The Sophomore Slump

[Sensfanman]

Ok, I've seen a lot of people talk about "don't worry, it's just the sophomore slump" when referring to a prospect who after impressing took a step back. However, I notice some players like Statsny and Parise (for example) took a step forward. So I began wondering, if the "slump" exists, how many big name prospects has it actually affected? To what degree? Did they ever get back to rookie form? How long did that take? All that stuff.

I was wondering if there is a way to make a relation between "the slump" and potential. For example, Jordan Staal seemed like a great prospect but then disappeared. Could there be a way to statistically show the chances of him making it back to rookie form or surpassing it etc. Look at Scott Gomez, it took him a few seasons to get back his game; or Michael Ryder, where did he go? Jason Arnott is another example.

Now, I don't know how to go about this, I was just thinking about it. What do you guys think? You have all the stats. Am I way off base or is there something numbers can help show about future "sophomore slumps"?

Click to read more...

 

[Sens Rule]

Ok, I've seen a lot of people talk about "don't worry, it's just the sophomore slump" when referring to a prospect who after impressing took a step back. However, I notice some players like Statsny and Parise (for example) took a step forward. So I began wondering, if the "slump" exists, how many big name prospects has it actually affected? To what degree? Did they ever get back to rookie form? How long did that take? All that stuff.

I was wondering if there is a way to make a relation between "the slump" and potential. For example, Jordan Staal seemed like a great prospect but then disappeared. Could there be a way to statistically show the chances of him making it back to rookie form or surpassing it etc. Look at Scott Gomez, it took him a few seasons to get back his game; or Michael Ryder, where did he go? Jason Arnott is another example.

Now, I don't know how to go about this, I was just thinking about it. What do you guys think? You have all the stats. Am I way off base or is there something numbers can help show about future "sophomore slumps"?

I think the sophmore slump is often due to the position the players are put in. For example a prospect may put a ton of points on the 2nd line.. then be thrown onto the first line and get far harder chaecking against him. Case in point.. Meszaros on a stacked Sens team plays mainly on the 3rd pairing... gets almost 40 points and a ridiculous near league leading plus minus as a rookie playing 18 minutes. The next year he is a top 4 D-Man playing 22 minutes and facing the other teams top 2 lines most shifts... and he is on the PK quite a bit... still gets 35 points but is the biggest minus on the team. Is that a sophmore slump? Or is he mearely being used in a far more important and harder role and not quite as ready for that role as he was to be a 3rd pairing guy facing 3rd and 4th lines most of the time?

 

[reckoning]

Grant Fuhr
Pelle Lindbergh
Brian Leetch
Jarome Iginla

 

[pappyline]

Grant Fuhr
Pelle Lindbergh
Brian Leetch
Jarome Iginla

In the 50's. there were 3 consecutive seasons when the sopomore junx was quite evident.

Gump Worsely won the calder in 52-53. Couldn't make NY the next year (replaced by Bower)& was exiled to the minors.

Camile Henry was the 53-54 winner (over Beliveau) & spent 54-55 in the minors.

Ed Litzenberger scored 23 goals to win the Calder in 54-55. In 55-56, he had scored only one goal in his first 27 games and finished with only 10.

All bounced back in year 3 & had good NHL careers.

 

[albertGQ]

The sophomore jinx is a myth

 

[reckoning]

In the 50's. there were 3 consecutive seasons when the sopomore junx was quite evident.

Gump Worsely won the calder in 52-53. Couldn't make NY the next year (replaced by Bower)& was exiled to the minors.

It looks like Johnny Bower had a great rookie season for the Rangers the year he took over, but ironically the jinx hit him the next season.

A quote from Bower in the book Without Fear; Hockey's 50 Greatest Goaltenders:

"I first met Gump in New York in 1953-54. That year I won the Rangers starting job from him because he came to camp a little out of shape. I played every game that season and posted a solid GAA. My problem was that in the off-season I was feeling a little cocky and came into camp the next season out of shape. Gumper came into camp fit and took the job back from me."

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

I suspect most of it can be explained by regression to the mean.

Player performance = skill + luck

If a player has an impressive first year, it's likely a combination of their skill level and good luck. Luck, unlike skill, is not an enduring quality and a player is unlikely to be lucky for two consecutive seasons. Thus, the second year regression.

