Flames Top 15 Prospects 2013: #15 Mark Jankowski

Kent Wilson
May 08 2013 11:56AM

This ranking probably comes as a surprise to many fans given Jankowski's profile in the Flames organization after being picked 21st overall in the 2012 draft. Like most first rounders immediately after they are chosen, Janko is considered in many circles to be a top prospect for the Flames, but the truth is his draft+1 year was rather underwhelming; to the degree that it's clear Jankowski is long ways off from contributing at the NHL level, assuming he makes it at all.

  Justin Ryan Kent Hayley BoL
Jankowski 14 12 14 NR NR

With just 7 goals and 18 points in 34 games as a freshman for Providence College, Jankowski finished the year with an NHL equivalence of just 18, which is way outside the domain of most future impact players even in their draft years, nevermind their draft+1 seasons.

When I looked at the young man's comparables in November, the threshold for most future NHLers who went the tier 2 hockey/college route college seemed to be about 0.7 points-per-game in the year after they were drafted. 

Janko settled in at 0.53 this season.

Only two guys from the group I examined in the comparables article managed less than a 0.68 PPG pace and became NHLers down the line: Tanner Glass and David Jones. Meaning the precedents for Jankowski aren't really there given his output. If he does indeed develop into a pro scorer down the road, he'll be an extreme outlier in just about every way imaginable. 

That said, there are reasons to like the player and give him the benefit of the doubt for now. There's no denying he has a decent package of skills with smooth skating, a long reach and soft hands. He is also very young, one of the youngest of his draft class, and skipped a step by going directly into college hockey as a 17/18 year old. In addition, Providence was one of the lowest scoring teams in Hockey East this year (the leam leader scored 24 points in 38 games), which makes it tough for a freshman to run up the numbers.

Conclusion

Jankowski was considered a project pick with high bust potential when the Flames chose him last year and that's what he remains today. He played in tough circumstances for such a young guy in college this year and survived, but his output doesn't suggest he's going to jump the queue either. Jankowski's results are going to have to take a very real step forward next season for him to be considered a legitimate offensive prospect in the organization and even then we're probably looking at a full 4-year development period in college before he ever challenges a pro roster.

The ranking is a reflection of his just okay numbers and high bust risk, but also his potential for eventually becoming something of worth. You can count on one finger the number of other forwards in the Flames top-15 ranking who have similarly marginal offensive output as prospects (NHLE's below 20) and that guy is much closer to making the show (try to guess who it is!).

I suspect Janko will go one of two ways in this ranking next season: either he'll make a big jump forward or will be bumped off completely.

Flames top 15 prospects

Top-15 Series Introduction

StreakCred

Don't forget to play StreakCred, the new playoff pool game from the Nation Network. You can win a trip for 2 to Oktoberfest in Germany among the awesome prizes up for grabs. Only $20 and a portion of the proceeds go to Edmonton Charities.

Sign up here.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current FN contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1 Lordmork
May 08 2013, 12:43PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props

The thing I've found most disappointing about Jay Feaster has been his propensity to over-promise. Jankowski may yet turn into a skilled NHL player that justifies his first-round selection. That said, it was pretty optimistic to suggest that he was going to be the best player from this draft. We've heard similar lines since then, about a certain best hockey player outside the NHL, and another best goalie outside the NHL.

Taking gambles is fine. I just don't like the over promising that seems to be used to sell those kinds of decisions.

Avatar
#2 thymebalm
May 08 2013, 04:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

I've noticed that people have a real urge to defend Jankowski. It's very similar to the defences of Irving previously.

"Jankowski is a long-term project vs. Goalies take longer to develop", the 1st rounder argument, the "he plays on a bad teaam" argument. Stars find a way to shine. That's what I say.

At some point, the stats have to be there. You know, every year they give an award to the guy with the most points and the goalie with the best counting stats, and nobody seems to complain that they aren't at least ONE OF the best best goalies/players. So obviously counting stats mean something. They aren't great. They don't factor in as much of the game as corsi does, but they are the outcome of the chance*skill equation being rung-through game in and game out.

