Mark Jankowski's First NCAA Season

Justin Azevedo
July 23 2013 08:07AM

 

PC #10 Mark Jankowski and BU #12 Yasin Cissé

 

Mark Jankowski had what could be called a middling freshman year in Providence in terms of production with just seven goals and 18 points in 34 games. I decided to take an in-depth look into his scoring last year to add some context to his counting numbers and to also get an idea about what we should expect from him next year.

How about we run through his scoring stats and see if there's anything we can find out, shall we?

  G A PPG ShPG TS% PPP% PA% S%
Mark Jankowski 7 11 0.53 1.79 18.9% 27.8% 45.5% 11.5%

G/A/PPG : Goals, Assists and Points-Per-Game

Jankowski got a fair amount of playing time on the PP and was on the team's top-2 lines the entire year. Providence was a low scoring team, yes, but Jankowski was given very favourable circumstances. I feel as though this is below-average for guys who are supposed to be high-end prospects. 11 of the 12 assists on his goals were by different players, with Tim Schaller being the only one to appear more than once. Of his assists on others goals, he assisted on 3 of Derek Army's 13 goals, 2 of Ross Mauermann's 12 goals, 2 of Nick Saracino's 11 goals, 2 of Stefan Demopoulos' 8 goals and 2 of Kevin Hart's 3 goals. The spread of his points among different players suggests he wasn't being carried by anyone but likewise he wasn't carrying anyone. His PPG gives us an NHLE of 17.8.

TS% : Team Scoring Percentage

In the CHL, we'd like this number to be 35% or above for anyone who is expected to be a scorer at the next level. The NCAA is a tougher league and based on the age structure of the league we can lower that number a little. I'd say 25% is the minimum for top-end players in their freshman season (about 10 goals difference between the two when applied to Providence's scoring) when taking into account where a freshman generally plays.

Unfortunately, Jankowski comes in under that 25% threshold (18.9%). In real terms, that's about 7 more points we would've liked to have seen from Jankowski, whether they be bar-down snipes from the slot or assists coming off of pucks bouncing off his inner thigh (actually, snipes would be preferred).

PPP% : Power Play Points Percentage

The Friars scored 23 goals on the PP last year, and Jankowski contributed to 5 of those (1G, 4A). That's an okay number, but Jankowski didn't score enough to make it statistically significant. Still, it's a positive that he wasn't overly reliant on the man advantage to put up points. If he can increase his scoring next season by a measurable amount and still keep this percentage low it's a good sign.

PA% : Primary Assist Percentage

Jankowski only had 11 assists this year, but the fact that 6 of those were secondary assists suggests he was a bit of a passenger on scoring plays (that or guys weren't burying his feeds). I'm not putting too much stock into this, however - the difference between him being above 55% (which I consider to be the threshold for a good player) and where he's at was one assist. If this trend continues into next year, though, then we have reason to be concerned.

ShPG/S% : Shots Per Game and Shooting Percentage

For me, these are the most worrying stats. Jankowski shot 11.5% last year, which is considered to be average to slightly above average at the NHL level, so it's reasonable to assume at the NCAA level it's around the average shooting percentage. We know that shooting percentage, at least in the NHL, doesn't tend to rise by meaningful amounts over the course of a player's career (unless his circumstances drastically change) - in fact, it actually drops. That said, we need several thousand shots to get a true idea of a skater's true talent level in the show.

However, even if we throw out every other statistic because of the small sample size, the fact is he isn't producing shots at a meaningful rate (1.8/game) and without sky-high luck he won't improve his goal and point totals if he does not improve. For comparison, Johnny Gaudreau, who by all accounts should have had a tougher time adjusting to the NCAA than Jankowski given his size, averaged 2.8 shots per game in his freshman year at a similar age. In his sophomore season this year, Gaudreau hovered ar four shots per game.

For Jankowski, a one shot per game improvement or better is in order.

Conclusion

I'm willing to give Jankowski a little bit of a break here as most guys who just turned 18 aren't playing at the NCAA level and the Friars were a low scoring team.

