The 2014 Flames Fifteen – #14: Mark Jankowski

146704885_slide

Via the NHL

There’s two things about Mark Jankowski that cannot be argued: the first is that he’s shown improvement year-over-year. The second is that that improvement, at first glance, doesn’t mean as much because of where he was starting from.

The former first-rounder comes in at #14 on our countdown.

Jankowski was always a risky pick, and the Flames felt that in order to get value for their pick they would have to move down to select him. (They also got Pat Sieloff, but unless he becomes an impact player, he’s mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Also, from @SKRollins on Twitter: “my favourite thing about the trade-down defense is the only reason they didn’t have that 2nd was the dumb Regehr trade”.) Due to when he was born – September 13th, 1994 – he’s been about a year behind in player development compared to his peers. This has always been Jankowski’s big advantage –  he has an extra year of development built in; this was technically his +1 year even though it was his second post-draft year.

  Justin Kent Ryan BoL Byron Taylor Christian 2013 2012
Mark Jankowski 13 13 14 15 N/R 14 12 15 N/D

The biggest issue with Jankowski is that he isn’t scoring at the rate we expect both a.) first round picks and b.) top-six forwards to score at. Some would argue that’s okay because he’s a “late bloomer” because of when he was born. The issue is that guys who are “late bloomers” tend to be development outliers. You shouldn’t bet that an outlier can make the NHL with a first round pick, in my opinion.

Along with his young age, another benefit that Jankowski has is the frame of a legitimate 1C. However, I’m unconvinced that Jankowski putting on more muscle weight is going to help him become a much better player from here on out. Providence lists him at 6’3″, 186. That puts him within 10 pounds and one inch of players like Evgeni Malkin, Evander Kane, James Van Riemsdyk, Sean Couturier, and Patrice Bergeron. I do not think that Jankowski is going to have wildly different results against those guys if he gains a vacation’s worth of meals. I am also less swayed by the “awkwardness” he has as a negative factor; if he can’t compensate for a growth spurt he had almost three years ago by now he won’t ever do so. 

I am also less convinced that Providence as a team is hurting his output then I was in the middle of the year. We don’t have shot attempt numbers for individual players at the NCAA level (at least, I couldn’t find them) but we do have the team totals for the Friars and we can extrapolate based on the 2/1 ratio. Their CF% this year was 52.4%, which indicates that Providence was a pretty good team. Not dominant, but certainly at the very least above-average. 

Jankowski finished this season with a 22 NHLE (13+12 in 38 GP), which isn’t a good figure for a draft-eligible first rounder, let alone a player entering his third (second) post-draft year. That’s also a figure he got to with an inflated SH% (15.1%), which either suggests above-average luck or above-average talent. Due to the low total, I’m inclined to lean to the former but I don’t really know. If there’s no correction in the SH% next year, I’m willing to accept Jankowski’s true talent level against NCAA goalies is just that high. Jankowski also didn’t have that sort of elite jump we’d want in a +1 year, either – NHLers tend to jump about 6 points, very good to elite NHLers jump 9 points. Janko jumped about 5.

But – we have two results that I consider very positive. The first is his shooting volume. I’d still like to see more from Jankowski, but at the start of the year I believe I wanted 2.5 SH/G. He ended up at 2.3, which is pretty close. It’s still not *great*, per se, but it’s an improvement. He was 4th in SH/G on the team, and controlled about 13% of the team’s total shot attempts if we assume the general “2 events=1 shot” ratio that we have in the NHL. That’s a good number at the NHL level – but he was only in on 22% of the team’s scoring, which is less of a good number at the NCAA level.