I think Jankowski has a chance to be awesome for the reasons listed above, he's young (only a couple of weeks older than some '13 eligible draft picks), he DID have incredible numbers in his dumpy league, and he does possess a frame with NHL potential, and he will really get the opportunity to shine this coming season.

I'm pessimistic about Jankowski because it seems ridiculous to draft off the board with a first round pick. You could have picked up a solid CHLer with a big body from Canada, and play it safe, but NO- Weisbrod swung for the fences with this 1st and his name and job will likely be attached to how Jankowski's career settles.

And if he's a project, what's the harm at ranking him #15? He's likely not doing to make it to the pros until a full college career and then what, its 2016 and likely everyone else on the list has graduated by that time anyway. 15 seems fair, it seems almost generous considering the low ceiling of college players.

Avatar
#3 the-wolf
May 08 2013, 05:35PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I still think we are WAY too early to judge the Jankowski pick after one year (not that it will stop us from doing so).

I'm on record as having liked the move down to get Jankowski+Sielof, as it made more sense to swing for the fences AND get a 2nd rnder than to take an undersized guy like Tervainen, a stay at home Dman like Maata, or a 3rd liner with size like Girgensons.

I do think that Janko burned his freebie development year, and am hoping like mad he hits the gym and protein shakes this offseason.

Just an aside but I was googling mock drafts at Hockey's future and the one I found for last year had Jankowski in the top 20.

Also worth noting hat Hockey's Future has him as our 3rd best fwd prospect 7.5 D), behind Sven and Johnny Hockey (both 8.0 C).

He's a project, and we knew that. Patience! Now dammit!

I find it amusing how when it's a Flames player, say Baertschi, he's skilled.

When it's not a Flames guy, like TT, he's "undersized."

Also, Maata could probably play for the Flames next season and the number of D prospects Calgary has is about zero, so it's one thing to defend Janko, but quite silly to bash everyone else Calgary could have had simply because Calgary didn't take them.

That would imply the team knows more than everyone else, something only Feaster and Weisbrod believe.

Avatar
#4 the-wolf
May 09 2013, 12:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props
BurningSensation wrote:

I'd argue Tervainen isn't a 'home run' pick, he translates into a 2nd line center at best, and he currently has issues defensively that come in part with being undersized. In short, I think he's Sam Gagner.

Maata could probably play for the Flames next season, but he also doesn't project as anything special as a player, a mid pair defensive defender at best I'd think, with no PP duties unless the club is serously undermanned. At his absolute best he's Hjalmmarsson, which is nice, but not anything elite.

As for what Weisbrod and Feaster believe, I'm curious how you know what they believe? Strikes me as the kind of value judgement one makes when the person you are criticizing has done something you didn't think of yourself - meaning, they must think they are smarter than you- hence they must think they are smarter than everyone else as well.

Sven has defensive issues too. What's your point?

Agree that TT isn't a home run, but he was the consensus choice above Janko and has a far shorter development projection.

Name how many other big top 4 young D-men the Flames have.

My point is that it's laughable to defend everything the Flames brass does solely because the Flames brass did it. Looking for every apology while simultaneously knocking other team's prospects on the sole basis that they're other team's prospects.

On one hand, people see fit to condemn a guy like Girgensons to a 3rd line ceiling max potential. But when valid stats are brought up regarding Janko it's all excuses.

Hey, I've noted several times, including on this article that I hope he makes it and I'm willing to 'waive a year' of progess on him too. But have some objectivity.

Seriously, if the Flames had drafted TT instead you'd be going on about how awesome he is and have mercy on anyone who might mention Janko as an alternative.

As for Weisbrod and Feaster:

1) Because they tell us all the time. "Best player outside the NHL, best goalie outside the NHL, best 2 goalies outside the NHL, best player from this draft in 10 years, etc."

2) You tell us the same on here all the time:)

As for your last sentence - does that apply to yourself when you bash Darryl? Or just when I bash your man-crush on Feaster? I'm going off of consensus scouting reports and stats, the only thing available to any of us here. What are you going off of other than homerism and hypocrisy?