In saying that, though, Jankowski is big enough that playing in the NCAA shouldn't have been that big of a jump if his perceived skill level is what it is. The bad news is, his stats are below-average almost across the board. If you recall Kent's comparables article from last summer, he showed pretty much every current NHLer who rose through a tier-2 league and then college ranks scored at least at a 0.70 point-per-game pace in their freshman college season. Janko came in at 0.53. That is David Van Der Gulik (0.50) and Kris Chucko (0.49) territory. 

Taken all together, it's obvious the former first rounder didn't really clear any of the quantitative bars we set as markers for future NHLers, to say nothing of future NHL scorers. These sorts of yardsticks aren't unerring signs of doom, but they certainly suggest the kid is a bit behind the curve currently.

I understand Jankowski was a project when drafted, but that shouldn't preclude him from showing meaningful improvement year-over-year. In order to get where he needs to be, I'd like to see his shot totals jump to somewhere around 3 shots per game at the very least. Ideally, Janko will get up to at least .75 PPG as well, if not 1.0+. If he's going to produce at the NHL level, he needs to be a notable scorer in college first.

The good news for Jankowski is he is relaatively young and he has an undeniable package of skills. The results weren't there for him in his draft+1 season, but he still has time and opportunity to put things together and become a noteworthy prospect. If he takes a big step forward for Providence this year, it will be wasy to put his underwhelming rookie season in the rear view mirror.

Around the Nation

A9d138d0e612f28cd46f9b7057ed715d
Justin is a 23-year-old Flames fan who also happens to be pursuing a double major at the University of Calgary. He has played hockey at high levels, enjoys wearing shorts and tends to drink far too much Grasshopper. Please don't hate him.
Avatar
#51 SmellOfVictory
July 23 2013, 09:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
jai kiran wrote:

You say Gaudreau "averaged 2.8 shots per game in his freshman year at a similar age". But didn't Gaudreau play a year in the USHL first? Isn't Janko's comparable year his next one?

Gaudreau played a year in the USHL in his draft year. His draft+1 year was in the NCAA at the age of 18, just like Jankowski's.

The major difference between the two in terms of leagues is that USHL is the top developmental league (for minors) in the US, whereas Jankowski was playing in a Canadian prep school that was completely unknown (and thus likely a third-tier league in terms of quality of competition). The jump in quality from USHL to NCAA would not be nearly as great as a prep school to NCAA.

There's also the physical aspect of it: both had physical challenges (Gaudreau because of straight-up size), but Jankwoski underwent a 6-8 inch growth spurt during his draft year. As a tall guy myself, I can tell you those growth spurts absolutely destroy your physical coordination for an extended period.

Avatar
#52 McRib
July 23 2013, 09:41AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Hahaha, Colin Greening absolutely did play prep!!! He was drafted out of a Canadian Prep School where he was playing for Upper Canada College!!! He literally is the closest comparison you will find to Mark Jankowski and you guys "conveniently" missed him!! Like you mentioned Greening also had another year of Junior to prepare for NCAA and still put up medicore points before having success at the NHL.

"i'm going to discount your contentions that prep kids like greening, knight, frattin and hagelin struggled".

Not once did say these three played prep (Greening did), I said Kreider played Prep and found it interesting that zero prep kids were included considering they are the most direct comparison!! If I had time I could go through the dozens that you missed. Not to mention other cases like Max Pacioretty how many points would he have put up as a true freshman if he didn't go to Sioux City out of Avon Olds?!?!?

Avatar
#53 Jeff Lebowski
July 23 2013, 09:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The numbers don't lie. When I watched him at camp, there was an assertiveness missing from hs game. I remember writing some guys when they want the puck the entire arena hears but with Jankowski he seemed...kind of meek. It carried into his play too.

Having said that, when you watch him you see the skills. I really think he's going to adjust to his still growing (height) body and smooth out, look more athletic in his movement. He still looks a little gawky with his feet but his hands are better.

Once that happens, he'll start making more things happen on the ice which leads to improving confidence. Subsequently he'll be more take charge.

The fact that he is doing all the right things (training) is a good sign.

The proof is in the pudding so until he does it, it's fair to call his performance underwhelming thus far.

Avatar
#54 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Matt Frattin, Corban Knight & Carl Hagelin all got second/third line ice time (as did Mark) on much deeper and higher scoring teams than Jankowski!! If anything your point makes Jankowski's numbers seem much stronger.