  Power Play Points Secondary Assists Team Scoring
Mark Jankowski 20% (5/25) 50% (6/12) 22% (25/114)

So why the difference? I think a lot of it has to do with his lack of PP time. Jankowski only managed 5 points on the PP this year, which gives him an EV scoring percentage of about 80%. Most of the time, my cut off is between 50% and 60%. If Janko had the same amount of EV points (20) and was at a “normal” split he’d have an extra 10 or so points, and an NHLE of 31 – which is much closer to what we’d want out of a top-six forward in his plus one year. If you also normalize for SH%, the NHLE drops a little to 29. Still behind the pace a little (as you’ll see in the future), but at least it has the potential to be better with minimal change.

I also want to mention his 54% F/O win rate, which is always nice, although I’m unsure of the effect it actually has on the game. The secondary assist thing I’m not as worried about due to the low total of assists.

Conclusion

I like Janko more as a prospect than I did last year. He still isn’t showing much scoring development, which is concerning – only Tanner Glass and David Jones have taken this sort of route and become NHLers, which shows it’s not exactly a good one to take.

Before this year, Jankowski had positive results in basically no areas. This year, he has positive results in shot attempts and his EV/PP split, two things I equate with “improvement”. (You’ll recall that last year I was a lot happier about Poirier than others because of his 80/20 EV/PP split.) If he can get more PP time and make use of it, then I’ll be much happier about him as a prospect. Right now, though, the total is too low and the luck is likely too high; even still I’m much more bullish on his NHL chances now than I was last summer. 

But – even though the potential is there, he has to be able to get the results this season for me to justify ranking him higher because of how poor his 2013 was.

  • TheRealPoc

    Thank god we took Jank over that evil Olli Maata. I know the last thing I want to see is a team full of skilled reliable players who contribute to wins *shudders*.

  • mattyc

    Couple technical questions/points:

    – you mention normalizing his SH%, is the mean shooting percentage in the NCAA the same as the NHL, is the spread the same?

    – How many games do they play? I ask this mainly because when you’re comparing his results to the targets you set, you come across a little pessimistic, when really, the difference between your targets, and Jankowski’s production is pretty bang on – given the sample size.

    Reading this actually made me more optimistic about his future, even with, what comes across in your writing at least, a healthy dose of pessimism.

    • TheRealPoc

      I assumed a 12% talent level. this is a little above nhl mean, which is between 8.5% and 10%. I assume ncaa shooting is a little higher due to the goalies being worse. they played 38 games this season – so my targets are another .25ppg basically. to me, that’s a lot. 3rd on the team in raw scoring, and I believe 4th in ppg. imo doesn’t really seem like a “a healthy dose of pessimism” since all of the other writers ranked him about the same and I spent half of the article saying why my view of him has improved.

  • mattyc

    While I share the frustration of the Feaster/Weisbrod decision to trade and select Jankowski I am not in agreement with using Olli Matta as the example of who should have been picked at the time.

    They were clearly looking for the best centre available. With a couple years hindsight Feaster could have chosen Hertl, Girgensons, Grigorenko, Faksa, Laughton or Matteau.

    Losing Hertl really is the “lost opportunity”. History will likely show the gamble to pick a long shot dark horse offset by getting another second rounder as perhaps too great a risk.

    That said to be fair most of Feaster/Weisbrod’s drafting has been well above average, re-stocking the prospect pool very well and moving the Calgary prospects up from #27 to #13 in a two year span (per HF).

    The Gaudreau, Poirier, Wotherspoon, Kanzig picks seem pretty good in retrospect with several more potential NHLers in development.

    • mattyc

      I used to get all depressed looking back in hindsight at previous NHL drafts until I realized you can’t one hundred percent say that had we picked the guy who turned out better that he still would’ve turned out better. Maybe he wouldn’t have developed right there’s so many things that could’ve gone wrong or different that could change so much you can’t say that had we grabbed hertl he would’ve turned out the same way and been better than Janko. Maybe Joe Thornton said something like a tip or inspired hertl in some way that spurred him on, maybe a random person on the street in san jose. For all we know we could’ve drafted hertl and one day he decided to check out the mountains and got mauled by a cougar. Same thing with Matta and everyone else, but on the flip side maybe they’d turn out even better here for some reason, you never know. That’s alot of butterfly effect but it’s something to think about.

