Doesn't it turn into the chicken vs the egg argument though? Did he suck because he didn't play enough, or did he not play enough because he sucked? (at both NHL and AHL levels) Even at 16:00 a night, its enough to tell if you suck as a hockey player or not, (long term) don't you think?
Well that depends, sometimes yes sometimes no. If you play a guy 20-30-40-50+ games straight for 16min, yes, that should paint you a good picture of some of his potential.
But the first year, he didn't even get 16min..he got between 6min and 15min. He only played 14-15min in 3 games out of his 8, averaging out to 11min.
Following year where he played 22 games, he played 16+ just 6 times, with an average of 14:32.
His third year with 13 games, he played even less, never hit 16 again, average of 12min.
Important to note that through those 3 seasons, he's been benched, healthy scratched, demoted to the AHL/called up on multiple occasions.
It's not like we gave Tinordi a look for even half a season with us where he played as a regular, getting his 16min of ice. I mean, FFS, his last season here in 15-16, he ''made'' the team but was a healthy scratch until....Dec 21st. Sure you can argue it was over by then, but still....almost 3 months as a healthy scratch?? wtf?
So yes, playing 16min a night over a season, sure, you can get a decent picture. But that is not what we did with Tinordi, he played 50 games in Mtl, over 4 years! The most being 22 games in a season split in two stints in the NHL.
I mean, Tinordi is the perfect example of how NOT to use a young prospect.