Player Discussion: Olli "Captain" Juolevi | II

[krutovsdonut]

Ok, my bad for a lazy interpretation of your original point.

Re-stating:

You said "lots" of forwards score 50 points at 18, then proceeded to list 3. That is not "lots". Do you have more that you can list to validate your claim of "lots"?

i apologize if my point was poorly expressed. i was not intending to debate how many rookies score 50 points. i deliberately listed 3 guys who did it recently but have since underperformed to subtlely make the point (i thought), that 50 points as a rookie is not something to get too excited about. if i had looked over the entire post i would not have expected the word "lots" to generate the most controversy. i expected people to debate the implied comparison of tkachuk to the players i mentioned.

i will be more literal in the future.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Matthew Tkachuk would be in Uticah if he was drafted by the Canucks.

there's certainly an argument he would not be in as good a situation as tkachuk has had in calgary and would be hanging out with gaunce on an energy line. but it's possible he might have crossed the stecher line and won willie over.

 

[CanaFan]

it could be argued that Backlund is the one driving the play. He looks like a legit selke candidate. Needs to improve faceoffs though.

I don't really agree with simplifying players into "play drivers" and "passengers". There are far more degree than just those two. Tkachuk is incredible at puck possession in the offensive zone, esp in tight spaces and along the boards. He has terrific vision down low and out of heavy traffic and has terrific hand-eye skills for tips and deflections. All in all that is a ton a play-driving/finishing value. Just because he isn't the guy who carries the puck through the neutral zone or dangles at the blue line doesn't make him "not a play driver". IMO it's too simplistic a description to be of any real value in describing a player's contributions.

 

[CanaFan]

i apologize if my point was poorly expressed. i was not intending to debate how many rookies score 50 points. i deliberately listed 3 guys who did it recently but have since underperformed to subtlely make the point (i thought), that 50 points as a rookie is not something to get too excited about. if i had looked over the entire post i would not have expected the word "lots" to generate the most controversy. i expected people to debate the implied comparison of tkachuk to the players i mentioned.

i will be more literal in the future.

Fine but you should be aware that "lots do" changes the argument from just saying "not everyone who has scored 50 becomes elite".

I do find it odd that all 3 players listed are Oilers, a team noted for rushing prospects and not providing them with a strong environment to grow in. Since everyone loves to throw around the "we don't want to become the Oilers!!" card in the tank thread, I'm going to play it here and suggest that those examples are more a result of the Oilers uniquely bad management over the past few years than a real indictment on the rarity of 50+ point 18 year olds in the NHL.

 

[RobertKron]

I feel like 3-4 years from now Tkachuk will be a quality 60-point winger and Juolevi will be a 30-point #2 defender and there really won't be a huge value difference there.

I don't 'love' the pick and I'd take Tkachuk right now over Juolevi by a bit but the over-reaction here is getting a bit ridiculous. And a lot of people are setting themselves up to look a bit stupid, same as the people who ranted about the Nichushkin-Horvat decision based on early returns.

I'm more or less in this camp, but I also think it's even sillier that folks are trying to act like it's some kind of sure thing that Juolevi will develop a high-end offensive game as a pro just because he's young.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Because the entire conversation point was the season after being drafted. Matt Read wasn't drafted and didn't play his rookie season till he was 25. Reading comprehension brah.

actually, i missed that distinction altogether and i don't think it was the major thrust of his point. i took him to be referring to rookies, not 18 year old rookies.

 

[CanaFan]

there's certainly an argument he would not be in as good a situation as tkachuk has had in calgary and would be hanging out with gaunce on an energy line. but it's possible he might have crossed the stecher line and won willie over.

Well seeing as how much rope Virtanen got last year and how much Granlund has gotten this year, I doubt Tkachuk would have had any trouble finding a top 6 role, even under dim Willie.

 

[CanaFan]

actually, i missed that distinction altogether and i don't think it was the major thrust of his point. i took him to be referring to rookies, not 18 year old rookies.

Well had it just been "any rookie" and not "18 year olds" you should have been able to find a lot more examples than just Gagner, RNH, and Yak.

 

[KingOfTheES]

i apologize if my point was poorly expressed. i was not intending to debate how many rookies score 50 points. i deliberately listed 3 guys who did it recently but have since underperformed to subtlely make the point (i thought), that 50 points as a rookie is not something to get too excited about. if i had looked over the entire post i would not have expected the word "lots" to generate the most controversy. i expected people to debate the implied comparison of tkachuk to the players i mentioned.

i will be more literal in the future.