  • PrairieStew

    I understand your reticence in using a first round pick on the late bloomer – it is a statistical outlier. I would posit however that teams more frequently err in the other direction – drafting the the kid who is shaving and playing midget AAA at 15, and has 3 years major junior under his belt on draft day. The early bloomer as it were. That’s how we end up drafting guys like Greg Nemisz and Matt Pelech who looked decent in junior, but everyone catches up to them at 19, 20 and beyond.

    The high shooting percentage I take with a little seasoning; I would not expect that detailed statistical tracking would be as comprehensive as it is in the NHL. I’m guessing he took more shots than what was reported.

    I’ve said this before – if Janko is maturation wise a year behind the average guy – and Monahan is a year ahead – and they are essentially the same age ( 3 weeks ?), wouldn’t you look at his NHLe a little differently ? In that way I look at him at 2 years behind Monahan – not one year ahead. Play out the college career and if in 2016-17 he puts up a season like Joe Colborne did this year without any AHL time then I think we’ve got a part to build with.

    • PrairieStew

      okay so you’re looking at it a little differently than it actually is, I think. I don’t think he’s behind monahan in terms of “years”. most guys who develop do it on the same sort of curve. janko’s off that curve. older guys can be off that curve too. I’m not saying anything here that disputes that, I think. in fact, I’d count colborne as off the curve. he’s 24. his scoring peak is probably 35 points. would we be happy with a 3rd liner who scores 35 points out of janko? I’m going to say no.

      I’m not going to look at his nhle any differently because he should be putting up results that are as good as other 19 year olds. he isn’t, really. being behind in years of development is a bad thing, no? I feel like the monahan example does more harm to his case – monahan’s only 4 months younger but is already scoring at a comparable ppg rate in a better league. that makes me think janko is worse, honestly.

      the shooting percentage is tracked the same for other players on the team. he is an outlier there too. it’s not because of the tracker. he’s just more lucky.

      • PrairieStew

        I am talking about physical development. All growth and development has a variance. For you to say “most guys who develop do it on the same sort of curve” implies everyone matures at exactly the same time. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you drew a curve of 1000 kids and when they walked you would have variance, same with sexual maturity, growth spurts in height and weight etc. Whatever population you choose you will find variance. My point is that, absent knowing these guys growing up, I believe it is likely that Monahan is an early maturer – maybe top 4 or 5 %, and Janko is on the back side of the bell curve.

        Colborne is an excellent example of late maturation- former first rounder -5 years older than Monahan and just now becoming an NHLer.

        They are a month apart Sept 13, Oct 12.

        Would I be happy if Janko was a 3rd liner- I would have to say yes. If you could convert 100% of your first round picks into regular NHL players you’d be doing very well. 50% on second rounders and one from from the bottom rounds every other year = 2 players per draft

        • PrairieStew

          there’s a huge difference between 2 players per draft and a 14th overall pick becoming something that might not be nhl-worthy, imo. it’s disingenuous to suggest that a forward picked in the first round not becoming a top-six forward isn’t a failure, just as it is saying that if I got two goons out of the draft it’d be better than just getting crosby. you can’t find top six forwards with regularity anywhere else. once again, all of these things are happening off the curve. make your chances to find a top-six forward as large as possible. feaster did the opposite.

          colborne also had significantly higher point production than janko did. the fact is that most players reach their point production max at 25. colborne will hit that mark this year. we’ll see how he does; but based on the thousands of players sampled I don’t think he has too much more growing to do.

          For you to say “most guys who develop do it on the same sort of curve” implies everyone matures at exactly the same time

          no it doesn’t it says right there “most” and “same sort”. there are outliers. using high picks on them and hoping to get even more lucky than usual seems like a bad strategy.

