a player's best asset, then he can best develop by getting a lot of ice time. Confidence matters as well, and also being placed in a position to succeed. Thus, playing 10 minutes a game on the 4th line wing is not ideal.

My suggestion that he be allowed to develop is non-generic. For example, I think that if a player's best assets are his physical gifts rather than his hockey IQ, he might be a good candidate to be rushed to the NHL. Let him come in as an 18 year-old and score a lot of goals.

If we are to trust the scouting reports (should we?), then Kotkaniemi will not be an elite centre. That is all the more reason to keep him off the roster. The Habs need more top-5 picks. They need additional great players if they are to have a genuine 2022-2027 (approximate) Cup window.

"Anyway, given that these are his strengths, the best thing for Kotkaniemi is obviously to not be rushed to the NHL."

I don't disagree with this, but our opinions of what 'rushing' a player to the NHL are likely not the same.

I have zero problem with Kotkaniemi doing one of the two following things:

1) Playing AHL hockey under Bouchard and getting a one or a couple of call-ups this season (under 10-games total), one before X-Mas and one after the trade deadline when Plekanec will assuredly have been moved again.

2) Playing him all year in Montreal.

Under scenario #1, it would be for MON to make sure that he plays as a C with choice TOI at the AHL level, development and progression being the determining factors for how Bouchard uses the kid. His development ahead of winning games, IMO.

The call-ups would serve to enable both the Habs and the player to evaluate what is missing for him to have an impact at the NHL level, hopefully providing vision and motivation for what needs to be worked on still. Playing in the AHL would also help Kotkaniemi familiarize himself further with the smaller North-american ice surface, while still playing against men.

Under scenario #2, I don't feel that you are rushing the player to the NHL if he has a limited role that he can handle, plays a regular shift and is properly surrounded/supported on his line, both with the choice of line mates and the coach's handling of the player.

Playing a third line role, let's say, with Lehkonen on LW and Armia on RW would insulate Kotkaniemi defensively, while still providing two wingers with offensive upside. The Finnish connection would also provide a familiar environment for the youngster to develop in. Some PP minutes would also help promote confidence-building for the kid.

Armia brings some size and a decent shot to the line. Lehkonen brings a genuinely NHL shot and a won't stop energy to the pivot's left wing and all three players, on some level, share a knowledge of similar instincts derived from a similar style of hockey learned at a young age. Both wingers have already displayed two-way skills at the NHL level. There's a combination of speed, skill and energy/work ethic that should support the young C's development process adequately, at worst.

Playing a role outside the limelight on a third line and not getting benched at the first mistake made will help Kotkaniemi ease into the NHL and get acclimated to the speed at the highest level of hockey in the best possible league.

A whole season of Kotkaniemi developing at the NHL level would also make it less cumbersome to have Poehling graduate to the NHL the following year. Kotkaniemi would already have a year under his belt and it would make it less stressful for him to graduate to a more prominent top-6 role (2nd line C) as Poehling eases into a 3rd line role in his first season at the NHL level.

If somehow, MON were able to also pry Nugent-Hopkins away from EDM for taking on Lucic's contract, the transition of the younger Cs would be more seamless, IMO. It would surely mean that Danault was headed out to EDM at the same time.

Maybe A Danault, Byron + depth D for Nugent-Hopkins, Lucic trade (I'm not making the trade proposal in this post, but I'm sure something can be arrived at) or something else to get her done.

The C-line could evolve this way:

First year:

Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Hudon - Drouin - Scherbak
Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Armia
Deslauriers - Plekanec/Peca - Shaw

Second year:

Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Hudon - Poehling - Scherbak
Shaw - Peca/Evans - Armia
Deslauriers

Third year:

Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Hudon - Poehling - Scherbak
Shaw/Bitten - Evans - Armia

Fourth year & forward (barring an all-star C picked in next year's draft, or the following draft):

Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Domi - Poehling - Gallagher
Hudon - Nugent-Hopkins - Scherbak
Bitten (or other) - Evans/Olofsson - Armia (or other)

 

[Mrb1p]

Over a 15 to 20 years career it kind of is.

I think it boils down to what you think a first line center should be. For me it's a very important position (the most important in a team) and you should build your team around it. To build your team around one he must ideally be a guy with a long career. Winning teams almost always have a legitimate first line center who had a great career.