Avatar
#5 Jeff Lebowski
May 08 2013, 01:39PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

Is there no consideration that he played on a defensive minded team? I believe the leading scorer on that team (who as a senior??) had 10 more points and Jankowski was hurt for a portion of the season.

I for one think that the team concept has a real consequence on the oft criticized "counting stats".

Moreover, what were the quality of his teammates?

Do we judge Gillies, the goalie who played on that team as an astronomical goalie? Why because he had gaudy goalie stats on a defensively minded team? Meh.

I for one don't give this rating much merit. At all.

Avatar
#7 Parallex
May 08 2013, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@beloch

I disagree that the alternative was guaranteed mediocrity. Teravainan was available at the Flames original pick position as was Maata. Both are quality prospects.

Jankowski was a "home-run" swing (The guy I want + Sieloff) he could have played it safe and just taken the consensus choice but he went for extra bases. Maybe it pays off and maybe it doesn't. I still like the Chutzpah of the pick but the fact is he passed over non-marginal options at the time.

Avatar
#8 Graham
May 08 2013, 02:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

You would expect an offensive minded first round pick to dominate in almost any league outside the NHL. Everyone has off years, but it is really disappointing to see such a poor season playing College hockey. Jankowski was a controversial pick last year, and Feaster’s comments only added to the fire. I must admit I didn’t understand the pick last year, and like it even less this year. The Jankowski draft may well be the defining moment in Feaster reign as GM.

Avatar
#10 Derzie
May 08 2013, 03:23PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

If a player is not dominant in the minors in some way, it is an extreme long shot that the NHL is in their future, i would think. Jankowski is not a project, he is a lottery ticket. I've seen nothing to indicate he is any better than his peers. Let's talk about the players that have better than lottery odds. #Janko649

Avatar
#11 the-wolf
May 08 2013, 05:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

TT is undersized. The difference between he and Baertschi is a full 25 lbs. Similar in height, very different builds and fitness/strength levels (at this stage, anyway).

That said, Janko over TT was certainly a risk, as TT is a safer bet to be an NHLer, and projects as a top 6 forward (on the wing, however). Still, it's the difference between a kid in TT who might end up as a decent first line winger, and a kid in Janko who might - if his raw tools end up being refined to the extent required - end up as a high end first line centre. Greater risk, greater reward; TT is no slam dunk either, however.

Maatta would've been the safest of the three, but I never saw any reports or rankings that projected him as having a ceiling above a decent 2nd pairing dman. Lowest reward by a substantial margin.

Oh, I agree he's undersized. It's just seems like a "because Calgary took Janko, therefore it was the right pick" kind of logic.

Of course, to be fair, Janko is also undersized (though he obviously has the height).

Avatar
#12 BurningSensation
May 08 2013, 06:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

It may please you to know that Jankowski mentioned to the Sun that he intends on staying in Providence for a couple of months of the summer specifically for strength training.

Sweet! Give that kid a sandwich!

Avatar
#13 Justin Azevedo
May 08 2013, 07:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

wow... I'm surprised there are so many here who don't agree with the ranking.

when I ranked my list, I based it on a mix of ceiling, current skill and ability to play at the nhl level.

janko's ceiling is the highest on the list, but he's not even close to where he needs to be to make that development curve the one he's tracking on.

Avatar
#14 the-wolf
May 09 2013, 12:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Sean Bennett wrote:

I bet that Janko doubles his numbers next year, as he will get to move back to center. He stated as much in his interview, but said he appreciated the oppurtunity to play winger, as the simple north-south game gave him an opportunity to become more versatile.

So, to beat the drum once again, the kid played out of his natural position; made the jump to a slightly tougher league than the CHL despite turning 18 last September; tied for 4th in team scoring despite missing games and as a rookie; played on a very offensively challenged team; and gave up a lot of weight to his peers.

Yeah, he truly sucks. Trade this kid for a bag of pucks right now, cuz his NHLE sucks.

I find this whole thread a little amusing in the sense that I think pretty much everyone is saying the same thing, but just coming at it from different angles. True, some are more worried than otehrs, but if these conversations were held verbally, the consensus in opinions would probably be more apparent.