      • EugeneV

        you say: “I’d count colborne as off the curve. he’s 24. his scoring peak is probably 35 points. would we be happy with a 3rd liner who scores 35 points out of janko? I’m going to say no”

        Well, Colborne was picked 16th overall and Jankowski was picked 21st overall.

        So what are you saying?

        Are you referencing the Feaster quote again?

        Backlund is a 3rd line forward on a good team probably scoring around 35 points. He was picked 24th overall. You love Backlund.

        So what ARE you saying?

        • PrairieStew

          you seem to have a real issue with what I say. how about this: where did I say janko was anything except a long shot to make the nhl? because that’s what he is.

          colborne was on the curve when drafted. ~90 in ~50 in the aj. nhle of about 25 compared to janko’s draft nhle of 7. he went off the curve when he went from a ppg scorer in college to a sub-.5ppg player in the ahl at the age of 21/22 and when he made the nhl his underlyings were bad. backlund played in the third best league in the world when he was drafted and had good results in kelowna. his underlying numbers were good when he got a roster spot at the age of 22.

          janko has now posted two poor seasons in a row at the ncaa level.

          is that clear enough? it is possible for a player to on the curve at one point and off it at another. it is not permanent, and I’m unsure how you even got that impression. janko is currently off.

  • Byron Bader

    It certainly looks like Jankowski won’t work out but many still remain very optimistic about him becoming something. More so than other Flames prospects that haven’t shown much promise in their early development stages (e.g., Nemis, Wahl, etc.). It’s very intriguing. People who have seen him a few times see something about him, something that makes them say “maybe”. I’m curious how he does in his upcoming junior year. He hasn’t put much weight on the last year or two which makes me think he’s not going to come to camp with 10-15 additional pounds of muscle but believe he could be more effective if he had a little bit more girth to that big frame to him.

    He sort of reminds me of Blake Wheeler. Wheeler, a 5th overall pick mind you, is a late-august birthday (so two weeks before Jankowski’s birthdate). He’s a huge, huge guy but very lanky. Even now Wheeler is listed at 6’5” 205 ibs. He was probably even lighter than that when he got drafted. So maybe 6’3”-6’4” and 180-190 lbs. His first year in college he had an NHLE of 19 and then jumped up to 29 and dropped down to 26 his Junior year. His first few years in the bigs he contributed but wasn’t a driving force of the team. Five years later he’s arguably the Jets best player. It took him until about 25-26 but now you can probably book him in as a 60-65 point guy until he regresses in his 30s. If there’s something to Jankowski maybe that’s how it plays out. I’m curious how the next few years shake out with him.

  • McRib

    “Providence lists him at 6’3”, 186. That puts him within 10 pounds and one inch of players like Evgeni Malkin, Evander Kane, James Van Riemsdyk, Sean Couturier, and Patrice Bergeron.”‘

    So we cherry pick the five lightest tall guys… Hahah. No way he only ends up at 200 pounds the kids got a massive frame very conducive to adding muscle, he ends up at 215-220. Also in terms of the eye test watching him the last two seasons he just can’t lean on players, I think added weight well help significantly. He will never become a player that dominates with space similar to an Evgeni Malkin, Evander Kane and Patrice Bergeron (who need to be lighter).

    Let’s compare him to a guy like Chris Kreider 6’03” – 230 Pounds in that case he would have 44+ pounds to gain. Chris Kreider (20.35, 25.215, 4.87+ Change) also had a very similar NHLE in his first two NCAA seasons compared to Jankowski’s (17.80, 21.55, 3.75+ Change) and who’s point totals didn’t take off until his Junior Year, not to mention Chris Kreider is 4 1/2 months older.

