Why Marc Bergevin Needs to Integrate an Average of Two Rookies Per Year

[DAChampion]

There has been some discussion on this site lately about whether or not the Bergevin administration has done a good job of integrating young players. Some are saying he's done a great job because Galchenyuk and Gallagher are both young and on the team, others have said every team has young players and we should be playing Andrighetto, Tinordi, etc more. The purpose of this post is to quantiatively estimate how the Habs have been doing, and how they stack relative to the rest of the league. The thread can discuss whether or not the performance is satisfactory.

Young Players Brought In:
This is the full list of players who have begun or nearly begun their careers during the Bergevin administration, and total games played up until now:

Nathan Beaulieu, 87 games
Gabriel Dumont, 18 games
Alex Galchenyuk, 193 games
Brendan Gallagher, 207 games
Greg Pateryn, 20 games
Jarred Tinordi, 43 games
Patrick Holland, 5 games
Joonas Nattinen, 1 game
Christian Thomas, 21 games
Dustin Tokarski, 20 games
Sven Andrighetto, 12 games
Michael Bournival, 89 games
Jacob De La Rose, 33 games
Jiri Sekac, 69 games
Devante smith-Pelly, 149 games

If we count Sekac and Smith-Pelly as one player, that means that 14 young players have gotten to taste NHL action in this administration, and 6 can be considered to have established themselves in this time are legitimate NHL players (some might say 5 or 7). That means an average of 4.8 and 2 players a year respectively.

Typical League-Wide Performance:

The average NHL career is 5.5 years according to google (and told to me in a PM by the poster Talk to Goalposts), and that includes irrelevant players like Brock Trotter and Christian Thomas, and the typical NHL roster might go through ~27.5 players a year. Habs went through 32 players last year but that includes players acquired through trade or waivers such as {Flynn, Gonchar, Mitchell, Petry, DSP, Allen}, if we don't double count these that makes 27 players. From that, we conclude that the Bergevin's administration of bringing in 4.8 new players a year total, including players of both good and no merit, is more or less average league-wide.

Estimating the average length of a "good career" is harder, and more subjective. NHL.com's tables only let me view 30 players at a time. Regardless, these are the numbers:
- 1,015 active players have at least 1 game played;
- 731 active players have at least 50 games played;
- 621 active players have at least 100 games played;
- 459 active players have at least 200 games played;
- 376 active players have at least 300 games played;
- 305 active players have at least 400 games played;
- 230 active players have at least 500 games played;
- 171 active players have at least 600 games played;
- 115 players have at least 700 games played;
- 67 players have at least 800 games played;
- 44 players have at least 900 games played;
- 29 players have at least 1000 games played;

Now, keep in mind, if there was an equilibrium, such that roster sizes and league size were constant (true) such that once players made it they stayed in the NHL until they all retired at the same age (not true), there would be an equal number of players in bracket. However, players are constantly flunking out mid-career, and thus I can approximate the above table as a survival function. There are 110 players who have played more than 50 but under 100 games (a taste of the NHL), and about 75 players who have played between 400 and 500 games. So only ~35% of players with a taste of the NHL will go on to have good careers.

There are errors here, such as the inclusion of backup goalies, the arbitrary cutoff of 500 games, but regardless, this suggests that an NHL team should be integrating ~1.7 "good" rookies per year. Alternatively (to everything above), one can just say ~20 active players per NHL team, average career of 10 years among good players, so 2 good rookies per year. That was the estimate I was using casually, and it works out. This is approximately what Bergevin has averaged, depending on how you count "good" rookies and what counts as an "integrated" player, so the performance of the Bergevin administration is average.

ETA:
This presentation may be intuitive to people:

- 394 active players have in between 1-100 games played;
- 162 active players have in between 101-200 games played;
- 83 active players have in between 201-300 games played;
- 71 active players have in between 301-400 games played;
- 75 active players have in between 401-500 games played;
- 59 active players have in between 501-600 games played;
- 56 players have in between 601-700 games played;
- 48 players have in between 701-800 games played;
- 23 players have in between 801-900 games played;
- 15 players have in between 901-1000 games played;

It's fairly constant between 201 games played and 800 games played. Is still declines but not that quickly, implying that once you make it to 201 games played, you are going to have a good career. The big dropoff is before due to undeserving or failing rookies, and afterwards due to old age.

There are 459 players leaguewide who have played 200+ games, or 16 per team. With a typical career span of 7 or 8 seasons (~500 games, 70 games per season), that works out (again) to ~2 good rookies per team per year.