Avatar
#55 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Jeff Lebowski

'The numbers don't lie. When I watched him at camp, there was an assertiveness missing from hs game. I remember writing some guys when they want the puck the entire arena hears but with Jankowski he seemed...kind of meek. It carried into his play too. "

We clearly didn't watch the same game?!?!? Go back and watch the highlights of the second scrimmage you'll see a kid wearing number 77 Black beat Gillies twice and both times he just hit the post.... Bazaar!!! Both games he put himself into position for prime chances three or four times a game that is assertiveness in your eyes.

Avatar
#56 SmellOfVictory
July 23 2013, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Ryan Lambert wrote:

the reason kreider, knight, frattin and hagelin didn't get big point totals at boston college, north dakota, north dakota and michigan, respectively, is that these are high-end programs in which freshmen aren't given huge opportunities to produce very often.

for example, kreider scored 15 goals his freshman year, and not a single one of them was on the power play; he wasn't getting time there. he still scored 15.

i'm going to discount your contentions that prep kids like greening, knight, frattin and hagelin struggled, because none of them played prep; they all played junior. greening in the BC, knight and frattin in the AJ, hagelin in sweden.

BC and AJ are 2nd tier junior, though; it's still a bigger leap in competition from there to NCAA than from the USHL, which is roughly on par with the CHL.

@everton fc: Jankowski is slated to play C this season, according to interviews.

Avatar
#57 Jeff Lebowski
July 23 2013, 10:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@McRib

That's fair, I wasn't at second scrimmage. I think he's going to improve and I feel the org knows what they have and the amount of patience required for him to fully develop.

Benchmarking him might be a tad unfair but you have to track somehow. So far the data is left a little wanting. That's not to say he won't meet or outpace ever, he just hasn't done it yet.

I think this will be a great year for him.

Avatar
#58 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:36AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Hahahaha, Read every single game sheet of Providences and watched four games online. Providence like most very inexperienced teams rolled three lines all season. Jankowski was easily second/third line every night playing out of position on the wing. Also unlike Corban Knight/Matt Frattin playing on a stacked team PCs thrid/fourth line wasn't filled with NHL Drafted players (David Toews, Mike Cichy, Brad Miller).

Everyone in the Hockey World loves Mark Jankowski except FN, Corey Pronman and NHLCSS. So maybe I should paint a picture for you.... After recently attending the NHL Draft in NJ. I ask multitude of NHL Scouts (Boston, Nashville, St. Louis, Calgary, etc) about Corey Pronman.....

You guys at FN are aware that he lives in FLORIDA and "claims" to watch games online, but attends less than ten games in person a year!!! The only person he is a draft insider for is FN, his own made up scouting company & Idiots on Twitter!! Oh Ya and very occasionally on ESPN, lol. The network that completely ignores that Hockey even exists.

Mark Jankowski is going to make you guys look foolish!!! I'm curious as to why FN continues to allow you to write for them as your hockey knowledge is nonexistent.... People just disregard your articles as filler... DON'T YOU LIVE IN BOSTON ANYWAY!?!?!? Why do you even care about writing for FN!!!! You and Corey Pronman should get together and start some uber insider make believe blog.

Corey Pronman can continue to rank the Gabriel Landeskogs of the world 12th and you can't say how awful they are going to be!!!

Avatar
#59 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:41AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@Jeff Lebowski

Ya, he had a couple prime scoring oppotunities that second game, highlight show them on flames.com. I do as well, unlike FN I prefer to look at the positives! He has been moved to a regular position at centre, added 15-20 Lbs and his coach Nate Leaman(one of the best in NCAA) says he had three or four missed opportunities a game last year and is going to breakout. Frankly I would be surprised if he doesn't hit a point a game from what I have seen.

Avatar
#60 McRib
July 23 2013, 10:49AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Ryan Lambert

Hahaha, Once again why do you write for a Calgary Flames Site?!?!? It doesn't seem like your a fan considering you talk about our prospects that everyone else in hockey has ranked in the Top. 10 developmental crops, like they are the worst in the NHL. I've also seen him in person six or seven times and am very good friends with NE scouts for Boston & St. Louis that absolutly love him. So I'm going to take their opinion over yours thanks!!!

