WARNING - ESSAY BELOW. TL;DR: Sorry @guymez, I do read the posts and you've made a series of poorly argued/explained points here to try and discredit @Panda Bear's examples.
Well, I finally have time to write a more detailed response and I see that
@Panda Bear has covered many of the points I would have liked to address. That said, I can’t let the following stand:
Sorry but this is flat out wrong. My post completely details why the examples are not valid. Why dont you show me where my post was incorrect?
I have to be honest I am actually a little surprised at this response if in fact you actually read my post. You completely missed the mark which supports my contention that you are not looking at the actual content of a post but reacting to what you think it says.
If I am wrong about this then show me which part of my post was off the mark.
I assure you,
@guymez , I can and do read everything in these posts. For your reading pleasure, I have first edited my prior post to only quote the parts of your post it addressed. I have then broken up the remaining portions of your post to address each item in turn.
And to demonstrate I have, indeed, been able to read the conversation since then, I have also included
even more specific quotes I address as well.
I would appreciate you responding in kind, or I may assume that you weren’t able to fully comprehend my post
. (If you don’t have time, then maybe you might understand why not every one of my posts addresses every one of your points before accusing me of being unable to read or being too “emotionally invested” to comprehend what you are writing. Maybe the issue is that you are communicating your point poorly.)
This post is in response to
@Aerrol,
@GameChanger and
@KamiJ as well. No hard feelings interned at all.
My last post was hardly nitpicking...it was factual and relevant. That tends to rub people the wrong way when they are so invested emotionally into a player like Jesse and it doesnt fit their narritive.
This thread for the most part is fueled by that.
Addressed in my edit of my last post, but this is entirely unnecessary and serves only to 1. inflame the people you’re supposedly discussing the player with (ironic, given your next paragraph) and 2. comes across as a smug dismissal of differing viewpoints. Maybe they just disagree with you, have you considered that?
Your previous post stated: “So none of these players are valid comparables.” and then cited their points per game without any context as to age/development pace. What I can gather from the context of your following posts is that you think that a player’s PPG in their early NHL career is a good indicator of what they will become later on. This is my best read on what you’re getting at, as I note that
you don’t actually say this outright anywhere. You just dismissed
@Panda Bear ‘s examples with a lazy critique based on points per game which ignored the very important context of age, then addressed age by saying because they weren't in the NHL yet, they aren't a good comparable. I fail to see how this is true. You never address
@Panda Bear ‘s main point: that development time (e.g. time played after draft year) matters more than the initial ppg of a young player in the NHL.
Well...I just want to make something clear here. I am not interested in a polarized debate regarding Jesse based on emotion. Too many posters here just jump all over any post that triues to bring realism and honesty to this discussion which turns it into a Pro Jesse / Anti Jesse discussion. I dont see it that way. Some posters are just trying to bait and I am not one of those.
I am just trying to look at facts and realistic expectations.
Again, if your aim is to avoid a “polarized debate” and discuss “facts and realistic expectations”, opening with shots at other people’s supposed lack of objectivity and “emotional investment” is a funny way of doing that. No one here is objective. We all have our own subjective opinions, you included, sorry. The only objective parts of a discussion on prospect development are the facts of the numbers they put up, the games they played, and the time they had on the ice. EVERYTHING else is subjective.
As you have disputed this before, let me provide you the relevant definition of objective from Merriam Webster:
“expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”
Just because you feel that you have less emotional investment in Puljujarvi’s development (which you also can’t verify, I note) does not mean you are not interpreting the information and are dealing with raw facts. We are all dealing with second or third hand information here on the player’s development. By definition, in order to have any opinion on the subject, we have to interpret the information we have read/heard and thus our opinions are not
objective points of view. They are subjective opinions.
So I agree that age matters. I think you would agree that Centres are not valid comparables as well.
Here is where you actually get to the point and start discussing the actual argument. I will admit that I did not address the core point presented here in my previous post and apologize for that.
I think Centre has more complexity to it, but I do not think it is as simple as “Centre=Harder therefore Centres =/= Comparables for Jesse”. I think you can look at play-style, size, etc when considering potential comparables. Regardless, I believe it is more useful for discussion purposes to narrow it down to just the Wing examples
@Panda Bear provided.
So with that in mind lets look at age and what players were doing at approx 20 years old to see which players from your list were valid comparables.....
Schwartz....0.70 ppg
Wheeler came out of college at 22 years old. 1st season he was a 0.55 ppg player
Kreider entered the NHL at 21 years old and his aggregate ppg for the equivalent of his 1sr season was 0.45.
Granlunds 1st season was at 21 years old and his aggregate ppg for the equivalent of his 1sr season was 0.55
The only player who is remotely close to being a comparable is Pacioretty but he didnt start in the NHL until he was 20 years old.
So if age is the most important element in your criteria then every player you posted simply isnt a valid comparable.