    The most significant thing for me and one thing you’re overlooking in terms of comparables is with the growth of the USHL causing the NCAA to become a much much older league the past few seasons. So any comparables past the last 2-3 seasons really don’t make sense to begin with. Mark Jankowski was second in scoring for his age in the entire Hockey East this year (The only younger player to have more points was Ryan Fitzgerald). There are teams in the Hockey East that are almost entirely composed of 21-22 year olds. In the entire NCAA only six younger players had more points this year than Jankowski (Fitzgerald, Facing, Cammerata, Compher, Moore and Guentzel). Very few teams have more than one or two players under 20. Wheareas back five or ten years ago most teams had 6-12 players under 20. Look at another guy like Corban Knight who was drafted a full year later than Mark Jankowski with almost identical birthdays. He only had a NHLE of 11.81 his Freshman Season (which would have been Jankowski’s second year).

    • PrairieStew

      you’re missing the point. it doesn’t matter who i picked. the point is he can play at the nhl at that size and it isn’t a given he’ll put more weight on, and even if he does, it isn’t a given it’ll do anything.

      the ushl thing I am calling bull on and it’s something i’ve seen you mention before. based on his results, he would’ve been under a ppg in the ushl, even if we increase his scoring rate by the 35% translation the ushl to ncaa gives us.

      taylor cammaratta had something like 90 in 65 last season and he was available in the 3rd round. he would’ve have had about 30 more points than janko. show me something that says development of a player is better in the ushl than the ncaa and i’ll consider it. until then, it’s irrelevant. if you’re telling me our opinion of jankowski would’ve been better had he gone ppg in the ushl you are absolutely kidding yourself. regarding the age thing: irrelevant. if he’s an nhler he should be putting up results. doesn’t it concern you that all of the guys who are younger than him that are scoring more are also guys who weren’t first round picks?

      most of the guys he’s playing against have a ceiling that they’re close to hitting. the majority of players are as good as they will be, and they’re about 50% as good as fully developed nhlers. if we expect him to be an nhler, he should be good enough that at the very least there’s no impediment to playing players like 10 months older than he is because his eventual ceiling is so much higher (and thus at a comparable age to his opponents we should see things that make him stick out from his peers. I’m not). besides, the age gap in the chl (16-20) is just as big as the typical age gap in the ncaa.

      the entire article is assuming this is his +1 year, and it says that there. i’m not comparing him to 20-year-olds or guys in their +2 year. I’m comparing him to 19 year olds and guys in their +1 year. I think I’m being lenient by doing this. if we’re counting this as his +2 year he was absolute garbage. he has shown almost nothing in three seasons in terms of results that make me think he’s an nhler, regardless of who he’s playing against. besides, there’s a difference between improvement that a player shows while getting older as a natural part of hockey and the improvement he’ll need to show to become an nhler. the improvement he’s having is more the former than the latter.

      also, had you taken some time to find an example, you’d see that kreider playing third line minutes at bc in his first two seasons and janko playing top-6 minutes with the two of the other three four top scorers on providence are situations that are a lot different.

      • EugeneV

        Justin says: (and thus at a comparable age to his opponents we should see things that make him stick out from his peers. I’m not).

        I would like to know the following:

        How many games have you watched him play?

        Why are you using those EVIL “counting stats” against him when his coach is playing him in a certain role and has stated that Mark is filling said role admirably?

        From any highlights I have seen (I’ve never seen him play live) Mark looks big, fast and skillful.

        As you should know, to quote your bio:

        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.

        You played at high levels, so you know that teams are made up of players filling roles. Roles that are determined by the coach.

        Even though you are at UofC you know that at an American university,that players have to “bide their time”. This next year is the one where Mark will be expected to be front and center on the Friars having bided his time on the 3rd line developing his game.

          • EugeneV

            Why are you quoting Feaster?

            Mark never said that, and I’m sure he wishes Feaster never said it.

            Not fair to hold that against him.

            Sort of like when you go back to your hometown and somebody brings up the time you picked your nose and ate it when you were 7.

            Every time they see you.

            Not fair is it?