Even using p/gp > 0.61 (50 pt pace):

Sidney Crosby - 1.259
Connor McDavid - 1.067
RNH - 0.839
Ilya Kovalchuk - 0.785
Jeff Skinner - 0.768
Nathan MacKinnon - 0.768
Matt Duchene - 0.679
Nail Yakupov - 0.646 (Not 18, but whatever)
Sam Gagner - 0.620

Still really good company there. If you go pre-2000 it's mostly a list of HHOFers. Definitely not something that happens a lot. So again seems like you are just talking out your donkey.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Fine but you should be aware that "lots do" changes the argument from just saying "not everyone who has scored 50 becomes elite".

I do find it odd that all 3 players listed are Oilers, a team noted for rushing prospects and not providing them with a strong environment to grow in. Since everyone loves to throw around the "we don't want to become the Oilers!!" card in the tank thread, I'm going to play it here and suggest that those examples are more a result of the Oilers uniquely bad management over the past few years than a real indictment on the rarity of 50+ point 18 year olds in the NHL.

i think the oilers experienced halfway wrecked gagner. but i was also hoping the canucks would sign and try and salvage him. i think yakupov was a miss on any team. rnh might have been better if he had been brought along slowly.

i am skeptical tkachuk is in a much better situation development wise. he has deficiencies in his game that are not being addressed and which seem to mirror his dad's weaknesses just as his strengths do. if you believe in genetics, it does not bode well.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Well had it just been "any rookie" and not "18 year olds" you should have been able to find a lot more examples than just Gagner, RNH, and Yak.

i picked those three players for a reason. as i said, i was not trying to debate how many rookies score 50 points. i was trying to point out scoring 50 is not necessarily a sign of a world beater of a player, by listing three examples.

in the future i will be more literal.

 

[KingOfTheES]

i think the oilers experienced halfway wrecked gagner. but i was also hoping the canucks would sign and try and salvage him. i think yakupov was a miss on any team. rnh might have been better if he had been brought along slowly.

i am skeptical tkachuk is in a much better situation development wise. he has deficiencies in his game that are not being addressed and which seem to mirror his dad's weaknesses just as his strengths do. if you believe in genetics, it does not bode well.

Keith Tkachuk played 1200 games in the NHL and put up 1065 pts. What exactly doesn't bode well about his pedigree?

 

[CanaFan]

i think the oilers experienced halfway wrecked gagner. but i was also hoping the canucks would sign and try and salvage him. i think yakupov was a miss on any team. rnh might have been better if he had been brought along slowly.

i am skeptical tkachuk is in a much better situation development wise. he has deficiencies in his game that are not being addressed and which seem to mirror his dad's weaknesses just as his strengths do. if you believe in genetics, it does not bode well.

I'm confused by what you are implying about "genetics" so I won't suppose what you are trying to suggest. However if Matthew ends up with a career anywhere near his dad's - due to genetics or whatever - then we have made an immense mistake in passing on him. Role players that skate hard or always backcheck are nice and have a place in a team's bottom 6, but elite offensive producers are the hardest thing to find in the NHL and you don't pass on them because of defensive or consistency issues.

 

[RobertKron]

Keith Tkachuk played 1200 games in the NHL and put up 1065 pts. What exactly doesn't bode well about his pedigree?

Genetically, Keith Tkachuk's son wasn't picked by the Canucks.

 

[CanaFan]

i picked those three players for a reason. as i said, i was not trying to debate how many rookies score 50 points. i was trying to point out scoring 50 is not necessarily a sign of a world beater of a player, by listing three examples.

in the future i will be more literal.

Doesn't have to be "literal", just be more clear in what your point actually is and we can both save time.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Even using p/gp > 0.61 (50 pt pace):

Sidney Crosby - 1.259
Connor McDavid - 1.067
RNH - 0.839
Ilya Kovalchuk - 0.785
Jeff Skinner - 0.768
Nathan MacKinnon - 0.768
Matt Duchene - 0.679
Nail Yakupov - 0.646 (Not 18, but whatever)
Sam Gagner - 0.620

Still really good company there. If you go pre-2000 it's mostly a list of HHOFers. Definitely not something that happens a lot. So again seems like you are just talking out your donkey.

is that really his cohort? that's a list of players who were mostly much better than him and are much more talented.