Conclusion:

I had previously argued that the current Habs are slow to integrate rookies, but I was wrong. Their performance is approximately average relative to league-wide standards. My misunderstanding lied in seeing all of these "good" potential rookies such as Tinordi, Andrighetto, etc not making it, but in fact it may be the case that all teams have borderline players who don't make it. If Bergevin and Therrien integrate two new players next year (e.g. Hudon and Pateryn), then they will continue on what is an an average performance for integrating performance. Further, one can argue that among good teams, such as the Habs which are a top-ten team, one expects even fewer rookies to make it, as good players predominantly emerge from bad teams due to draft rules and other circumstance.

Conversely, also wrong, are the people who say that Bergevin is great in bringing in youth because Galchenyuk is on the team and Gorges is not. The average NHL team loses veterans and adds rookies, every single year.

Is average performance good enough?

Click to read more...

 

[Nynja*]

How many GP in a season constitutes being integrated?

 

[DAChampion]

How many GP in a season constitutes being integrated?

It's subjective since I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know how long their careers are going to be.

I'm assuming that De La Rose is integrated, and Bournival is not. Do you disagree? OK, but that doesn't change the conclusions too much.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

It's a solid effort but unfortunately there's a lot of assumptions.

I would argue there's some variables missing such as new rookies relative to standing position but that might be a jumbled mess too. Also, an interesting thing to look at is if the turnover rate increased in the salary cap era. Rather than pay a vet it's more cost effective to get a little less production but on an ELC to manage the roster better.

It's interesting and I wonder if those on the "By the numbers" board would have data that can give you more accurate results.

While it's not 100% complete, it's an honest effort and I like it. Kudos to bringing something different to the table.

 

[DAChampion]

This presentation may be intuitive to people, which I'm adding to the original post:

- 394 active players have at least 1-100 games played;
- 162 active players have at least 101-200 games played;
- 83 active players have at least 201-300 games played;
- 71 active players have at least 301-400 games played;
- 75 active players have at least 401-500 games played;
- 59 active players have at least 501-600 games played;
- 56 players have at least 601-700 games played;
- 48 players have at least 701-800 games played;
- 23 players have at least 801-900 games played;
- 15 players have at least 901-1000 games played;

It's fairly constant between 201 games played and 800 games played. Is still declines but not that quickly, implying that once you make it to 201 games played, you are going to have a good career. The big dropoff is before due to undeserving or failing rookies, and afterwards due to old age.

There are 459 players leaguewide who have played 200+ games, or 16 per team. With a typical career span of 7 or 8 seasons (~500 games, 70 games per season), that works out (again) to ~2 good rookies per team per year.

 

[DAChampion]

It's a solid effort but unfortunately there's a lot of assumptions.

I would argue there's some variables missing such as new rookies relative to standing position but that might be a jumbled mess too. Also, an interesting thing to look at is if the turnover rate increased in the salary cap era. Rather than pay a vet it's more cost effective to get a little less production but on an ELC to manage the roster better.

It's interesting and I wonder if those on the "By the numbers" board would have data that can give you more accurate results.

While it's not 100% complete, it's an honest effort and I like it. Kudos to bringing something different to the table.

The salary cap, I would think, increases the influx of rookies, since young players are superior to being paid less. However, I think we're sufficiently into the salary cap era, which emerged in 2005, that we can assume that we've converged on that equilibrium.

 

[Phil Parent]

Wow, nice post in general, man.

But two rookies every year sounds a bit drastic to me. One, sure. Occasionally two. But two EVERY year, systematically, the talent has got to be there and ready otherwise you'll be cutting veterans that can contribute for rookies that can't.

 

[DAChampion]

Wow, nice post in general, man.

But two rookies every year sounds a bit drastic to me. One, sure. Occasionally two. But two EVERY year, systematically, the talent has got to be there and ready otherwise you'll be cutting veterans that can contribute for rookies that can't.

It's not two rookies every year, it's an average. I'm not encouraging either one of these above the other:

1, 0, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 1
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2

The second situation is encouraged due to issues like constant roster sizes and relatively constant contract lengths in the NHL. The former situation is encouraged since ... not all drafts are created equal.

 

[Phil Parent]

It's not two rookies every year, it's an average. I'm not encouraging either one of these above the other:

1, 0, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 1
2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2

The second situation is encouraged due to issues like constant roster sizes and relatively constant contract lengths in the NHL. The former situation is encouraged since ... not all drafts are created equal.