          • PrairieStew

            am i? where? where did i say that? find where I said “feaster was right” or that “this guy needs to be the best pick in the draft to make the pick worthwhile”. because i’m pretty sure you’re just making stuff up at this point in an attempt to make me look bad because this reasoned take on the 14th best prospect wasn’t laudatory enough for you.

            please stop commenting and attacking me for work that you’re reading for free, otherwise don’t read it.

  • SmellOfVictory

    However, I’m unconvinced that Jankowski putting on more muscle weight is going to help him become a much better player from here on out. Providence lists him at 6’3″, 186. That puts him within 10 pounds and one inch of players like Evgeni Malkin, Evander Kane, James Van Riemsdyk, Sean Couturier, and Patrice Bergeron.

    I’m more convinced by the weight/awkwardness thing than you are, I think. I remember being post-growth spurt (although mine were a lot earlier in my development) and how completely awkward it did feel. Literally everything is different when you have to rewire your brain to accommodate an extra six inches (heh penis joke in there somewhere), and the lack of strength is a real thing.

    From a weight perspective, he’s certainly within 10 lbs and 1 inch of those players, but in the opposite direction for each. He’s generally 10 lb lighter and 1 inch taller, which means, proportionately speaking, he’s more like 15-20 lbs lighter (Malkin is the same height, but he plays incredibly light compared to the average NHLer).

    Not saying that Jankowski will necessarily be our saviour or anything, but for those reasons I am more than willing to be completely patient with him.

    • Byron Bader

      the issue is that he’s been 6’2 since he was drafted. he’s had two entire years to work it out. if he hasn’t been able to compensate or work it out by now I don’t see him doing so.

      • Burnward

        That’s not really all that fair. Lots of tall kids have trouble putting on muscle mass at that age.

        If his skating is his biggest issue, that can be improved with better strength…as will his ability to use that size. From what I’ve read he has good skills, that’s key.

        We knew he was a project, we have to give him time to develop.

        This coming year is a big one for me though. That’s for sure.

        • PrairieStew

          i’m talking about adjusting to the awkwardness, mostly. I hope that he can put more weight on but he might not be able to. some guys just can’t.

          mostly I just don’t want to say it’ll solve all of his problems (or even any of them) because I don’t know for a fact that putting weight on will do so. it’s a crutch at this point.

          • Burnward

            I should have included the awkwardness. That’s a huge part of it, for sure.

            Same idea applies there for me regarding giving him time.

            I guess that’s really the real issue eh? Can his body catch up to his hands?

            Sounded like he started to make some strides towards the end of last season. Here’s hoping that continues.

          • mattyc

            One other thing that you kind of alluded to with regards to PP time is opportunity. Since we’re comparing his results (NHLE in this case…) against CHLers, (directly or indirectly) opportunity and ice time need to be part of the context. It sounds like Jankowski isn’t getting much time on the powerplay, and I’m not really sure what his minutes are like either. I’d assume (although I don’t watch much college hockey), that coaches tend to favour older players for minutes and pp time.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if this is limiting his numbers, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if a similar thing hadn’t happened to Kreider.

          • PrairieStew

            I was able to see 6 (maybe 7, I can’t remember) providence games this season. janko played top-6 (regular shifts were with acciari) and seemed to be on pp2. however, the pp only scored 24 goals this season, so it’s possible there isn’t a wealth of points waiting to be picked up. i feel as though his nhle is always directly comparable because of how it’s calculated, right?

            kreider played on the third line at bc in his soph year, judging by the data. his nhle was 25. i don’t know how much pp time he got, but with atkinson, gibbons, hayes, carey and whitney ahead of him I’m going to guess it wasn’t much. I feel as though the amount of opportunity janko had was significantly higher, and there would be zero age difference: both kreider and janko were 19 their entire soph season. so, imo, not a good comparison for janko.

          • mattyc

            As far as I understand NHLE, the direct comparison on an individual basis gets a little sketchy. Assuming I understand it correctly, the translation factor represents the average number of points a player gets in the NHL relative to the # in their last year of X league (another way to state that it’s just the slope of the regression line of League X vs. NHL).