Maybe ROR did as good as Bergeron in the last 4 years. But Bergeron is pretty much past his prime. If you look at both career so far there's absolutely no doubt and there should not be any discussion that Bergeron had a significantly better career. Now ROR is 27 only and maybe he could be that guy in the next 5 years. But he has not proven so far that he can be a first line center of a contending team imo (unless this team has a very good goalie and a very good defense à la Nashville of course).

The impact he had with his teams so far has not been the one you expect from a legitimate 1st line center imo.

You could potentially take McDavids four year peak and win cups with that, career length doesn't have any bearings on the quality of a player in the present.

 

[NotProkofievian]

OK, thank you.

As for the ranking, there is no perfect ranking of hockey players. I don't have one and I submit that nobody else has one.

For example, somebody suggested "65-point centers", but that doesn't work. It doesn't distinguish between goals and assists, even strength and power play time, it's dependent on line mates and ice time, the error due to Poisson statistics is very large, and it ignores defensive play.

Personally, I would reduce the weight of power play points as there are fewer of those in the playoffs. Right there I'm making a subjective decision -- I'm saying that the playoffs are important. Most "statistical" arguments, and most awards, are based entirely on regular season play. That is a good example of why an objective ranking is impossible.

I have a different argument for weighting powerplay production less: volatility. I haven't done the regression but it seems that season-to-season variance in even strength production is much more stable than power play production. For one, even strength is just the default state of play: most of the game is played in this situation. Teams don't get even amounts of power play time (by extension neither do they have even strength time, but the relative difference in samples is much smaller), and individual power play production rates can fluctuate by integer multiples. There's value in repeatability.

I would place no importance on face-off percentage. It's a very context-dependent statistic, the differences between players are extremely small, and its effects already accounted for by the other statistics. Counting FO% is double counting. However, there are plenty of people who obsess over the difference between a 50% face-off guy and a 52% face-off guy.

I'm a bit of a heretic when it comes to faceoffs. They've been said to not be important because their regression coefficient is small when regressed against goals. But the same can be said for just about everything. Even shots and goals have a 10:1 relationship which is starting to get into the ''rare event'' regime.

What hasn't been mentioned in the hockey analytics literature, that I've seen, is that logistic regression is biased in the rare-event regime. Linear regression is not. One way that researchers have used to get around this bias is ''dependent variable selection.'' Essentially, eliminating some zeros so that the 1's and 0's in your dependent variable are in roughly even proportion (thus eliminating bias). This is essentially equivalent to reversing the conditioning on your probability: instead of asking what's the probability that you'll score a goal given that you won a faceoff, we ask given that we've scored a goal, what's the probability that we just won a faceoff. We can all name times off the top of our head where our team lost a defensive zone faceoff and it resulted in a goal against, or a big power play goal scored to send things to overtime.

That's essentially where the overemphasis on faceoffs comes from. The small regression coefficient just says that trying to increase goals scored on a team level by maximizing faceoff wins is an inefficient strategy. It doesn't mean they're not important though.

Similarly with penalty killing. It may be nice if your top player can play on the PK, but it also increases his fatigue and his risk of injury. A team is better off getting bottom-6 guys who can play the PK, so as to maximize the value of its top-6 forwards. If a team's top forward is on the PK, then it's likely mismanaging assets. An exception might be the guys who can actually create offense on the penalty kill, as Martin St-Louis used to do. But otherwise, the top forwards should hit the ice immediately after the penalty kill, or when there's 10 seconds left.

I haven't really thought of penalty killing yet. It's my hunch that I don't really want my top line players killing penalties.

To me, a #1C means that when he's on the ice, which should be a lot, your team has to score a lot. That separates the pretenders from the contenders fairly well. What separates them even better is scoring chances. If, when your #1C is on the ice, your team is generated 35 scoring chances per hour, your center's name is Matthews, or Crosby, or McDavid. I specifically value centers who are directly responsible for those scoring chances. Your center will often occupy the highest danger ice on an even strength shift, and therefore, having a pass only guy there seems stupid. The best centers in the game can all put the puck in the net, and try to do so regularly.

To tie this all into Kotkaniemi, Jesperi shoot a lot. About 3 shots per game, about 9 shots per hour, in a pro league.