 

[CanaFan]

is that really his cohort? that's a list of players who were mostly much better than him and are much more talented.

A couple of them for sure. But that's the point of the cohort analysis no? To show the type of players who have done what he is doing? Isn't that more objective than saying "but they are more talented than him!".

Duchene, Skinner, even Mackinnon should be considered in Tkachuk's "tier" based on his draft pedigree and what he has done *so far* in the NHL.

 

[KingOfTheES]

A couple of them for sure. But that's the point of the cohort analysis no? To show the type of players who have done what he is doing? Isn't that more objective than saying "but they are more talented than him!".

Duchene, Skinner, even Mackinnon should be considered in Tkachuk's "tier" based on his draft pedigree and what he has done *so far* in the NHL.

No point in reiterating the same point over and over with statistics/proof.

You can lead a horse to water....

 

[CanaFan]

No point in reiterating the same point over and over with statistics/proof.

You can lead a horse to water....

Yep. Tkachuk, despite all he's done, is a "passenger" and "got bad genetics".

Juolevi, despite a fairly flat d+1 season and a WJC that illustrates how inflated his previous WJC stats were, is still a likely "1D" cause he thinks the game well and all other weaknesses will be easily fixed.

Oh and we shouldn't discuss either of them until several years into their careers too, lest we have an opinion "too early".

 

[krutovsdonut]

I'm confused by what you are implying about "genetics" so I won't suppose what you are trying to suggest. However if Matthew ends up with a career anywhere near his dad's - due to genetics or whatever - then we have made an immense mistake in passing on him. Role players that skate hard or always backcheck are nice and have a place in a team's bottom 6, but elite offensive producers are the hardest thing to find in the NHL and you don't pass on them because of defensive or consistency issues.

i will have no regrets not taking him if matt tkachuk leads calgary to the same degree of success as his dad did for winnipeg, phoenix and st. louis.

 

[krutovsdonut]

A couple of them for sure. But that's the point of the cohort analysis no? To show the type of players who have done what he is doing? Isn't that more objective than saying "but they are more talented than him!".

Duchene, Skinner, even Mackinnon should be considered in Tkachuk's "tier" based on his draft pedigree and what he has done *so far* in the NHL.

well no. mackinnon and skinner scored at a 25% greater rate as rookies over a full season than tkachuk has done in half a season as a rookie.

if scoring at a 25% higher rate is the same cohort, then we should also be comparing tkachuk to rookies who scored at .46 ppg and saying they are of the same "pedigree".

 

[CanaFan]

i will have no regrets not taking him if matt tkachuk leads calgary to the same degree of success as his dad did for winnipeg, phoenix and st. louis.

Haha, nice dodge. You are confusing team quality with the quality of the player. I guess I hope Juolevi doesn't turn out like Hamhuis Lindholm who has also won nothing.

 

[KingOfTheES]

well no. mackinnon and skinner scored at a 25% greater rate as rookies over a full season than tkachuk has done in half a season as a rookie.

if scoring at a 25% higher rate is the same cohort, then we should also be comparing tkachuk to rookies who scored at .46 ppg and saying they are of the same "pedigree".

Stat's don't bore out what you want them to and don't jive with your feels! Let's just change the argument!

You said scoring 50 pts as a rookie isn't a big deal. Now are you saying we need to drop it to sub 40 pts? You just keep reinforcing that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[CanaFan]

well no. mackinnon and skinner scored at a 25% greater rate as rookies over a full season than tkachuk has done in half a season as a rookie.

if scoring at a 25% higher rate is the same cohort, then we should also be comparing tkachuk to rookies who scored at .46 ppg and saying they are of the same "pedigree".

Mackinnon PPG .768 in 17.3 MPG
Skinner PPG .768 in 16.7 MPG
Tkachuk PPG .639 in 14.2 MPG

Once you normalize for ice time they are almost identical at 2.76, 2.71, and 2.66 pts/60 respectively.

I'd say that's easily the same tier.

 

[racerjoe]

Haha, nice dodge. You are confusing team quality with the quality of the player. I guess I hope Juolevi doesn't turn out like Hamhuis Lindholm who has also won nothing.

Not true, gretzky was crap after leaving the oilers. Couldn't lead any of three terrible teams to a cup...