Player Discussion Jesse Puljujarvi Discussion Part 4 [UPD: Nov 24th Recalled]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lay Z Boy GM

Registered User
Sep 8, 2010
5,251
4,407
Vancouver
Even if Puljujarvi has games where he gets similar minutes as he would under McLellan, he isn't getting benched or shuffled around without a clear role.

Puljujarvi already looks more dynamic than he did in the final days of McLellan, and that's because a coach is working directly with him to give him opportunities to succeed while not depriving him of chances to earn trust and build confidence.

Puljujarvi must have loved the fact that he got to close out a game a little while ago--unheard of with McLellan--and he's even being trusted with a role on the penalty kill. This goes a long, long way for raw players.
To add to this, I like how Hitch is working with Pulju. He’s setting realistic short term goals and building upon it. He initially wanted to see him forecheck and turn pucks over, he did that. Then before the game yesterday Hitch acknowledges this and says the next step is to score some goals, he did that too.

Puljujaarvi seemed confused and demoralized before. Now he’s getting some belief and positivity, given clear and manageable goals and he’s achieving them.

He’s got a clear path now and he’s doing well taking it step by step. Also achieving some chemistry with a couple players finally. Just keep building.
 

Aerrol

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Sep 18, 2014
6,555
3,208
@Aerrol that seems like a solid post based on my skimming it, that is quite the post :lol:

It might be a little excessive :sarcasm: but I had some spare time and I do not take accusations of not reading lightly!

I also have been happy with Puljus game under Hitch and really hope he closes out the season strong and proves to be a late bloomer!
 

nabob

Big Daddy Kane
Aug 3, 2005
34,291
20,670
HF boards
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:

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 :sarcasm:. (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.)

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

I addressed this point above.

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.

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.

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 :D 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 :).

Short and sweet.
 

HockeyHistorian

Registered User
Mar 17, 2015
1,563
1,451
He still seems to be clueless on the rush, just kind of shuts down his own options as he crosses the blueline into the offensive zone.
I think you are right, but I think it's a confidence issue caused by the teachings of McLellan. I base this on the fact that he seems to do great when he crosses the neutral zone, but then he sometimes sort of quits on the play after he crosses the blue line. To me it looks like he is afraid of losing the puck. He should just use his speed and frame and blow past the D or force them to take a penalty.

Hitch recently alluded to Pulju getting more confident on driving wide on the D and I have seen improvements on this as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Boom not bust

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
@Aerrol

I appreciate the work you put into that but I take exception with how you started out. Its one thing to suggest that there are points and comparisons that aren't congruent or you dont agree with...ie Jesses smaller sample size...which is fair.
That is something we can discuss.

That said its another thing all together to bold a claim that my posts were "poorly argued and explained" and then expect me to engage you in a conversation after you type out the equivalent of War and Peace.

Just to address your previous responses and how I arrived at my conclusion....when you respond with an emotional post that doesn't address my points then why on earth would you be shocked and bothered that I arrive at the conclusions I arrived at?
You didnt provide me with any information to arrive at an alternate conclusion and to be honest you and a few others do tend to get worked up with anything regarding Jesse that doesnt support the overtly positive (subjective not objective) narrative.
You then go on to treat me like I am one of the posters typing out Jesse posts just to stir the pot. Contrary to what you want to believe I am not one of those posters. I do try to invite discussion rather than just doing drive bys like some others on this board. If there are inaccuracies or incorrect assumptions in my posts then by all means highlight them and address these posts.

Perhaps even individually...in much smaller chunks.

So thanks for the definition on objectivity. Objectivity tends to accept both sides of the argument...positive and negative.
I hope you remember to review it again the nest time we engage with a more dialogue friendly response.
BTW...sometimes debates can get ramped up a little...you would do well not to take it personally even if my wording tends to come across as a little too terse for you liking.

So with all the accusatory nonsense out of the way....I appreciate the effort you put in here but its going to be some time before I can parse through your novel and address the points you are trying to make. :nod:

EDIT: I am dealing with the reality of putting down a family pet...a wonderful friend we have had for 13 years and I am finding it to be extremely difficult.
So while its not to be considered an excuse it occurs to me that I may be venting my frustration with the tone in my debate orientated posts the past few days.
If so then I apologize to yourself @Panda Bear and any other posters that may have felt slighted.
 
Last edited:

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
Guymez, you're a nice dude. My writing is far more dismissive and hostile than yours.

I am really sorry that you're experiencing your loss. I have a pet myself, and I absolutely dread the days that you're experiencing now.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Guymez, you're a nice dude. My writing is far more dismissive and hostile than yours.

I am really sorry that you're experiencing your loss. I have a pet myself, and I absolutely dread the days that you're experiencing now.

Thanks man...I really appreciate it.
I actually came back to delete the edit. After trying to distract myself for an hour or so with a comedy (didnt work) I thought it was bad idea to post that and go 'public' with a private matter. Too late now I guess.
Poor judgement on my part.