 

[Mrb1p]

"Anyway, given that these are his strengths, the best thing for Kotkaniemi is obviously to not be rushed to the NHL."

I don't disagree with this, but our opinions of what 'rushing' a player to the NHL are likely not the same.

I have zero problem with Kotkaniemi doing one of the two following things:

1) Playing AHL hockey under Bouchard and getting a one or a couple of call-ups this season (under 10-games total), one before X-Mas and one after the trade deadline when Plekanec will assuredly have been moved again.

2) Playing him all year in Montreal.

Under scenario #1, it would be for MON to make sure that he plays as a C with choice TOI at the AHL level, development and progression being the determining factors for how Bouchard uses the kid. His development ahead of winning games, IMO.

The call-ups would serve to enable both the Habs and the player to evaluate what is missing for him to have an impact at the NHL level, hopefully providing vision and motivation for what needs to be worked on still. Playing in the AHL would also help Kotkaniemi familiarize himself further with the smaller North-american ice surface, while still playing against men.

Under scenario #2, I don't feel that you are rushing the player to the NHL if he has a limited role that he can handle, plays a regular shift and is properly surrounded/supported on his line, both with the choice of line mates and the coach's handling of the player.

Playing a third line role, let's say, with Lehkonen on LW and Armia on RW would insulate Kotkaniemi defensively, while still providing two wingers with offensive upside. The Finnish connection would also provide a familiar environment for the youngster to develop in. Some PP minutes would also help promote confidence-building for the kid.

Armia brings some size and a decent shot to the line. Lehkonen brings a genuinely NHL shot and a won't stop energy to the pivot's left wing and all three players, on some level, share a knowledge of similar instincts derived from a similar style of hockey learned at a young age. Both wingers have already displayed two-way skills at the NHL level. There's a combination of speed, skill and energy/work ethic that should support the young C's development process adequately, at worst.

Playing a role outside the limelight on a third line and not getting benched at the first mistake made will help Kotkaniemi ease into the NHL and get acclimated to the speed at the highest level of hockey in the best possible league.

A whole season of Kotkaniemi developing at the NHL level would also make it less cumbersome to have Poehling graduate to the NHL the following year. Kotkaniemi would already have a year under his belt and it would make it less stressful for him to graduate to a more prominent top-6 role (2nd line C) as Poehling eases into a 3rd line role in his first season at the NHL level.

If somehow, MON were able to also pry Nugent-Hopkins away from EDM for taking on Lucic's contract, the transition of the younger Cs would be more seamless, IMO. It would surely mean that Danault was headed out to EDM at the same time.

Maybe A Danault, Byron + depth D for Nugent-Hopkins, Lucic trade (I'm not making the trade proposal in this post, but I'm sure something can be arrived at) or something else to get her done.

The C-line could evolve this way:

First year:

Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Hudon - Drouin - Scherbak
Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Armia
Deslauriers - Plekanec/Peca - Shaw

Second year:

Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Hudon - Poehling - Scherbak
Shaw - Peca/Evans - Armia
Deslauriers

Third year:

Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Hudon - Poehling - Scherbak
Shaw/Bitten - Evans - Armia

Fourth year & forward (barring an all-star C picked in next year's draft, or the following draft):

Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Domi - Poehling - Gallagher
Hudon - Nugent-Hopkins - Scherbak
Bitten (or other) - Evans/Olofsson - Armia (or other)

Kotkaniemi is not good enough to play in the NHL. Thats it, no other way around. AHL is also a really aggressive league, a league even deemed "faster" than the NHL, it's not the right place for him either.

 

[Mrb1p]

That's kind of funny. In the first quote, it's Kotkaniemi that compares his style to that of Malkin. In the second quote, we surely are forgetting the token, "We are discussing style, not necessarily level of talent," disclaimer that accompanies these scouting reports.

If you read hundreds of scouting reports, they become copy/pastes of other reports, with exact phrasing being copied from one player to the other regarding their skating, their on-ice vision, their transition game, etc. To the point where average posters with average hockey knowledge can do the same and make themselves pass off as knowledgeable.