To summarize: Janko has a lot of potential. Janko has a really long ways to go.

But I don't think anyone is advocating ditching him.

Avatar
#15 Sincity1976
May 09 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
the-wolf wrote:

I find this whole thread a little amusing in the sense that I think pretty much everyone is saying the same thing, but just coming at it from different angles. True, some are more worried than otehrs, but if these conversations were held verbally, the consensus in opinions would probably be more apparent.

To summarize: Janko has a lot of potential. Janko has a really long ways to go.

But I don't think anyone is advocating ditching him.

Agreed. Jankowski has exactly the type of season most expected him to have. Which means if you liked the pick last summer you probably like it now. The opposite is also true.

His is still a project with a high ceiling and high bust potential.

Due to his ceiling, size, and position I have him in my top 5 of Flames prospects. I don't see any reason to have players like Bouma ranked ahead of him given their limited ceiling. But that might just be my priorities.

Avatar
#16 the-wolf
May 09 2013, 06:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Baalzamon wrote:

What gets me the most about all this, is the Flames are the only team that gets raked over the coals for "passing on" Teravainen--ignoring the fact that he went 18th and the Flames ended up picking 21st.

You say that Teravainen was, by consensus, better than Jankowski. He was. He was also, by consensus, a top 10 pick. He was considered better--almost universally--than Derrick Pouliot, Hampus Lindholm, Zemgus Girgensons, and often Griffin Reinhart and Mat Dumba. But no one denigrates all those teams for their picks--they just use the Flames as a target for their ridicule, ignoring the fact (again) that the Flames' pick was 21st (in a bad draft), and all those other teams were in the top 10.

Granted, Feaster and company did paint a huge bull's eye on their collective heads with all their post-draft blustering.

I get what you're saying, but remember I've never bashed Janko. My criticism has always been that IMO, taking a 5 year project when you're at where the Flames are at, over a more sure thing was wrong.

Now, remember, we're not talking about passing over players who are consensus 3rd liners vs a boom or bust guy (though that's why I brought up the discussion of the merits and faults of such a strategy and its definition). We're talking guys with very good potential who were passed over.

Again, TT is just a convenient example to pull off the top of my head without listing every possible player Calgary could have had.

Those other teams aren't attacked because this is "Flames Nation," not "every other team's nation."

Also, other teams may have passed over TT (for example), but still picked a player who generally slotted in that area. Only Calgary 'went off the board,' so to speak.

Avatar
#17 icedawg_42
May 14 2013, 11:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
McRib wrote:

I'm someone that usually discounts the THN, TSN or HFs rankings... but they ALL had Jankowski in their Top. 5 Flames Prospects because unlike people at Flames Nation they have ACTUALLY SEEN HIM PLAY THIS YEAR!!!If NHLE figures were accurate Daniel Tkaczuk would have played with Iggy for a decade!!

Mark Jankowski is easily in my Top. 3 Flames Prospects!! Because I completely disagree with the fact that this kid is ever going to be a bust.... Because how does a 6'3" - 215 lbs power forward that has soft hands, a big reach, above average Hockey IQ, a quick release and a smooth stride.. bust??? Just don't see it at all, not going to happen. Point Totals are going to rise in college as quick as his weight gain.

Worst-case he becomes a Dustin Penner, best case Ryan Getzlaf... Speaking of Dustin Penner, has anyone ever considered him as a comparable for NHLE… Considering he was playing Division III NCAA Hockey at 20. Big Forwards take much longer to develop, Plain & Simple!! Also Ryan Getzlaf never scored more than 75 Points in Junior and has had 91 and 82 point seasons in the NHL. Late Blooming Power Forwards are when you throw the NHLEs out the window not completely base everything on it!!

This ranking is going to look very foolish next year once Jankwoski gains some size and starts dominating like everyone who watches him every day says. He is going to be playing on Canadian World Junior Teams and going to Hockey East Finals from what people are saying on my end, he's in for a big year next season and put up just as many points as a more developed Chris Kreider did his first season in NCAA.