Got ya. Real interesting stuff. Nice research, must have taken a while.

 

[Stoneburg]

This issue has crossed my mind repeatedly over the years, but I never thought of putting in the effort such as you have, kudos.

As you mentioned, one might expect a top ten team (us) to integrate less than the average due to performance issues.

So, it seems that the combination of TT good drafting, and reasonable development has allowed us to integrate an average amount of rookies, which I suspect is better than previous administrations.

More interesting analysis is possible: how many rookies did the Gainey era integrate; how many does a team like Chicago integrate, etc, etc.

Good stuff.

 

[BaseballCoach]

There has been some discussion on this site lately about whether or not the Bergevin administration has done a good job of integrating young players. Some are saying he's done a great job because Galchenyuk and Gallagher are both young and on the team, others have said every team has young players and we should be playing Andrighetto, Tinordi, etc more. The purpose of this post is to quantiatively estimate how the Habs have been doing, and how they stack relative to the rest of the league. The thread can discuss whether or not the performance is satisfactory.

Young Players Brought In:
This is the full list of players who have begun or nearly begun their careers during the Bergevin administration, and total games played up until now:

Nathan Beaulieu, 87 games
Gabriel Dumont, 18 games
Alex Galchenyuk, 193 games
Brendan Gallagher, 207 games
Greg Pateryn, 20 games
Jarred Tinordi, 43 games
Patrick Holland, 5 games
Joonas Nattinen, 1 game
Christian Thomas, 21 games
Dustin Tokarski, 20 games
Sven Andrighetto, 12 games
Michael Bournival, 89 games
Jacob De La Rose, 33 games
Jiri Sekac, 69 games
Devante smith-Pelly, 149 games

If we count Sekac and Smith-Pelly as one player, that means that 14 young players have gotten to taste NHL action in this administration, and 6 can be considered to have established themselves in this time are legitimate NHL players (some might say 5 or 7). That means an average of 4.8 and 2 players a year respectively.

Typical League-Wide Performance:

The average NHL career is 5.5 years according to google (and told to me in a PM by the poster Talk to Goalposts), and that includes irrelevant players like Brock Trotter and Christian Thomas, and the typical NHL roster might go through ~27.5 players a year. Habs went through 32 players last year but that includes players acquired through trade or waivers such as {Flynn, Gonchar, Mitchell, Petry, DSP, Allen}, if we don't double count these that makes 27 players. From that, we conclude that the Bergevin's administration of bringing in 4.8 new players a year total, including players of both good and no merit, is more or less average league-wide.

Estimating the average length of a "good career" is harder, and more subjective. NHL.com's tables only let me view 30 players at a time. Regardless, these are the numbers:
- 1,015 active players have at least 1 game played;
- 731 active players have at least 50 games played;
- 621 active players have at least 100 games played;
- 459 active players have at least 200 games played;
- 376 active players have at least 300 games played;
- 305 active players have at least 400 games played;
- 230 active players have at least 500 games played;
- 171 active players have at least 600 games played;
- 115 players have at least 700 games played;
- 67 players have at least 800 games played;
- 44 players have at least 900 games played;
- 29 players have at least 1000 games played;

Now, keep in mind, if there was an equilibrium, such that roster sizes and league size were constant (true) such that once players made it they stayed in the NHL until they all retired at the same age (not true), there would be an equal number of players in bracket. However, players are constantly flunking out mid-career, and thus I can approximate the above table as a survival function. There are 110 players who have played more than 50 but under 100 games (a taste of the NHL), and about 75 players who have played between 400 and 500 games. So only ~35% of players with a taste of the NHL will go on to have good careers.

There are errors here, such as the inclusion of backup goalies, the arbitrary cutoff of 500 games, but regardless, this suggests that an NHL team should be integrating ~1.7 "good" rookies per year. Alternatively (to everything above), one can just say ~20 active players per NHL team, average career of 10 years among good players, so 2 good rookies per year. That was the estimate I was using casually, and it works out. This is approximately what Bergevin has averaged, depending on how you count "good" rookies and what counts as an "integrated" player, so the performance of the Bergevin administration is average.

ETA:
This presentation may be intuitive to people:

- 394 active players have at least 1-100 games played;
- 162 active players have at least 101-200 games played;
- 83 active players have at least 201-300 games played;
- 71 active players have at least 301-400 games played;
- 75 active players have at least 401-500 games played;
- 59 active players have at least 501-600 games played;
- 56 players have at least 601-700 games played;
- 48 players have at least 701-800 games played;
- 23 players have at least 801-900 games played;
- 15 players have at least 901-1000 games played;

It's fairly constant between 201 games played and 800 games played. Is still declines but not that quickly, implying that once you make it to 201 games played, you are going to have a good career. The big dropoff is before due to undeserving or failing rookies, and afterwards due to old age.