Avatar
#61 They're $hittie
July 23 2013, 12:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

This kid sucks!

Avatar
#62 ThatGuy
July 23 2013, 12:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I heard on the radio that MJ had a weak start to the season trying to adjust from High School to College hockey in just one summer. His point totals were increasing toward the end of the season, so I'm hoping he picks up where he left off. I'm not ready to write this 18(!) year old kid off like many of you already have.

Avatar
#63 seve927
July 23 2013, 12:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

they didn't increase towards the end of the season. 3 goals and 5 assists in his last half-season (17 games). that's actually a decrease from the first half.

where in the article did I write him off? he's not performing where nhlers should be. that's all.

1 ppg over his last 2 games!

Avatar
#64 Michael
July 23 2013, 01:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If Jankowski had been a little older, i wonder how he would have faired in this years draft? The draft was clearly deeper this year, but given his underwhelming year(s), its likely he would have dropped into the second round and maybe beyond.

Feaster simply oversold the kid, few '20 ish' overall draft picks make the NHL, and fewer still make an impact. If you set realistic expectations for the kid, he has something like a sub 20% chance of making the NHL, and an even smaller a chance of developing into a first liner.

Jankowski may work out, or he might not, but we need to be realistic about what we have. He could be great, or he could simply fade away into the misery that normally accompanies Flames first round picks.

Avatar
#66 Kevin R
July 23 2013, 01:28PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props
Bean-counting cowboy wrote:

Settle down now Riblet. While FN can seem pessimistic to some, I find the analysis tries to take an unbiased view of our team/prospects. Most fan sites tend to be over-value our own team/prospects and take a homer approach.

One might argue that you can take optimism a bit too far as well (which I find most of your posts to be). If all of these picks will work out perfectly as you seem to always suggest, then the Flames will have done something no team has ever done.... ever. What are the stats for 1st rounders turning into NHLers.. something like 50%, then 25% for 2nd round, 10 - 15% for 3rd, etc. etc.

FN simply breaks down the numbers and tries to add other factors to explain. The analysis presented in this article was exactly that. Jankowski hasn't shown anything yet. Sure he's got skill, goal posts and chances, but the same can be said for the guys who actually scored goals too.

All that's being said by this article is that he really needs to show us something next year to remain a legit prospect. You're almost guaranteeing he will... and if so, great... but don't act like you know the future more than anybody else. It can get tiring reading some of your over-jubilant, homer posts.

Good points, problem is that sometimes these stats breed negativity on our very young prospects. Jankowski is only 18 years old & I'm reading that next year is a make or break it year for Janko & Feaster. Holy smokes. Stats are stats but individuals are exactly that, individuals. People get it at different rates. There is no statistical time line that says a prospect should be at X level or they should be discarded. Heaven help you if you are a late bloomer. My reaction isn't as extreme as Ribby, but I was getting a little annoyed of how the judgement/perception on this kid was going. If he has a similar year next year, so what? What if he crushes it the year after? Suddenly you have to be more careful what you read & how you react to the stats. I was pumped when I listened to Sven talk about Janko on the Fan 960 & how big he got from last years camp & the skills he has. Then here its like people want to run him out of town like Backlund a few years ago. Lets not react & just look forward to how he progresses next year. Shall we?

Avatar
#67 piscera.infada
July 23 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

I understand the general sentiment re: the Jankowski pick. I also agree with the overall point of this article - that he NEEDS to show something this year.

I often think the Seiloff element to the move is overlooked. I'm sure everyone here has it in the back of their minds. But for me Teravainen and Gilles is as (if not more) underwhelming as a flier on Jankowski, Seiloff, and Gilles. Obviously this assumes that they would have picked Gilles if they hadn't picked in the 2nd round. So I'm not so sure we can look at this move in a vaccuum and essentially say "if Jankowski doesn't pan out, this is on the Feaster/Weisbrod system".

Oh, and @NHL93 and @SmellOfVictory: I think we can all agree both Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains were/are light years ahead of Nirvana.