As a specific example, Jordan Staal had an outstanding shooting percentage (22.1%) last season when he scored 29 goals. Most perceptive types realized that this was unsustainable and thus correctly anticipated a drop in production (though I will say that he's probably been unlucky this season with only 6 goals in 100 shots -- he probably should have 9-11).

Note: this phenomenon also applies to non-rookies who have career-atypical seasons (i.e. 2006-07 Sheldon Souray).

 

[Brownies]

A lot of players (if not most) have up and down throughout their career. They call it a sophomore slump when of of the latter happens during their 2nd season. Might as well call 4th season slumps the " My wife just gave birth what am I doing with that stupid stick, a hundred miles from home slump".

 

[The One Who Knocks]

I wouldn't give it a title such as the "Sophomore Slump" because it so rarely happens. Any time a sophomore struggles peopel use that phrase, but completely ignore the fact that just as many players have done better their second year. Look at guys like Eric Staal. He jumped 69 points between his rookie season and sophomore season.

You could say that, in cases like Jordan Staal, it's regression towards the mean. Someone overachieves their first year, then they fall back to earth the next year. The expectations are too high for someone from their first year, especially when they outperformed what people expected

 

[cupface52]

81 52 54 106
82 46 46 92
52 43 27 70

IMO, sophmore slump for Alex.

I think players who have the slump is basically because they worked their @ss off to get to the NHL, have a great first year. They then relax during the offseason after all the hard work of making the NHL and playing the rigourus schedule. Not enough weight training, proper dieting, unconditioned etc, so they're not ready for the second season.

This is just my opinion.

 

[weaponomega]

Andrew Raycroft had an amazing rookie season and a dreadful sophomore slump and never recovered. He seemed to have lost all the things that made him so great in 2004. His confidence was shot and his technique flawed.

 

[Elvis P]

What happened to 5th year senior Jonathan Cheechoo? He is struggling with just ten goals and seven assists in 44 games this season. Please explain this to me.

 

[Church Hill]

What happened to 5th year senior Jonathan Cheechoo? He is struggling with just ten goals and seven assists in 44 games this season. Please explain this to me.

I knew he would get brought up eventually haha

 

[God Bless Canada]

I wouldn't give it a title such as the "Sophomore Slump" because it so rarely happens. Any time a sophomore struggles peopel use that phrase, but completely ignore the fact that just as many players have done better their second year. Look at guys like Eric Staal. He jumped 69 points between his rookie season and sophomore season.

You could say that, in cases like Jordan Staal, it's regression towards the mean. Someone overachieves their first year, then they fall back to earth the next year. The expectations are too high for someone from their first year, especially when they outperformed what people expected

Eric Staal is a terrible example. Same with every other rookie from 2003-04. Staal would have been in the NHL for his real sophomore year in 2004-05, but the lockout hit.

Cam Ward was a guy whose played tailed off in his sophomore year. That might be due to a Stanley Cup hangover (three months to get ready for camp, and I think he got married in the summer of 2006, which didn't help his focus for the upcoming year).

The sophomore jinx is actually very legitimate. I would say about 50 per cent of players go through the sophomore jinx. More recent notable examples include Patrick Roy, Brian Leetch and Teemu Selanne.

Sometimes players bounce back. Guys like Brad Boyes, Mike Richards and Jeff Carter all went through the sophomore jinx in 2006-07. They've bounced back big-time in 2007-08. I don't think Ovechkin had a sophomore jinx; I think his production drop was due to a failure by the Capitals to surround him with capable talent. (Especially after the Zubrus trade).

Jordan Staal, Marc-Edward Vlasic and Matt Carle were members of last year's all-rookie team. They've had tough sophomore years this year. They'll be back to the previous level next year. Staal was at the top of my list for guys who could suffer the jinx this year. Why? He was 18. Vlasic was high, too. Carle surprised me, because he is a little older, a 1984-born prospect.

Why does it happen? Various reasons. The burden of high expectations. An increased role on a team, which also means increased attention from the opposition. Immaturity. Cockiness.

 

[pappyline]

It looks like Johnny Bower had a great rookie season for the Rangers the year he took over, but ironically the jinx hit him the next season.

A quote from Bower in the book Without Fear; Hockey's 50 Greatest Goaltenders:

Good Point. Johnny never got back full time to the NHL until 1958 when Imlach brought him back. Punch could sure judge hockey talent.