I'm not sure if this works with or against your argument, but having watched Getzlaf in the dome for his entire junior career, I can safely say that he was a man among boys in the WHL. I don't think there was ever much doubt he'd be an impact NHL'er.

I must say, though I feel the drafting has improved for the organization, i'm not close to being sold on a single prospect not currently playing on the big team.

Avatar
#18 Colin.S
May 08 2013, 12:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I'm glad he's at least in the top 15 because I think he's a very worthwhile prospect, however it's kinda sad to see him on the fringe.

Avatar
#19 dotfras
May 08 2013, 12:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

That sucks.

Avatar
#20 Parallex
May 08 2013, 12:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"try to guess who it is!".

Max Power?

Avatar
#21 Parallex
May 08 2013, 12:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

On Jankowski: I basically dialed back my expectations on him for a lot of the reasons listed above... Poor (and inexperienced... so many freshmen) team offensively, undeveloped physique, very young age. So I give him a mulligan.

That ends this year though. He has to show something next NCAA season, he loses all his mitigating circumstances since he'll be older, his team will be more experienced (and in theory better), he'll have had another offseason to develop his frame.

If he's still a ultra-skinny, 0.5ppg guy next year then I'll say trouble is on the horizan.

Avatar
#24 seve927
May 08 2013, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Okay maybe there's two guys.

Horak?

Avatar
#26 Parallex
May 08 2013, 01:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Okay maybe there's two guys.

Max Power and Bouma?

Avatar
#28 seve927
May 08 2013, 01:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Ding.

Hey, Bouma didn't have an NHLE this year! Or it was 0. Which is I guess under 20.

Avatar
#29 the-wolf
May 08 2013, 01:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Here's hoping he takes that leap forward.

I've stated many times that I'm not knocking the player when being citical of that selection, but rather the strategy.

Zero prospect depth and the Flames select a 5 year project (and then declare him the best from that draft 9 years from now - yup, I'm counting). Hard enough to project players and that's who they take vs players projected to be 1 or 2 years away from stepping in.

That said, given his young age, potential for but current lack in size, skill set and because he sort of skipped a step in going to Providence, I'm actually willing to give him 2 years to crush it. At that point, however, the argument is definitely over. He either rips it up or is a cast-off.

Still, he needs to take a noticeable step forward next season and he's definitely a full 4 year college guy.

Avatar
#30 Purple Hazze
May 08 2013, 01:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think the biggest factor in determining whether he can take a step up next year is his weight. When he adds some size, and its only a matter of when and not if, as anyone who's gone through a similar growth spurt will tell you, I can see his numbers go up.

Maybe on his prospect updates for next year you guys should look at adding a lbs tracker for him.

Avatar
#31 Parallex
May 08 2013, 01:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

He's not an NHLer if he's at .50 PPG next year. You never want to write guys off so young, but there's pretty clear cut off points when it comes to this stuff. Unless you can shut-down the other team's star or drop the gloves, you need to put up points as a forward prospect to get anywhere.

Probably not... but even if he does just pace this year there's still a chance (however small) that he'll figure things out as an upper-classman. Definetly won't look good for his future prospects though.

My personal expectation for him is around 0.75PPG next year. That seems like a reasonable and achievable number for him. It's what Kreider managed to get on a much stronger team so it seems like a good benchmark.

Avatar
#32 beloch
May 08 2013, 01:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Even if it doesn't pan out, I still like the Jankowski pick. The alternative was a guaranteed mediocrity, which the Flames have no shortage of. If you need elite talent and can't pick high you have to accept some risk. For recognizing this, I'm willing to forgive Feaster for firmly grabbing his tonsils with his toes.

Avatar
#33 Bikeit
May 08 2013, 01:52PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Reminds me of when the Flames picked a projected 2nd round player in the first round and everyone was aghast. He turned out to be one of the best players in that draft year (not a strong year) once it was assessed a number of years later.

Can you name that player.

Hopefully history repeats.

Avatar
#34 Jeff Lebowski
May 08 2013, 01:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Make that (the leading scorer on Providence had) 6 more points while playing 4 more games.