If you took them (scouting reports) at face value every year, along with the style comparisons, there'd be at least 50-60 star to elite players graduating into the NHL for each draft. Average players, in the end, would later come across as complete busts compared to the optimistic projections and comparisons found in the scouting reports. That's just not the case. Let's get real.

I get the excitement of having nabbed a C with the #3 overall pick, but head scouts and GMs are sometimes also guilty of buying into the hype.

There have been many #1 overall picks that never came close to reaching their projected upside, from the Alexandre Daigle picks to the Nail Yakupov picks.

As you remove yourself further down the draft order, the discrepancies become greater and greater and more and more frequent.

I'm just saying to beware anointing the second coming of Kotkaniemi so early in the game.

Any player can bust, every one is aware of that, but thank you for coming.

 

[BaseballCoach]

"Anyway, given that these are his strengths, the best thing for Kotkaniemi is obviously to not be rushed to the NHL."

I don't disagree with this, but our opinions of what 'rushing' a player to the NHL are likely not the same.

I have zero problem with Kotkaniemi doing one of the two following things:

1) Playing AHL hockey under Bouchard and getting a one or a couple of call-ups this season (under 10-games total), one before X-Mas and one after the trade deadline when Plekanec will assuredly have been moved again.

2) Playing him all year in Montreal.

Under scenario #1, it would be for MON to make sure that he plays as a C with choice TOI at the AHL level, development and progression being the determining factors for how Bouchard uses the kid. His development ahead of winning games, IMO.

The call-ups would serve to enable both the Habs and the player to evaluate what is missing for him to have an impact at the NHL level, hopefully providing vision and motivation for what needs to be worked on still. Playing in the AHL would also help Kotkaniemi familiarize himself further with the smaller North-american ice surface, while still playing against men.

Under scenario #2, I don't feel that you are rushing the player to the NHL if he has a limited role that he can handle, plays a regular shift and is properly surrounded/supported on his line, both with the choice of line mates and the coach's handling of the player.

Playing a third line role, let's say, with Lehkonen on LW and Armia on RW would insulate Kotkaniemi defensively, while still providing two wingers with offensive upside. The Finnish connection would also provide a familiar environment for the youngster to develop in. Some PP minutes would also help promote confidence-building for the kid.

Armia brings some size and a decent shot to the line. Lehkonen brings a genuinely NHL shot and a won't stop energy to the pivot's left wing and all three players, on some level, share a knowledge of similar instincts derived from a similar style of hockey learned at a young age. Both wingers have already displayed two-way skills at the NHL level. There's a combination of speed, skill and energy/work ethic that should support the young C's development process adequately, at worst.

Playing a role outside the limelight on a third line and not getting benched at the first mistake made will help Kotkaniemi ease into the NHL and get acclimated to the speed at the highest level of hockey in the best possible league.

A whole season of Kotkaniemi developing at the NHL level would also make it less cumbersome to have Poehling graduate to the NHL the following year. Kotkaniemi would already have a year under his belt and it would make it less stressful for him to graduate to a more prominent top-6 role (2nd line C) as Poehling eases into a 3rd line role in his first season at the NHL level.

If somehow, MON were able to also pry Nugent-Hopkins away from EDM for taking on Lucic's contract, the transition of the younger Cs would be more seamless, IMO. It would surely mean that Danault was headed out to EDM at the same time.

Maybe A Danault, Byron + depth D for Nugent-Hopkins, Lucic trade (I'm not making the trade proposal in this post, but I'm sure something can be arrived at) or something else to get her done.

The C-line could evolve this way:

First year:

Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Hudon - Drouin - Scherbak
Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Armia
Deslauriers - Plekanec/Peca - Shaw

Second year:

Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Hudon - Poehling - Scherbak
Shaw - Peca/Evans - Armia
Deslauriers

Third year:

Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Domi - Nugent-Hopkins - Gallagher
Hudon - Poehling - Scherbak
Shaw/Bitten - Evans - Armia

Fourth year & forward (barring an all-star C picked in next year's draft, or the following draft):

Lehkonen - Kotkaniemi - Ylonen
Domi - Poehling - Gallagher
Hudon - Nugent-Hopkins - Scherbak
Bitten (or other) - Evans/Olofsson - Armia (or other)

I noticed Drouin missing, and no other NHL forward replacing him. Does this mean you traded him back to TB for Sergachev or for some other elite defenceman?