Avatar
#68 the-wolf
July 23 2013, 01:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Kevin R wrote:

Good points, problem is that sometimes these stats breed negativity on our very young prospects. Jankowski is only 18 years old & I'm reading that next year is a make or break it year for Janko & Feaster. Holy smokes. Stats are stats but individuals are exactly that, individuals. People get it at different rates. There is no statistical time line that says a prospect should be at X level or they should be discarded. Heaven help you if you are a late bloomer. My reaction isn't as extreme as Ribby, but I was getting a little annoyed of how the judgement/perception on this kid was going. If he has a similar year next year, so what? What if he crushes it the year after? Suddenly you have to be more careful what you read & how you react to the stats. I was pumped when I listened to Sven talk about Janko on the Fan 960 & how big he got from last years camp & the skills he has. Then here its like people want to run him out of town like Backlund a few years ago. Lets not react & just look forward to how he progresses next year. Shall we?

Good points, but I still think Jank has to take a huge step forward next season. Does that mean I'd ditch him if he doesn't? No, because maybe he is some sort of late bloomer. But if he plays next season and his stats are comparably low to what they should be, it's hard to think he's going to be the 1st line center the Flames' obviously enviosned when they drafted him.

Remember, the reason the mods didn't want Backlund moved was also because of his underlying stats. It's really the same argument, but with a different outcome, not 2 different arguments.

Avatar
#69 piscera.infada
July 23 2013, 02:01PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@Justin Azevedo

Sure it isn't, but the whole reason people torch Feaster for picking Jankowski is because there is perception he could have had someone "better". Thus, I posit the question - who in that vicinity (let's say, 14-42) is better than the two players they otherwise wouldn't have had?

At this point, you can make a case for Maatta and perhaps Teravainen. No one else jumps out at you as a sure-fire NHLer, or even "an above-replacement NHLer". So, yes Seiloff does matter in the final analysis of the handling of the 14th overall pick.

Avatar
#70 piscera.infada
July 23 2013, 03:04PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Justin Azevedo

Ceci and Teravainen have hit a bit of a wall in their development, whereas Frk, Aberg, and Collberg would still have been considered "going off the board" and we would likely be having the same discussion we're having about Janko - maybe not, perhaps everyone here is so smart they knew those guys were far better than the Jank-man.

Avatar
#71 T&A4Flames
July 23 2013, 03:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Given that he is only 1month older than Monohan, i'll judge him on this year.

It sounds like he's committed to improvement given that he has already bulked up. If he goes into his 2nd year of college with confidence, I think he may bust out. It would be nice to see how he could play with a little more offensive talent in an offensive system.

How were his possession #'s and defensive play?

Avatar
#73 rubbertrout
July 23 2013, 04:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Avalain wrote:

Really? So if Baertschi, Gaudreau, Gillies, Poirier, and Klimchuk all end up being fantastic picks but Jankowski is a bust, that's reason enough to fire a guy? What if Sieloff becomes something? (Note that Monahan was virtually picked for Feaster as a result of who were picked in the top 5, so I wouldn't consider this a win or loss for him either way)

Honestly, I want the GM of the Flames to be willing to take some level of risk. If he had to follow the BPA according to public scouting reports and always had to make the safe moves for fear of being fired, then this team is doomed to mediocrity.

On top of that, this was a reach for the exact kind of player that the Flames have needed for years. A big, skilled pivot who, if he works out, will be virtually impossible to pick up via trade or free agency. If he doesn't work out, well, you can't win them all. In fact, I think it's fair to say no team has a perfect drafting record, even if you include only the 1st round. The important thing is that the Flames' prospect pool has been improving.

Seems to me that they went with the safer pick this year in Monahan than the pick with more upside in Nichushkin. Granted a few others did that too.

Let's suspend judgment on the balance of Feaster's picks too until we know where they are tracking. Sven is likely to be in the NHL this year. I'm not holding my breath on Gaudreau ever making it. As for the rest who knows?

I agree don't judge a guy on one pick but how about extending McGratton to a two year deal when he is a guy that was had off of waivers (and could likely have been replaced in the same way).

How about the whole O'Reilly fiasco?

Moves like that are fireable offences in and of themselves regardless of whether he made a swing and a miss (as seems likely) on Jank.