For completion’s sake, I will address each of these, but I do note that
@Panda Bear has covered these points more or less already. The relevant NHL ppgs are as follows:
Puljujarvi went 0.29ppg in his D+1 season (2016-17) over a short 28 games. In his D+2 season (last season, 2017-18) he went 0.31 PPG over 65 games. This season (D+3) he is currently at 0.17PPG in a short 24 games played.
Jaden Schwartz went 0.43pgg over a short 7 games in 2011-12. He then, in his second call-up the following season, went 0.29ppg over 45 games in 2012-13 (his D+4 season). Finally, in his first full NHL season, he went the 0.70ppg you cite in his D+5 season, 2013-14.
Blake Wheeler is probably the closest comparable to Puljujarvi considering position, playstyle, size, draft position and development pace. This is why his name continues to come up as a best-case-scenario comparable to Puljujarvi. He did not see an NHL game until 2008-09, his D+5 year. In that year he went 0.56ppg, as you cite.
Kreider went 0.39ppg in the 2011-12 Playoffs (his D+3 year), then 0.13ppg in 23 games in his D+4 year, and finally 0.56ppg in 66 games in his D+5 year, 2013-14. Your usage of “aggregate of his equivalent of his 1st full season” is confusing to me here, as that is not what you use to judge Puljujarvi later on. I will address this at that point.
Granlund went 0.30ppg in 27 games in 2012-13, his D+3 year. D+4 he went 0.65ppg. Again, I do not understand how an “aggregate ppg for the equivalent of his 1st season” helps at all. It simply obscures the point about development time vs NHL ppg in their debut (which, again, is my best understanding of the point you are trying to make).
Pacioretty went 0.32PPG in 34 games in his D+2 year, his NHL debut, then 0.27PPG in D+3 (52 GP), and 0.65 PPG in 37 games in D+4.
The central response to all of this, in brief, is that all of these players entered the NHL much later in their post-draft careers than Puljujarvi, and were all chosen as examples showing that good NHL players can and do develop later in their careers. Wheeler, and Granlund go on to have further jumps in NHL production even later on in their careers: ~0.50ppg to ~0.85ppg for Wheeler from D+5-D+7 to D+8 on; ~0.60ppg to ~0.85ppg for Granlund from D+4-D+6 to D+7 on.
Once more, I am operating on the understanding that your point is as follows:
NHL players seldom develop significantly once they enter the NHL.
I am sure you will provide more nuance to it than this, but I think the numbers show that the examples above are Wingers (C/W for Granlund) who did in fact develop much later in their careers, with Wheeler and Granlund developing further while in the NHL. I and
@Panda Bear believe that development age matters much more than the specific league you are playing in to do that development.
As for your take on McLellan...I dont understand you you think that your subjective take on Jesse's time under TMac makes that irrelevant. Doesnt make a lick of sense to me.
The reality is that Hitch isnt deploying Jesse any differently than TMac did.
So I get that you and others (myself included) want Jesse to succeed you cant just throw out factual information because it doesnt fit your narrative.
I addressed this in my last post, but you are just wrong here. Hitchcock has used Puljujarvi to close out games, he’s put him on the second line, and he’s yet to bench Puljujarvi for a game. These are all big changes from how McLellan utilized Jesse. Nevermind the complete shift in the narrative the coach is providing on the player.
Your criteria doesnt include context. Centre is a tougher position to play especially when making the jump to the NHL.
The defensive responsibility's make it a much tougher position therefore these players typically take longer to develop.
This has been reported by scouts and NHL coaches alike. You can discount it if you like though.
I addressed this point above.
As for your D+3 criteria...again...context matters. For example...College players are a different animal all together.
Age is the most relevant factor here and from an age perspective your examples are not comparable.
Its a reach at best.
Age is indeed the most relevant factor. It shows that Jesse is ahead of all of those examples at the same ahead if we’re looking at the league they’re playing in. Development is hardly so simple, but you haven’t dug into any of the comparables that would prove otherwise – their numbers in the lower league, usage, etc. I appreciate that this would be a lot of work, but I think it is hardly a reach to make the point that there are quite a few examples out there of late-blooming NHL stars.
To dig into the comparison in the lower leagues, let’s pull out Jesse’s AHL numbers so far:
D+1: 0.72ppg in 39 games. D+2: 0.50ppg in 10 games.
Schwartz: D+1: 1.56ppg in 30GP (college). D+2: .1.37ppg in 30GP (college). D+3: 0.58ppg in 33GP (AHL).
Wheeler: D+1: 0.81ppg in 58GP (USHL). D+2: 0.60ppg in 39GP (college). D+3: 0.86ppg in 44GP (college). D+4: 80ppg in 44GP (college).
Kreider: D+1: 0.61ppg in 38GP (college). D+2: 0.75ppg in 32GP (college). D+3: 1.02ppg in 44GP (college). D+4: 0.48ppg in 48GP (AHL). D+5: 0.67ppg in 6GP (AHL).
Granlund: D+1: 0.92ppg in 39GP (SM-Liiga). D+2: 1.13ppg in 45GP (SM-Liiga). D+3: 0.97ppg in 29GP (AHL).