There are 459 players leaguewide who have played 200+ games, or 16 per team. With a typical career span of 7 or 8 seasons (~500 games, 70 games per season), that works out (again) to ~2 good rookies per team per year.

Conclusion:

I had previously argued that the current Habs are slow to integrate rookies, but I was wrong. Their performance is approximately average relative to league-wide standards. My misunderstanding lied in seeing all of these "good" potential rookies such as Tinordi, Andrighetto, etc not making it, but in fact it may be the case that all teams have borderline players who don't make it. If Bergevin and Therrien integrate two new players next year (e.g. Hudon and Pateryn), then they will continue on what is an an average performance for integrating performance. Further, one can argue that among good teams, such as the Habs which are a top-ten team, one expects even fewer rookies to make it, as good players predominantly emerge from bad teams due to draft rules and other circumstance.

Conversely, also wrong, are the people who say that Bergevin is great in bringing in youth because Galchenyuk is on the team and Gorges is not. The average NHL team loses veterans and adds rookies, every single year.

Is average performance good enough?

That's a pretty good job there, maybe champion worthy!

The Habs average age this coming year will probably be at or below the league average. I do believe they have brought youth along fairly well over the past 8 years, say starting with Carey Price's rookie year.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

It sounds about right that the Habs are average. They do seem to at least test or add rookies every year. In MB's first year both Chucky and Gally played. The following year Bournival played and Beaulieu got a lot of playing time as well. Last year, I would say both JDLR and Beau made the team, while Pateryn played significant minutes. Thomas and Bournival both faltered, but played.

Next year, I expect Pateryn to make it and maybe one other at forward.

Interesting information. Thanks for posting.

 

[Lshap]

This presentation may be intuitive to people, which I'm adding to the original post:

- 394 active players have at least 1-100 games played;
- 162 active players have at least 101-200 games played;
- 83 active players have at least 201-300 games played;
- 71 active players have at least 301-400 games played;
- 75 active players have at least 401-500 games played;
- 59 active players have at least 501-600 games played;
- 56 players have at least 601-700 games played;
- 48 players have at least 701-800 games played;
- 23 players have at least 801-900 games played;
- 15 players have at least 901-1000 games played;

It's fairly constant between 201 games played and 800 games played. Is still declines but not that quickly, implying that once you make it to 201 games played, you are going to have a good career. The big dropoff is before due to undeserving or failing rookies, and afterwards due to old age.

There are 459 players leaguewide who have played 200+ games, or 16 per team. With a typical career span of 7 or 8 seasons (~500 games, 70 games per season), that works out (again) to ~2 good rookies per team per year.

Should it say, "...active players have between...", instead of "at least"? It's an important distinction, because any player with at least 201-300 games can also have played 400 or 800.

I'm only nitpicking because I find this valuable and want to make sure I understand the info. Thank you for providing solid data to the argument.

 

[Bryson]

Good post DAChampion. Rispeck.

 

[DAChampion]

Should it say, "...active players have between...", instead of "at least"? It's an important distinction, because any player with at least 201-300 games can also have played 400 or 800.

I'm only nitpicking because I find this valuable and want to make sure I understand the info. Thank you for providing solid data to the argument.

You're right, thanks ! I edited the first post.

 

[Alex514]

Big Ups.

Very interesting post.

Food for thought!

 

[HCH]

Very good post.

I do agree that the team should bring in at least two rookies a year but my reasoning for this is mostly anecdotal. NHL careers are short and there will always be players retiring or losing their position for one reason or another.

Your post quantifies what I thought in the back of my mind.

It is difficult to determine if Bergevin is has been better or worse than average. Since many players can take up to 5 years to make the team after they are drafted, Bergevin was primarily working from the previous regime's stockpile for the first few years.

The next few years will determine if Bergevin has been better or worse at building a pipeline of players than his predecessor. I see some strides and of course, it is a learning curve for all new GMs. I am sure they have tried some things in the area of scouting/evaluation that haven't worked and have tried some things that have worked.

So far the results have been modest as far as new talent goes. If the management team is willing to evolve and adapt to changing conditions, I think there will be continued improvement in that area.

 

[CupInSIX]

I believe DLR was supposed to be up with the club all year, same with Tinordi. That's what their plan seemed like.

