Prospect Info: The Prospect Thread (Part XXVIII)

[Lindgren]

'Nucks seem to developing some decent depth d-men in the prospect pool, Brisebois, Olson, Neill, Subban, Saunter and Tryamkin....any NHL projections for this group?

At this point, I think it would be counted a success if one out of those prospects became an NHL regular.

 

[Ernie]

By "sample size" I was referring to the amount you've (or I guess "we" as you said in your post) personally seen him play this season, which is what you based your conclusion on.

Judging by your comments in the Comets thread, I would guess you haven't watched much.

I generally consider most "eye test" reports of prospects by fans to be pretty much useless.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

I generally consider most "eye test" reports of prospects by fans to be pretty much useless.

So you stat watch?

Because he's doing fairly well in that dept.

 

[Ernie]

So you stat watch?

Because he's doing fairly well in that dept.

53 shots says he isn't.

 

[WTG]

53 shots says he isn't.

2.4 shots a game is pretty good.

He's never been a volume shooter.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

53 shots says he isn't.

Over a point per game says he is. And that's aside from the improvement in other aspects of his game.

No desire to get into this any further with you. Agree to disagree.

 

[Verviticus]

2.4 shots a game is pretty good.

He's never been a volume shooter.

he doesn't have to be, but more shots would be nice

 

[Bad Goalie]

he doesn't have to be, but more shots would be nice

I'll weigh in here with one comment and then bow out. I have covered the Shinkaruk trials and errors along with his successes since he arrived. I could have published a book on him. As far as this latest volley, his shot total has decreased due to some intelligent play on his part. Last season he had great difficulty getting himself and the puck in scoring areas so he shot from way outside or very bad angles just to direct a shot on goal. Most of the shots had no chance of being dangerous. He also had to have led the league in wraparound attempts. He did it so often that when he finally was able to get by a defender to the end boards, the offside D-man and the goalie knew where he was going before he did. The D-man not only met him on his attempt thereby blocking any hopes of a centering pass, but got there ahead of him and pasted him to the end boards before he got far enough to make any attempts.

This season he has been skating hard, making a move or two, and if the moves don't gain him any space, passing off the puck and going inside the defender instead of down the boards and working to open space for a return pass in a shooting area. He has foregone the worthless shot and the wraparound and is going for the better scoring chance. He hasn't mastered it yet vs. all types of defenders so his number of shots is down, but their chance for success has increased greatly as is evident from his goal total. He also passes off if the shot isn't there vs forcing it, thus a few extra assists. Right now his recent injury has effected his shot. I won't reveal exactly what it is, but it definitely has an effect. Hope I've been of some assistance even if my up close and personal eye test is useless to some people.

Incidentally most of the feel for a player's value from a scout is based on his "useless" eye test. Oh I forgot, the statement referred to fans who are obviously unable to make a sound hockey judgement as opposed to the author of this statement.

I'll just put up one player to my eye test. I have been pounding on many deaf ears for a good season and a half as to the game Biega was capable of playing. He seems to have lived up to the eye test. I only report what I see. I do my very best to be honest and unbiased and I provide one side of every player's evaluation, an eye test. The other half is the stats lines. No player has ever been selected on one alone. They both have an impact. At the last moment it all depends on which set of tests the selection committee has a deeper feeling for. They are all wrong the majority of the time. Sad but that's the nature of the game. So many players throughout the world and so few spots available on an annual basis. That's why so many people can argue over so many guys. They'll all be right every once in a while. LOL.

 

[arttk]

2.4 shots a game is pretty good.

He's never been a volume shooter.

Would love to have him generate more shots though. Most good scorers in the league generate a ton of shots per game. Will probably need him to show that down in the A.
I do agree with Ernie in the sense that his shooting percentage is not sustainable at all.

 

[WTG]

I do not think anybodies expectations are for Shinkaruk to score at a .50+ GPG clip.