Providence was tied for second for goals against (10 team league).

How can you guys not include this context when ranking individual performance?

Avatar
#37 Jeff Lebowski
May 08 2013, 02:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

If there was no consideration for those factors, I wouldn't have rated Jankowski at all. An 18 NHLE is profoundly underwhelming for any NHL forward prospect, let alone a guy who is expected to score as an NHLer.

I'd say the balance of evidence thus far leans in favor of Janko not being an exceptional prospect. The only reason to rank him higher...is nice scouting reports and the fact he was drafted in the first round.

You raise a number of issues here, but the truth is they are only potential contributors to his lackluster results this year. We don't know to what degree they suppressed his scoring, or if they did at all. Which is why you have supplied rhetorical questions in your rebuttal rather than actual evidence.

What we do know is he was a long bomb pick chosen out of a third tier HS system who didn't score at a notable rate in a season when most future NHLers start tearing it up.

He's young, he has some tools and there's lots of time for him to develop. But my skepticism has been deepened, not abated, by his performance this year.

The actual evidence is in how people dismiss counting stats when put in the context of corsi etc to "degrade" a player. For example Iginla may have been a prennial 30 goal guy but when you measure the differentials as to what he gives up, he doesn't look so good.

However this NHLE relies on counting stats to show the worth of a player.

Which one is it? Then, why not be consistent in the how players are assessed. ie don't use NHLE. Or use the same corsi etc to judge, like others are. If you don't have the numbers for non pro's then don't use it at all.

I concede, I'm no expert in advance stats AND I've relied on this site to explain and use them (as above).

I just don't understand how counting stats are kind of dismissed, or don't give the depth that advanced stats do, yet NHLE relies solely on them and we should use this a good tool to estimate player potential. Difficult to honestly assess, IMO.

Avatar
#38 Jeff Lebowski
May 08 2013, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Did you miss this paragraph in the article?

That said, there are reasons to like the player and give him the benefit of the doubt for now. There's no denying he has a decent package of skills with smooth skating, a long reach and soft hands. He is also very young, one of the youngest of his draft class, and skipped a step by going directly into college hockey as a 17/18 year old. In addition, Providence was one of the lowest scoring teams in Hockey East this year (the leam leader scored 24 points in 38 games), which makes it tough for a freshman to run up the numbers.

Yup. did miss that paragraph. My bad.

Avatar
#39 suba steve
May 08 2013, 02:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

Joe was a 2nd rounder (27th overall) in 1985.

First round had only 21 picks that year.

Avatar
#42 the-wolf
May 08 2013, 02:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Jeff Lebowski wrote:

The actual evidence is in how people dismiss counting stats when put in the context of corsi etc to "degrade" a player. For example Iginla may have been a prennial 30 goal guy but when you measure the differentials as to what he gives up, he doesn't look so good.

However this NHLE relies on counting stats to show the worth of a player.

Which one is it? Then, why not be consistent in the how players are assessed. ie don't use NHLE. Or use the same corsi etc to judge, like others are. If you don't have the numbers for non pro's then don't use it at all.

I concede, I'm no expert in advance stats AND I've relied on this site to explain and use them (as above).

I just don't understand how counting stats are kind of dismissed, or don't give the depth that advanced stats do, yet NHLE relies solely on them and we should use this a good tool to estimate player potential. Difficult to honestly assess, IMO.

I'm definitely no advacned stats whiz, but I think the idea is 2-fold:

1) It's used to judge offensive players, not as an overall 200' game assessor. If you're supposed to be a scorer, than you should be scoring. That simple. That's why counting stats work - not to judge a player's overall game, but literally, "how is he scoring?"

2) It's used in comparison of similarly projected players. In other words, "how is this supposed future scorer doing next to that supposed future scorer?"

Avatar
#43 Parallex
May 08 2013, 02:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Graham wrote:

You would expect an offensive minded first round pick to dominate in almost any league outside the NHL. Everyone has off years, but it is really disappointing to see such a poor season playing College hockey. Jankowski was a controversial pick last year, and Feaster’s comments only added to the fire. I must admit I didn’t understand the pick last year, and like it even less this year. The Jankowski draft may well be the defining moment in Feaster reign as GM.

