I evidently simplified. It was not my intent to get into a full blown discussion about biology, psychology and whatever other discipline that may be brought in. I have no evidence that such studies exist in specific relation to 18 year olds who have received extensive training, coaching and preparation in the lower leagues upon making their jump to the NHL.
Also, the environments we are discussing are mostly copies of each other as all org. operate for the most part, by relying on similar precepts when it comes to development, a vast majority of coaches are known entities that have either played in the NHL or have been learned their trade from NHL organizations and several of these development people eventually move about to another NHL team, further promoting a bank of knowledge and methods that are familiar to most in the field.
I think the environmental factors you mention are much more of a factor when one is looking at younger individuals, who are vulnerable, may be victimized by an array of socio-economic factors. I think those players who are uber-talented and show a profile exhibiting strength of character, will have an edge and will advance in a similar fashion no matter what org. they are in, for all of the foregoing.
Also, Drouin was in Tampa for 3 years -- how come they weren't able to fully and properly develop him if their environment was so favorable?
There are two thought experiments that show up in undergraduate textbooks.
- If everybody has the same environment, then all variations are due to genetic differences.
- If everybody has the same genetics, then all variations are due to environmental differences.
These are cute (and instructive !) thought experiments, in practice neither of them ever describes the real world. You use the first approximation in your post, you imply that most teams are copying each other's environment. I don't think that's true, anymore than two kids in two different schools get the same education simply because they're both in school.
The Habs development system was clearly problematic on several grounds. We have seen players get bounced origin from position to position to position with no rhyme or reason. Guys like Louis Leblanc were played on the third line because the team wanted to give more minutes to Zack Stortini. Players get bounced around between the AHL and NHL. Players get promoted to the NHL so that they can watch from the stands for dozens of games in a row. Players get rushed, a list which includes Galchenyuk, Kotkaniemi, Mete, De La Rose, etc. Players are encouraged to fight and get concussions but are discouraged from scoring. The team hires AHL goalies with .880 SV% preventing the Rocket from playing playoff games. The Habs don't have an ECHL affiliate, which guys like Ellis and Avtsin would have benefited from. The Habs have either lacked or continue to lack a skating coach, absurd. No, none of that is universal.
We also know that both of Lefebvre and Therrien were bullies. That is well documented from multiple sources. That matters is a lot with young people aged 18, 19, 20. It can really get to them. We all know this. It can break people. It did break people. We know that some players walked away from hundreds of thousands of dollars to get out of the Rocket's toxic work environment.
I will leave you with an anecdote about chess players. Yes, chess. When a newbie chess player plays the game, he makes a lot of dim mistakes. That's because there are 32 pieces on 64 squares, holy f*** that's a lot of combinations. What a nightmare. But as chess players improve, they don't improve because they can suddenly acquire the ability to visualize more squares at once. They improve because they start remembering configurations as individual units of thought. So a knight adjacent to a pawn becomes unit rather than three, and so on onto higher-order configurations. The same thing happens with cab drivers learning streets, kids learning to read, or scientists learning concepts. I'm going to go out on a lunatic limb here and argue that the sane thing happens with hockey players, and thus for what we naively call "hockey IQ" to develop, players need more ice time in which they can perform. Conversely, those skills will degrade if they're watching the game from the he stands, or playing nine minutes a game and discouraged from focusing on offense.
Here's a random CNN headline, which provides a trivial example:
Of the 15 biggest school districts in the country, only one is offering schools the option of in-person instruction
Now that is bloody complicated. It has a lot of concepts. A young kid would have a hard time with it, but not an adult. Because for an adult, "school district" is one concept rather than two, and similarly with "in-person instruction". You can argue that "1 out of 15" is replaced with "rare". All of this leads to greater comprehension, greater "reading IQ".
Now imagine a hockey player who gets a lot of ice time in a lot of situations. He's just going to learn a lot more. For much more complex players involving not just other players and where there are, but how they're moving and even moving together. There is no substitute for ice time. The people saying that Kotkaniemi doesn't need ice time, that he just needs to gain muscle, are out of their minds. He needs ice time, confidence, and muscle, in that order.
Re: Drouin
Jonathan Drouin had his best season in Tampa and has since been declining with the Habs who made him play at center for a year. It also the case that acknowledging the importance of environment does not mean downplaying the importance of genetics and of environment up to the relevant point in time. Drouin might simply not have what it takes.