If he comes close to 30 this year it would be a huge step forward. And show that he is still a serious top 6 NHL prospect.

2.4 shots/game is fine if those are your standards. Of course if Shinkaruk wants to sustain .54GPG he'll need to amp up the shot totals.

 

[VanJack]

Canada versus the U.S. on Boxing Day.....Virtanen versus Boeser....does this game need its own GDT?

 

[Orca Smash]

Canada versus the U.S. on Boxing Day.....Virtanen versus Boeser....does this game need its own GDT?

I am more excited about this then the current canucks games.

 

[Orca Smash]

I'll weigh in here with one comment and then bow out. I have covered the Shinkaruk trials and errors along with his successes since he arrived. I could have published a book on him. As far as this latest volley, his shot total has decreased due to some intelligent play on his part. Last season he had great difficulty getting himself and the puck in scoring areas so he shot from way outside or very bad angles just to direct a shot on goal.Most of the shots had no chance of being dangerous. He also had to have led the league in wraparound attempts. He did it so often that when he finally was able to get by a defender to the end boards, the offside D-man and the goalie knew where he was going before he did. The D-man not only met him on his attempt thereby blocking any hopes of a centering pass, but got there ahead of him and pasted him to the end boards before he got far enough to make any attempts.

This season he has been skating hard, making a move or two, and if the moves don't gain him any space, passing off the puck and going inside the defender instead of down the boards and working to open space for a return pass in a shooting area. He has foregone the worthless shot and the wraparound and is going for the better scoring chance. He hasn't mastered it yet vs. all types of defenders so his number of shots is down, but their chance for success has increased greatly as is evident from his goal total. He also passes off if the shot isn't there vs forcing it, thus a few extra assists. Right now his recent injury has effected his shot. I won't reveal exactly what it is, but it definitely has an effect. Hope I've been of some assistance even if my up close and personal eye test is useless to some people.

Incidentally most of the feel for a player's value from a scout is based on his "useless" eye test. Oh I forgot, the statement referred to fans who are obviously unable to make a sound hockey judgement as opposed to the author of this statement.

Sounds like chris higgins and why i dont mind him being more stingy with the shots he takes, when i want shots on net i want them to have a chance, i understand the quality of chances is always subject to interpretation but i would often see chris higgins stream down the side wall and shoot from the permiter where the goaltender had no issue handling the puck, it would often lead to a faceoff which we subsequently ended up losing, good for his corsi numbers but doing nothing to help the team score goals.

If he is being more selective with his shots that is not a bad thing in my mind. Of course assuming he makes smart passes or smart plays instead leading to other offensive chances for the team.

 

[Ernie]

I'll weigh in here with one comment and then bow out. I have covered the Shinkaruk trials and errors along with his successes since he arrived. I could have published a book on him. As far as this latest volley, his shot total has decreased due to some intelligent play on his part. Last season he had great difficulty getting himself and the puck in scoring areas so he shot from way outside or very bad angles just to direct a shot on goal. Most of the shots had no chance of being dangerous. He also had to have led the league in wraparound attempts. He did it so often that when he finally was able to get by a defender to the end boards, the offside D-man and the goalie knew where he was going before he did. The D-man not only met him on his attempt thereby blocking any hopes of a centering pass, but got there ahead of him and pasted him to the end boards before he got far enough to make any attempts.

This season he has been skating hard, making a move or two, and if the moves don't gain him any space, passing off the puck and going inside the defender instead of down the boards and working to open space for a return pass in a shooting area. He has foregone the worthless shot and the wraparound and is going for the better scoring chance. He hasn't mastered it yet vs. all types of defenders so his number of shots is down, but their chance for success has increased greatly as is evident from his goal total. He also passes off if the shot isn't there vs forcing it, thus a few extra assists. Right now his recent injury has effected his shot. I won't reveal exactly what it is, but it definitely has an effect. Hope I've been of some assistance even if my up close and personal eye test is useless to some people.