Pacioretty: D+1: 1.05ppg in 37GP (college). D+2: 0.78ppg in 37GP (AHL). D+3: 0.61ppg in 18GP (AHL). D+4: 1.19 PPG in 27GP (AHL).
None of this is definitive, but it seems to me that Puljujarvi has had AHL numbers at least in line with what Schwartz, Kreider and Pacioretty put up at similar or older ages. A true in-depth look would have to consider the quality of those teams and their usage, but I don’t have
that much time, even if I am writing this long essay. I note that the earliest any of these players played in the AHL or NHL was Pacioretty in his D+2 year. So, again, Pulju has been playing in that league far earlier than any of them, and the AHL is definitely a harder league to play in than college or the USHL. I know that there is an argument to be made that SM-Liiga is better than the AHL for quality of competition, but I will just state that the AHL is probably the closest league to the NHL in terms of both quality of competition
and style of play.
Potential is nothing if it isnt fulfilled. I agree that jesse has potential but IMO he is missing important ingredients.
One is a willingness or ability to be an assertive player. the other is an ability to think the game at a high level. he has shown flashes that he can be assertive but he needs to do it consistently which is the hardest thing to do for a player. I wonder if its an element that is in conflict with who he is as a player and thats why its been so inconsistent.
If Jesse doesnt sort out those 2 elements then he will be a bottom 6 winger at best just like Pajaarvi.
I don’t disagree with this, though I would attribute much of that inconsistency to his unsurprisingly terrible handling by the Oilers. If nothing else, I would note that looking at players like Wheeler and Granlund suggests to me even more that they should have kept him in Finland
at least one more full season after his draft.
Lastly something that nobody (
@Aerrol or
@Panda Bear) has addressed at all is that Jesse has regressed drastically this season from a points perspective.
I am not aware of any player that regressed this badly and are still able to rise above it and persevere. Its a deficit position.
That doesnt mean it cant happen...it just means that its unlikely to happen.
As I note earlier, this is confusing, as you are now holding Jesse’s more limited sample sizes (28GP, 65GP and now 24GP) against him but at the same time created aggregated ppgs for “full seasons” for Kreider and Granlund. In fact, if we look at the players described above, we can see that Schwartz and Kreider both experienced similar dips in ppg where they showed poorer after promising starts the season before. Granlund had a disappointing first crack at the NHL, then came on much stronger in the next season (his D+4 season vs Jesse's current D+3). The regression you speak of for Jesse is approximately 0.3 to 0.17, or a loss of 0.13ppg. Schwartz dropped from 0.43 to 0.29 or a drop of 0.14ppg. Kreider dropped from 0.39 to 0.13, or a drop of 0.26ppg. So right there, in the examples being discussed, are two good NHL players who showed significant ‘regression’ and then rebounded. Nevermind that for Puljujarvi and those two, the sample size is really too small to say too much without watching the games, or that Puljujarvi looks significantly better under Hitchcock to my eye.
Other examples of bounce-back at the NHL level include: Max Domi (0.64ppg, 0.64ppg, 0.55ppg, currently 0.97ppg in 34 GP),Eric Staal (0.77ppg, 0.70ppg, 0.52ppg, 0.79ppg, 0.92ppg, currently 0.69ppg in 32GP), Ovechkin (1.51ppg, 1.08ppg, 0.83ppg, 1.17ppg, 1.01ppg, 1.00ppg, 0.90ppg, 0.84ppg, 1.06ppg, currently 1.34ppg in 32GP), and Kuznetsov (0.53ppg, 0.46ppg, 0.93ppg, 0.72ppg, 1.05ppg, currently 1.19ppg in 26GP). Obviously somewhat different circumstances for Staal, Ovie and Kuznetsov, especially Ovie and Staal, but the point stands that having down years is not that rare in the NHL.
As for likelihood of development, I do think it’s in the very unlikely category that Puljujarvi develops into a star. I’d say if I were to estimate right now, I’d put it at 10% chance of total back-to-Europe bust ala Yakupov, 40% chance of turning into a Paajarvi type player, 30% chance of becoming a valuable but ultimately disappointing 3rd line checking winger, and 20% chance of turning into a legitimate top-6 forward.
Given their initial looks in the NHL and their growth later in their NHL careers, the examples
@Panda Bear cited are indeed great examples of potential comparables for Jesse being a late blooming NHLer.
And that concludes my essay in response to
@guymez ‘s posts on age vs initial NHL ppg as proof that I do, in fact, read the posts I comment on. All ppg numbers were hand calculated by me and used hockeydb as the source.
As I suspect that this thread will be closed soon due to length, I will make sure to re-post this in the new thread as well so you have ample opportunity to respond
if you so choose.
p.s.
@GameChanger my comment about the multiple posts was mostly tongue in cheek – it can be hard to follow a conversation when you quote that many different people at once but at the same time it’s not a big deal. No offense intended
.