Heh, When history looks back on the Sutter Era Flames do you really think that the selection of Greg Nemisz is going to be his "defining moment"?

Individual draft picks tend not to be "defining moments". A pick would have to be a historic fail (Think #1 overall bust) or a historic win (Think franchise player in the 6/7th round) to warrent that kind of label.

Avatar
#44 SmellOfVictory
May 08 2013, 02:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

Well there are issues with shades of gray when judging NHLers value versus each other relative to judging the chances of a prospect of making the NHL and, furthermore, making an impact when he gets there.

The vast majority of prospects fail to make the show. And only a small proportion of them become notable contributors.

As such, a prospect has to be extraordinary in some way to make the leap. So extraordinary in general that they typically dominate their peers to non-trivial degrees, regardless of circumstances.

Which isn't to say one should ignore context and circumstances when judging kids. But there are much clearer, much more obvious thresholds kids have to cross in order to be legit prospects.

Usually, a guy who can't clear those hurdles, whatever his reasons, isn't going to be a player of note at the highest level.

And, of course, there's always the fact that counting stats are used for prospects because nobody tracks shots in their respective leagues. NHLE gives you something other than a half dozen scouting reports to go off of, and at least it's some form of quantitative analysis.

Interesting note about the prospects this draft year: one thing mentioned by someone on HFBoards (I have no idea where he found the SH%) is that Drouin's SH% this season is roughly 25%, which is something like a 50% increase over his SH% the previous season.

Avatar
#46 Parallex
May 08 2013, 02:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
SmellOfVictory wrote:

And, of course, there's always the fact that counting stats are used for prospects because nobody tracks shots in their respective leagues. NHLE gives you something other than a half dozen scouting reports to go off of, and at least it's some form of quantitative analysis.

Interesting note about the prospects this draft year: one thing mentioned by someone on HFBoards (I have no idea where he found the SH%) is that Drouin's SH% this season is roughly 25%, which is something like a 50% increase over his SH% the previous season.

33% or 24% depending on whether you use shots on goal or just shots. SH% isn't listed but if you go to the QMJHL network site and look at game by game statistics they tally year-to-date stats and Drouin has 125 "SOG" and 173 "S"... using his 41 goals and simple division get's you the %.

http://theqmjhl.ca/roster/gameByGame/id/8610/ls_season/171

Avatar
#47 sincity1976
May 08 2013, 02:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Using NHLE is a horrible way to evaluate prospects. It might be a decent way to determine how someone will produce in the NHL if they are to transition to the NHL immediately. But it doesn't tell you how a longer term prospect will progress.

Avatar
#49 Sean Bennett
May 08 2013, 03:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Jeff Lebowski wrote:

Is there no consideration that he played on a defensive minded team? I believe the leading scorer on that team (who as a senior??) had 10 more points and Jankowski was hurt for a portion of the season.

I for one think that the team concept has a real consequence on the oft criticized "counting stats".

Moreover, what were the quality of his teammates?

Do we judge Gillies, the goalie who played on that team as an astronomical goalie? Why because he had gaudy goalie stats on a defensively minded team? Meh.

I for one don't give this rating much merit. At all.

Yep. Providence sucked and the leading scorer played 4 more games but only had 8 more points, I believe (too lazY to check). He was cast into a top-six role as an 18 yr old rookie in the hardest NCAA division. Give the kid a break, boys.

I will most definitely reserve judgement till next year.

Personally, saw him play online a few times, and he's got great skills. Just needs to bulk up and catch up to the size and strength of the other NCAA players.

Avatar
#50 Bikeit
May 08 2013, 03:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

Well actually 1996 Derek Morris. Not a forward, but still viewed as an off the lower board pick. I think Kelly Kisio saw him above where he was ranked in the second round. Just a case of that you cannot always trust the prospect rankings and that Janko could still turn out based on something a flames scout saw. I hope.

Comments are closed for this article.