Avatar
#74 SmellOfVictory
July 23 2013, 04:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
the-wolf wrote:

Good points, but I still think Jank has to take a huge step forward next season. Does that mean I'd ditch him if he doesn't? No, because maybe he is some sort of late bloomer. But if he plays next season and his stats are comparably low to what they should be, it's hard to think he's going to be the 1st line center the Flames' obviously enviosned when they drafted him.

Remember, the reason the mods didn't want Backlund moved was also because of his underlying stats. It's really the same argument, but with a different outcome, not 2 different arguments.

This is a different argument; people wanted Backlund moved because his counting stats didn't appear good enough to them but the advanced stats folk felt that his underlying stats were more important and showed his true value. This analysis of Jankowski is based substantially on counting stats.

Now that's not by choice so much as out of necessity (there is no way to check underlying stats for non-NHL leagues), but we should be clear that the two analyses are very different.

Avatar
#75 BurningSensation
July 23 2013, 05:11PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

So to recap;

Jankowski;

- added 6-8 inches of height in the last 16 months - jumped from a very poor league to a very good one - played on a crap offensive team - at a very young age - out of position - and put up disappointing numbers

And we are supposed to read these tea leaves as something other than;

'He needs at least another year of development'?

12-13 was always going to be a freebie year for the kid, the hand wringing can stop.

Avatar
#76 exsanguinator
July 23 2013, 05:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

How is Maata doing so far? That was the pick that I was almost screaming for Feaster to make before he said Jankowski.

As for MJ, I'm more interested in how he's going to do in years 3 and 4 of college. If the Flames get a high 3rd/low 2nd line quality center out of him I will be thrilled.

Avatar
#77 Baalzamon
July 23 2013, 05:29PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@exsanguinator

Maatta is extremely meh. He improved from 32 points in 58 games to 38 points in 57 games. More importantly, his skating is still awkward as hell. I've always found him extremely underwhelming whenever I saw him.

Enough people are high on him that I'm probably wrong, but I can only report what I see.

Avatar
#78 Primo
July 23 2013, 08:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Justin...other than numbers and stats do you have any information/examples around ....tenacity, skill set, chemistry with team mates, size of heart, focus on winning, toughness, hockey knowledge, ability to read the play, special team skills, etc etc??

Avatar
#79 SeanCharles
July 23 2013, 09:02PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

Jankowski will make the NHL (bairing injury etc.)

-Invited to World Juniors camp -THN redraft indicated he has moved up in scouts eyes -He put on wieght and strength -He found openings in the slot in prospects camp and generally made high IQ reads. -Top 5 in scoring on his team, 6 behind leader -One of, if not, the youngest player in the league -Is same age as players drafted in 2013 -Has a projectable frame with NHL speed so should play in some capacity

This player was always a risk. But 2012 wasnt a very deep draft. There are only a handful of surefire prospects after examining from a year later.

Ya Thomas Hertl probably would have been a solid pick, and I would be happy with it too.

But I also really like the idea of Jankowski for what he stands for: A change in direction within the organization that shortcuts were no longer going to be the mandate.

One thing I can say about Feaster is the man truey cares more about fixing this team in his image than doing the safe thing and trading picks for vets or making picks that would please the masses..

Avatar
#80 schmenkley
July 23 2013, 09:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Justin Azevedo wrote:

fact: most players that turn out to be elite display more than he did this season.

is that, in and of itself, not reason to look deeper at his stats and reset expectations?

i'm not saying write the kid off, i'm saying adjust expectations accordingly. if he lights it up next season, we'll adjust expectations again.

Not at all Justin, and don't get me wrong here; I think that this was a fair and accurate assessment. One that can be made for probably 98per of the last three draft classes(i just made that number up!) My point wasn't to denigrate your article, but to point out that statistical analysis is an evolving tool that needs to be reviewed in a certain light; it can be a powerful barometer of where an individual is at currently, but it hasn't yet evolved to the point where it is a magic bullet, because, let's face it, such a thing doesn't exist. My point was more to the passionate, emotional response from McRibb than to your article. I think(hope!) that the future of GM administration league-wide will utilize statistical analysis incorporated with eyes-on personal assessment from scouts or someone in the organization for asset assessment.