Its a funny thing how these unassuming little creatures can have such a strong hold on us. Incredible really.

Actually to be honest I don't find your posts to be dismissive at all. As a matter of fact after re-reading my posts I thought you were being quite patient with me . :nod:

As for Jesse...I am going to step away for a bit from any combative dialogue.I usually enjoy the debate but not enjoying right now.
We (and @Aerrol and a few others) may disagree on some things but ultimately we all hope for the same thing,...that Jesse can still become a solid player and fulfills his potential.
 
Last edited:

GameChanger

Registered User
Jun 29, 2016
2,161
1,231
@Aerrol

EDIT: I am dealing with the reality of putting down a family pet...a wonderful friend we have had for 13 years and I am finding it to be extremely difficult.
So while its not to be considered an excuse it occurs to me that I may be venting my frustration with the tone in my debate orientated posts the past few days.
If so then I apologize to yourself @Panda Bear and any other posters that may have felt slighted.

All in all a great post from you. We've seen things in a different light quite a few times, but usually with style. I also thought some of your previous messages were at times lower than your standards, but the post (where this quote is from) explained things a lot and gave props to you in my eyes.

As for the quoted part, I'm sorry to hear that. I've been there myself too, handling the practical things with my dad when it was too much for my mum. I wish you guys strength to get through this difficult time!
 
  • Like
Reactions: guymez

Burnt Biscuits

Registered User
May 2, 2010
9,164
3,179
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:

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 :sarcasm:. (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.)

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

I addressed this point above.

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.

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.

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 :D 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 :).
No way am I going to chew through all of that, but late bloomers coming out of College is a far more common phenomenon than it is from players following a development path like Jesse's. I believe that is correct practice based on historical precedents to read more into what Jesse's numbers at this age have been given the development path, than it would be to read into a 20 year old College players numbers. Not saying that either definitively tells what a player is capable of becoming, just that Jesse's stats should have a higher correlation to his future capabilities.

Also in comparing players across leagues I think a tool such as Desjardins or Vollman's NHL equivalency numbers can be somewhat illuminating in how players are tracking.

Like using Vollman's NHLe numbers for Wheeler his D+2 number was 0.26 Pts/per game compared to Jesse's actual NHL number of 0.31 at the same juncture. Wheeler's D+3 NHL equivalency number was 0.38 Pts/per game to Jesse's current 0.17Pts/per game. I didn't do Wheeler's Draft +1 season cause I didn't see an equivalency number for the USHL. Wheelers NHL equivalency numbers didn't match up very closely with the level of impact he had in first season, but in other cases it was quite on the mark.

For example Gaudreau'ss Vollman NHL equivalency based on an 82 game season would of put him at 30 points in his draft +1, 44 points in his draft +2, 61 points in his draft +3 and the reality was he got 64 points in his draft +4 rookie NHL season.


One aside that has been going around in this thread not necessarily directed at you is the assumption that a player is superior or ahead in development cause they made the NHL quicker, I think is a false statement some teams just choose different development paths for their players or for College players many will turn down offers to go pro cause they want to stay for one more year in College. Like I have little doubt that the post draft+3 Gaudreau would outperform Pulju at the same point of development if he chose to go pro one year sooner.
 

GameChanger

Registered User
Jun 29, 2016
2,161
1,231
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 :).

Man THAT was a long post, you should be paid for that :)

Yeah, coming from you I didn't think you'd try to offend me. But I believe some people took it that way as apologizing oneself for doing what someone else is doing does give a particular feeling quite easily. I also prefer direct words, but the message got through this way, too :) So no worries.

However, I'm sorry but I'm not changing my habbit, but I'll pay a bit more attention to it to maybe avoid several long posts in a row.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aerrol

KamiJ

Registered User
Mar 2, 2017
5
4
South Korea
Potential is nothing if it isnt fulfilled.
That is true but players are drafted based on their potential. It is not an easily measurable attribute so only way to predict it looking at player's age and to compare him to other players at the same age group. People are not the same at this either. Others may reach their potential younger than others while others may do that in later age. That is why you shouldn't be too pessimistic with a 20 years old player. But they say pessimistic people will never be disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guymez

Drivesaitl

Time to Drive
Oct 8, 2017
45,289
54,812
Duck hunting
Also, apologies in advance for what likely reads as condescension in my posts.

Somebody that 2 weeks ago stated that the Oilers should trade Draisaitl for Tarasenko, and doubted that Draisaitl would be enough to make that deal, couldn't possibly condescend to others posts in the first place. You're also around the only one here that do the Hall for Larsson trade again. I mean if we're being objective at all.

When you state things like the bolded are you serious?
 
Last edited:

Drivesaitl

Time to Drive
Oct 8, 2017
45,289
54,812
Duck hunting
It might be a little excessive :sarcasm: but I had some spare time and I do not take accusations of not reading lightly!

I also have been happy with Puljus game under Hitch and really hope he closes out the season strong and proves to be a late bloomer!