 

[Fozz]

Kids should be brought up and played on merit and requirements only and past numbers and averages are pretty much irrelevant, in my opinion. I expect pretty much every team to be quite close to one another in average number of young players being brought in over the course of a 5 year stretch.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

We need more threads like this.

In the cap-world you're going to need to fill in plugs with rookies constantly and only give huge extensions to CORE players. I posit that the "swingman" roles like #3D, #5D. #3C and #3W are the most vital to keep open for TALENT to come in. A team with THREE two-way or offensive Cs is much more versatile, flexible and dangerous than one with TWO offensive Cs and TWO scrub/defensive-only Cs. Likewise, when Petry joined the team, our defense went from ONE two-way pairing to TWO two-way pairings which is probably an immeasurable change in pressure against the D. The same argument goes for the #5 D position, if Beaulieu starts to chip in offensively a bit more, to soak in minutes without looking shameful and to keep his opposing line in check, suddenly the opposing coach has a tough decision to make as he can't explain any pairing very much.

Our top3 D is set but our offense has holes, especially at forward. If Ghetto, Thomas, Scherbak or McCarron make the team in one of those swing roles next to Eller, without too much offensive responsibility, it would be so good for the team. It's pretty much what we wanted out of Sekac but never really had a chance to see.

 

[HCH]

We need more threads like this.

In the cap-world you're going to need to fill in plugs with rookies constantly and only give huge extensions to CORE players. I posit that the "swingman" roles like #3D, #5D. #3C and #3W are the most vital to keep open for TALENT to come in. A team with THREE two-way or offensive Cs is much more versatile, flexible and dangerous than one with TWO offensive Cs and TWO scrub/defensive-only Cs. Likewise, when Petry joined the team, our defense went from ONE two-way pairing to TWO two-way pairings which is probably an immeasurable change in pressure against the D. The same argument goes for the #5 D position, if Beaulieu starts to chip in offensively a bit more, to soak in minutes without looking shameful and to keep his opposing line in check, suddenly the opposing coach has a tough decision to make as he can't explain any pairing very much.

Our top3 D is set but our offense has holes, especially at forward. If Ghetto, Thomas, Scherbak or McCarron make the team in one of those swing roles next to Eller, without too much offensive responsibility, it would be so good for the team. It's pretty much what we wanted out of Sekac but never really had a chance to see.

I agree. One solid acquisition without tearing apart the present or the future and one surprise development from within the organization (Scherbak, Carr... whoever) would be nice to see. Probably unlikely, but nice.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

I agree. One solid acquisition without tearing apart the present or the future and one surprise development from within the organization (Scherbak, Carr... whoever) would be nice to see. Probably unlikely, but nice.

We've been notoriously bad at developing high-end talent regularly, something about our system or our development pipeline is hindering the offensive instincts of nearly ALL our prospects. Except Pacioretty.

 

[BaseballCoach]

We've been notoriously bad at developing high-end talent regularly, something about our system or our development pipeline is hindering the offensive instincts of nearly ALL our prospects. Except Pacioretty.

What about Gallagher? Were you honestly expecting MORE from a 5th round pick?

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

What about Gallagher? Were you honestly expecting MORE from a 5th round pick?

Well I'll either not count him as "high-end talent" or I'd say that he's another exception. Both fit the bigger picture.

The question is, are YOU arguing that we are good at developing and nurturing high-end talent?

 

[BaseballCoach]

Well I'll either not count him as "high-end talent" or I'd say that he's another exception. Both fit the bigger picture.

The question is, are YOU arguing that we are good at developing and nurturing high-end talent?

Yes. Our stud goalie prospect just won the Vezina and Hart, our stud D prospect has won a Norris and been a finalist another time. Our first round LW prospect has scored over 30 goals three times. Our 18 year old high pick has already scored over 20 goals on a team that does not allow irresponsible free-wheeling. Another offensive prospect, obtained in the 5th round due to size, also scored 20+ goals on his ELC.

I'm not sure which "high-end talent" we messed up on developing and nurturing. Kristo? Leblanc? Maybe, but they did not do better elsewhere. Andrighetto? Too early to say, but it looks like the Habs are tryuing to teach him some winning ways. Hudon? I think he developed well last year.

I'll grant that we mis-evaluated McDonagh's potential post draft and did not give ourselves the chance to develop him.

But all in all, we are doing ok. No team in the league bats 1.000

Let's see how McCarron and Scherbak turn out before we say that we are unable to develop the talent we get.