            This isn’t to say that it isn’t ever useful (it certainly is), but there’s a couple underlying assumptions in it:

            • That the minutes/quality of minutes are consistent with an ‘average’ player. Thomas Hertl is going to be an outlier because of the great opportunity he got (well above what most rookies would get), while someone earning their keep on the 4th line is the other end of the spectrum.
            • That points are just as easy to get in every system. We see all the time (and note) that kids can have great NHLEs when playing with another high quality prospect, or high offense system, while the converse can also be true.

            Again, not meant to be overly critical, because I think I agree mostly with what you’re ultimately saying about Jankowski, but still important to consider the relatively large unknowns in trying to project forward in these cases.

          • PrairieStew

            sure. obviously I’m not basing all of my opinions on nhle, and I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying, but I think that players playing in junior leagues are going to score to a certain level regardless because of the low quality of competition, thus it’s more important to figure out how a guy got to 50 nhle and what kind of player he is than it is with a guy who puts up 20, which means he’s basically doing the bare minimum. that’s also the core assumption of nhle (scoring to a certain level independent of minor league), and tends to be the case according to the data, regardless of an individual player’s situation. so yeah, janko might be getting hurt by teammates or situation, but in this case, he’s not doing as much as he probably should be to help himself if he’s an nhler.

            the translations are made with just ev scoring; certainly teammates can have a large impact but unfortunately we can’t do anything to correct for that until after the teammates have stopped playing together. you get a big enough sample and the outliers become less important, and the sample I have for the ncaa suggests that he needs to be at least at 30 by this point.

            my projection is based on the majority of players who come out of the ncaa and into the nhl, and is based mostly on the work kent, byron and I have done on nhle in the past couple of years. the reason I am more negative than jankowski is actually based on your points: if the assumption above is true, than jankowski should be doing better via nhle if his teammates were better. fair. however, because of the way the minor leagues work, I view it as being up to jankowski to drive that bus and he’s not. that’s why I’m pessimistic. a good prospect should be able to drag his team with him (klimchuk w/ the pats last year, for example: almost 50% of team scoring) if he’s going to be an nhler. a poor prospect won’t make that adjustment.

            tl:dr most prospects, regardless of league, tend to score to a certain point independent of teammates and situation and the sample of rookies that we make nhle with is really really big and also has a built-in equalizer so i’m not as concerned with the hertls and halls of the world. but thank you for the input. (that is not meant to sound disingenuous)

    • Byron Bader

      Teravainen is a RW.

      The premise was the Flames were picking best Centre available. At that time Iggy was still around and everyone was complaining we never had a good C since Nieuwendyk etc.

        • Yes since he was drafted – agree. Believe at the time of the draft he was listed as a winger.

          Likely given Teravainen’s size (5’11”)he would not have been highly considered by the Flames as a core 1C/2C whereas all the other C’s available in the #14 slot were 6’1″-6’3″.

  • mattyc

    Nothing really different here. He’s a long-shot and if he makes it it’ll be after 4 full years of college, another 2-3 years in the minors and then 2 or 3 more seasons to get used to the NHL. He’ll break out offensively just in time to make Feaster look smart by being the best player from that draft.

  • also the people manipulating browsers to artificially prop/trash: I can see your i.p. numbers and log ins. you aren’t fooling anyone and it lowers the quality of conversation.

    i have sent those of you an email. please stop.

  • Sucks that we drafted Janko – but I’m sure other teams feel the same way….

    Tampa picked that Koekkoek kid who has had a major injury every season.

    But, on the pessimistic side of thing:

    Essentially we traded Buffalo Girgensons for Janko + Sieloff hahahaha.

  • BurningSensation

    Three things about Jankowski;

    – I’m encouraged by the evidence of progress

    – We knew he was going to take the long bus route to the NHL, patience for Jankowski should be baked in.