Incidentally most of the feel for a player's value from a scout is based on his "useless" eye test. Oh I forgot, the statement referred to fans who are obviously unable to make a sound hockey judgement as opposed to the author of this statement.

I'll just put up one player to my eye test. I have been pounding on many deaf ears for a good season and a half as to the game Biega was capable of playing. He seems to have lived up to the eye test. I only report what I see. I do my very best to be honest and unbiased and I provide one side of every player's evaluation, an eye test. The other half is the stats lines. No player has ever been selected on one alone. They both have an impact. At the last moment it all depends on which set of tests the selection committee has a deeper feeling for. They are all wrong the majority of the time. Sad but that's the nature of the game. So many players throughout the world and so few spots available on an annual basis. That's why so many people can argue over so many guys. They'll all be right every once in a while. LOL.

LOL is right. He might be contributing in the AHL now, but it's a big jump from there to the NHL. It's nice that you think that low number of shots is some kind of positive sign, but it's quite simply not. Even if he was one of the best shooters in the NHL (which by all accounts he isn't), until he's putting himself in position to get more shots, he's a good ways away from cracking the NHL as a scorer.

So what happened with your eye test and Hutton last season?

 

[Ernie]

I do not think anybodies expectations are for Shinkaruk to score at a .50+ GPG clip.

If he comes close to 30 this year it would be a huge step forward. And show that he is still a serious top 6 NHL prospect.

2.4 shots/game is fine if those are your standards. Of course if Shinkaruk wants to sustain .54GPG he'll need to amp up the shot totals.

Even getting to even 30 goals this year is quite unlikely at his current shot rate, despite his hot start. He'd need to score 18 goals in his remaining 46 games, which at a sustainable shooting rate means he needs to put up about 150 shots over that span, which is about a shot more per game than he's currently putting up.

 

[Lindgren]

Are we expecting big things from Jensen over the next portion of the season? He's averaging three shots a game, with a shooting percentage of 5.9. That percentage, and thus his totals, has to go up, right?

 

[arttk]

Are we expecting big things from Jensen over the next portion of the season? He's averaging three shots a game, with a shooting percentage of 5.9. That percentage, and thus his totals, has to go up, right?

Doesn't look like management has any faith in him considering they called up Grenier earlier instead. I'll be surprised if he will be in NA next year, especially if we actually end up getting Rodin back.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Are we expecting big things from Jensen over the next portion of the season? He's averaging three shots a game, with a shooting percentage of 5.9. That percentage, and thus his totals, has to go up, right?

From Bad Goalie posts he has been playing well all year. Thought he had a good camp as well. He is the same age as Corrado if he keeps putting up the effort and getting the shots might be something there. If he shows improvement it is not too late for him to be atleast a call up option. No risk to signing him next year either if he gets picked up on waivers fine if not he is atleast a solid AHL player with some potential of call up. Same as Grenier is this year.

 

[Verviticus]

LOL is right. He might be contributing in the AHL now, but it's a big jump from there to the NHL. It's nice that you think that low number of shots is some kind of positive sign, but it's quite simply not. Even if he was one of the best shooters in the NHL (which by all accounts he isn't), until he's putting himself in position to get more shots, he's a good ways away from cracking the NHL as a scorer.

So what happened with your eye test and Hutton last season?

how would he know? the ****** coaching staff basically didnt play hutton

 

[Ernie]

how would he know? the ****** coaching staff basically didnt play hutton

Didn't stop the negative reports about the games he did play in.

Then he walks into training camp and is probably the Canucks' best player in the preseason. There's certainly a disconnect there. Utica fans who will go any lengths to defend Travis Green likely saw what they wanted to see.

Which is exactly the problem with these "eye tests." People more often than not project their own biases onto players.

 

[VanJack]

Imo if Jensen, Shinkaruk, Gaunce and Grenier were all in the 'Nucks lineup by late in the season they'd be no worse off than they are now.....I'm sorry, but while the Canucks are contractually committed to guys like Higgins, Prust, Dorsett and Burrows, the young guys would be no worse and would probably be better....also think there's a good chance they qualify Jensen and bring him back.....Green has done wonders with these younger players.