Well.....maybe not the Oilers, but, you know what I mean...?

Avatar
#81 Frank
July 23 2013, 10:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Can't help noticing that in the picture, he's lined up on the left side! Cervenka 2.0??

Avatar
#82 Baalzamon
July 23 2013, 10:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Frank

Where have you been? He spent the entirety of last season playing on the wing. That's pretty much common knowledge by now.

It has also been acknowledged that he'll be playing center this year (likely because Tim Schaller graduated).

Avatar
#83 T&A4Flames
July 23 2013, 11:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Maybe we should all just look at Janko for what Feaster said about him, aside om the best player comment. He's a project, Feaster said himself, 4 to 5 years. If he shows decent improvement over last year, great. If improves even more in year 3, awesome.

It seems that even the PC coach is preparing him for what he believes what we all hope that Janko can be, a top player.

Ok his #'s this year were under whelming, lets see how the long term project does next year.

Avatar
#84 jeremywilhelm
July 23 2013, 11:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I've taken my own shots at Pronman in the past, and he has no problem taking criticism. But you should know, and he states clearly, that he is not a scout, doesn't claim to be one, and often says he doesn't get to watch a tonne of games.

He basically talks to and tries to compile information from real scouts that he can get into contact with. I don't think he has ever claimed to be an insider nor does he make many of his own deliberations on players.

Avatar
#85 beloch
July 24 2013, 01:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

PPG is an inherently flawed metric. If you double a players TOI and he has the stamina to handle it, you functionally double his ppg. Take Stajan for example. His ppg soared last season, but primarily because his TOI was nearly doubled! He's still the same ol' mediocrity he's always been. Points or shots per 60min TOI would be far better metrics but, unfortunately, most minor leagues don't track TOI, let alone zone starts or quality of competition!

Good players in the NHL do get more TOI. Players undergoing growth-spurts who have messed up muscle-to-bone ratios (I'm not even talking about co-ordination here!) tend to have lower stamina and may tire more quickly, leading to less TOI. Players battling injuries get less TOI. Players who the coach just doesn't like get less TOI. Dumb coaches working in the minors might not spot talent when they see it and give TOI to the best players. Without knowing what kind of TOI Janko has been getting we really can't conclude much from his low ppg.

Don't get me wrong, I am neither suggesting that Janko is the next superstar or the next big fat failure. I'm just saying that we have no idea yet. 34 games would constitute an insufficient sample size even if we had quality stats for those 34 games, and we don't!

Avatar
#86 BJ
July 24 2013, 07:11AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Justin

I really appreciate the work you guys do to fill this site with so much content for us Flames nuts but I think this is an article that could have waited a year or two when there would be more data... I don't think it is very informative at this point

The arguements for and against the Jankowski pick at this point are futile... although the people who are very critical may have to eat their words.

Janks is still a kid and should be allowed to grow up and fill out before he is rushed to judgement. I think he is very skilled... of course so was a guy named Oleg Saprykin who could never put it all together.

Point being there are higher picks that bust all the time so based on odds alone there is a good chance Janks will be a bust when all said and done - just as any other player we could have drafted. But I think what people are missing is that Feaster tried to use this pick to net us a top line center rather than take the safe pick that would probably turn into a 2nd/3rd liner. I am in support of this type of picking players that have a high upside - Johnny Gaudreau - when drafting in the mid first round it is a crap shoot anyway might as well swing for the fences as the safe picks dont always turn out either.

I have said it before and I will say it again... it is not news... this team needs top line elite talent.. we have the 2nd line guys... we have the 3rd line guys... Feaster is trying to address that. Even if Janks doesn't make the NHL I won't be super critical of Feaster... lots of first line guys don't make it... of course if Janks doesn't make it all the critics will use their hindsight 20/20 to say we should have picked this guy or that guy...

Avatar
#87 SmellOfVictory
July 24 2013, 09:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Frank wrote:

Can't help noticing that in the picture, he's lined up on the left side! Cervenka 2.0??

No. He was put on the wing to help him adapt to the new league. He will be playing centre next season.

Comments are closed for this article.