    – This coming season is really his make-break it year as a potential elite prospect. If he makes the jump and dominates next year, its a sign he’s put his toolkit all together. If he simply gives us more of the same, but slightly better, we know he’s Joe Colbourne, a player destined to be less than the sum of his parts.

    • Burnward

      it’s true, but like I said: it was still only about 22% of scoring. culkin had that and he’s a defenseman, not a top-2 c. different leagues, obviously, but you want to see that these guys are more driving the bus than riding.

      this would be so much easier if all of the leagues kept toi…

      • Burnward

        Comparing players across the NCAA and the CHL is a tough go.

        Different ages, size of players etc. I wish he had played CHL so we’d have a better idea of where he’s at.

  • FeyWest

    Justin, Just curious thought and its just for my own knowledge having not played hockey myself *tear* but I do know he ultimately switched to a consistent Center position this year.

    How do one or does one account for role changes ultimately, not necessarily for Janko but just in general, my limited understanding is that playing wing has a bit less responsibility than center so if he’s progressing positively after the switch back that should be a positive indicator no?

    • Burnward

      generally I view c as a much harder position (and more impactful, as a whole; in my experience this is the case) as w or d. you’re right w/r/t the switch back, but i felt that overall his circumstances did not change much year-over-year: he showed progression yoy that wasn’t quite nhl-level (mean of about 6.5 in that jump), got a little more playing time, played a little harder opponents and got older, but also went to c and gained a little pp time. in my eyes, that about evens out year-to-year. because we don’t have anything to back that up, though, I could be completely wrong; but logically it makes sense (to me).

      • FeyWest

        Fair enough, that makes sense to me, i figured there are some conditions that essentially balance out the positives and/or negatives of positional switches. In the end the aggregate progression is pretty stable in situational variations YoY which makes sense (that’s what I’m getting from what you’re saying).

        In the end I think the ultimate test will be whether he flounders or succeeds come NHL time. I always leave my final deliberations to that point. Who knows, the fact that his progression or lack-there-of (whichever side you’re on) there’s maybe less of the Hype effect which may actually negatively effect his overall development a la Baertschi.

        I’m an info nut so hearing both positive and negative sides is fun to read about and you guys here certainly bring a reality-check effect unlike some of the super hype blogging sites and forums which is awesome!

  • EugeneV

    Why do people insist on holding the FEASTER “best player in 10 years” quote against Mark when referencing Jankowski?

    Mark didn’t say that.

    I don’t know if he will “be something”, but I hope he does reach his ceiling as that will help our team.

    • FeyWest

      The only time that was brought up was by you so I think this is kind of an off base accusation.

      We’ll keep taking it Year-to-Year just like always, all we’ve got are stats and 38 NCAA games played that’s a far cry from 82 NHL games.

      All we can do is speculate until he starts playing in the NHL. I’d prefer this situation from the Baertschi Hype train from last year.

      And Justin ranked him 13 which is perfectly acceptable, I know many who don’t even have him in our 15 top prospects, I have him at 12 but for different reasons. I think it’s good because it shows the quality of our prospect pool!

      And I’m almost 100% sure he was playing top 6 minutes as he was the 2nd line C majority of the year

  • EugeneV

    Justin says: “also, had you taken some time to find an example, you’d see that kreider playing third line minutes at bc in his first two seasons and janko playing top-6 minutes with the two of the other three four top scorers on providence are situations that are a lot different.”

    I went through the box scores and did’nt find goals where he got points which included the other top scorers. In fact he was in on the scoring with either Dmen or other forwards outside the top 5 in scoring.

    Which of course shows that he was playing 3rd line minutes.

  • FeyWest

    Geez, some of us are getting to be like the basket cases from Shelbyville. Let’s just lighten up a little.

    The kid was a reach; there were others we should have picked (in hindsight); he hasn’t progressed as much as anyone would like; the kid is still a reach and probably getting further.

    Justin, thanks for the summary. NP with the assessment. I just wish it was better.