 

[Bad Goalie]

LOL is right. He might be contributing in the AHL now, but it's a big jump from there to the NHL. It's nice that you think that low number of shots is some kind of positive sign, but it's quite simply not. Even if he was one of the best shooters in the NHL (which by all accounts he isn't), until he's putting himself in position to get more shots, he's a good ways away from cracking the NHL as a scorer.

So what happened with your eye test and Hutton last season?

#1. Did you see him last season? If not, any further discussion is useless. In the brief time he was given (4 games), he showed meh.
You guys got to see him after a summer of conditioning and strength training, a rookie camp, preseason, and finally the beginning of the real season. He made improvements, but has started to make more errors as the opponents are studying his game on video not stats sheets. He'll be just fine. Incidentally Biega "showed" a similar NHL skill set, but the Canucks had to settle with their overpaid Jimbo special in Sbisa, the "speedy" Bartkowski, and Weber the slug.

Maybe someday you will recognize that eye tests and stat sheets go together. If that's all teams had to do in assessing potential draft picks scouts would be totally unnecessary.


#2. I NEVER said Shink shouldn't put up more shots. Reread and tell me if I did. I only explained why his numbers are lower than one thinks they should be. I wish for one minute you guys would let this kid slide for just a minute. It's 28 games into the season he was tied for the league lead in goals and got hurt and missed 5 games and has returned not really able to release his shot as he was before the injury, but has put up points in spite of it. He has altered his style a bit. He's realized you can't just give these guys a move, or stick handle by them, or skate by them. The shot # will increase as he works his natural abilities into the game he's now working on.

#3 Green has nothing to do with my eyes. I see just fine and with no bias. I wish every Comet an NHL career, but we all know that ain't happening. I report only what I see. I have no personal connection to any of these kids. There is nothing in it for me to select one guy over another. Truth be known, there are currently very few guys on the Comets who look to have long successful careers in the NHL. A real talented draft pick will go right by every one of these guys.

4. What did Green ever do to you to cause the real negativism you have for him? He didn't play a rookie at playoff time when he had the league' second best team at the time? That's coaching and upper management decision making. It has nothing to do with what he has done with all of these kids, none of whom was ever considered a blue chip can't miss draft pick.

 

[DL44]

Didn't stop the negative reports about the games he did play in.

Then he walks into training camp and is probably the Canucks' best player in the preseason. There's certainly a disconnect there. Utica fans who will go any lengths to defend Travis Green likely saw what they wanted to see.

Which is exactly the problem with these "eye tests." People more often than not project their own biases onto players.

How does how he performed in training camp after a whole off season of training have anything to do with how he performed 3-4 months earlier?

I heard this a lot in preseason with both McCann and Hutton... using their camp performances to somehow mean that they were without a doubt ready 3-4 months earlier.

Its a fallacy..

Edit.. i see BG much nailed it.
Ridiculous argument.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

How does how he performed in training camp after a whole off season of training have anything to do with how he performed 3-4 months earlier?

I heard this a lot in preseason with both McCann and Hutton... using their camp performances to somehow mean that they were without a doubt ready 3-4 months earlier.

Its a fallacy..

Edit.. i see BG much nailed it.
Ridiculous argument.

Compare McCann to Bertuzzi and Kempe. He could have easily slotted in for Utica.

Hutton should have played over Negrin in the regular season.

Its not a fallacy. You don't go from not being AHL calibre to being NHL calibre+ over a summer.

 

[DL44]

Compare McCann to Bertuzzi and Kempe. He could have easily slotted in for Utica.

Hutton should have played over Negrin in the regular season.

Its not a fallacy. You don't go from not being AHL calibre to being NHL calibre+ over a summer.

Yes... you without a shred of doubt can.