Its war and peace, my lord. almost impossible to wade through all that. The difficulty is when one goes into the degree of minutiae you did there its beyond discussion and starts to resemble legal articling;) One would have to be intimately familiar with every argument, and sub argument referred to to even follow along.

That said there is a particular distortion contained in your Book of Puljujarvi, and its comparison bias. That the comparisons picked are of course arbitrary, but not exactly random, because the comparisons picked are largely successful NHL players that are being, for some reason, equated to Puljujarvi. Theres a lot longer lists of players who struggled to produce in first few years that simply vanished from the NHL landscape. That would be much more the normal curve distribution Pulju is on. The Wheeler prognosis would be outlier projection at this point. One of the few that would have struggled early and then succeeded greatly.

My own take is that Pulju may go on to pound out 40pt seasons and 20 goal seasons but right now its hard to see more than that in terms of what he has actually brought.


The reality is that the argument people are bestowing on Pulju, that he could be a wheeler, could be made in relation to any struggling player. So that a Spooner could be X great player, Rattie could be an undeveloped 60pt player etc.

Its pie in the sky comparison. Its simple distortion hand selecting the players you WANT to compare to Pulju and has no relation to Pulju, or HIS actual development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Burning GOAT

Aerrol

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Sep 18, 2014
6,555
3,208
@Aerrol
I appreciate the work you put into that but I take exception with how you started out. Its one thing to suggest that there are points and comparisons that aren't congruent or you dont agree with...ie Jesses smaller sample size...which is fair.
That is something we can discuss.
That said its another thing all together to bold a claim that my posts were "poorly argued and explained" and then expect me to engage you in a conversation after you type out the equivalent of War and Peace.
Just to address your previous responses and how I arrived at my conclusion....when you respond with an emotional post that doesn't address my points then why on earth would you be shocked and bothered that I arrive at the conclusions I arrived at?
You didnt provide me with any information to arrive at an alternate conclusion and to be honest you and a few others do tend to get worked up with anything regarding Jesse that doesnt support the overtly positive (subjective not objective) narrative.
You then go on to treat me like I am one of the posters typing out Jesse posts just to stir the pot. Contrary to what you want to believe I am not one of those posters. I do try to invite discussion rather than just doing drive bys like some others on this board. If there are inaccuracies or incorrect assumptions in my posts then by all means highlight them and address these posts.
Perhaps even individually...in much smaller chunks.
That was kind of the point. I know you mean well and often bring good points to the discussion, but lately you've been inclined to constantly accuse others of being "too emotional", "not objective", and otherwise talking down to them. If you want to foster good debate, you'd be much better served by doing what you have requested here: just state why they're wrong, rather than throw out assumptions about posters emotional states, objectivity, etc.

I could do better at that as well, but accusing others of not reading isn't a good look - I could have simply responded that you weren't reading my post as it clearly addressed parts of yours if you took the time. I did provide an answer in the first place, and you opened with a suggestion that I ignored “factual and relevant” information because I (and others) was too “invested emotionally”. Why would you expect someone to respond calmly when you open with an attack on their ability to think and reason?

The length was a tongue in cheek response to the suggestion that I do not read posts or am unable to respond to the points you bring up. It's usually a matter of available time, not reading ability.
So thanks for the definition on objectivity. Objectivity tends to accept both sides of the argument...positive and negative.
I hope you remember to review it again the nest time we engage with a more dialogue friendly response.
BTW...sometimes debates can get ramped up a little...you would do well not to take it personally even if my wording tends to come across as a little too terse for you liking.
Right back at ya with this. If I’m being honest, I am well aware at this point that our viewpoints on prospect development are diametrically opposed, and not much will change that. I can always do better going forward though, absolutely.
So with all the accusatory nonsense out of the way....I appreciate the effort you put in here but its going to be some time before I can parse through your novel and address the points you are trying to make.
clip_image001.gif
And I appreciate you taking the time to give a response if you so choose. We absolutely would both like to see Jesse and the Oilers do well. If you’d prefer to keep it more manageable, I think a better starting place would be for you to tell me if I’ve mischaracterized your argument when I describe it as such:

NHL players seldom develop significantly once they enter the NHL. Thus, a prospect’s early PPG numbers in the NHL are more important than age/development time.
EDIT: I am dealing with the reality of putting down a family pet...a wonderful friend we have had for 13 years and I am finding it to be extremely difficult.
So while its not to be considered an excuse it occurs to me that I may be venting my frustration with the tone in my debate orientated posts the past few days.
If so then I apologize to yourself @Panda Bear and any other posters that may have felt slighted.
I wasn’t sure whether to address this at the start or end of my response, but I just want to say that’s really awful, and I’m sorry to hear that. I also think it’s really brave and honest of you to add this to your post, and I appreciate that. This year hasn’t exactly been swell for me either, so I’m sure I’ve probably been more abrasive than I’d like to be. I’ve been trying to post less as a result, but sometimes I end up doing it anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guymez
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->