U20 tournament - Junior Evaluation Camp (Sieloff, Gillies, Monahan, Poirier & Janko)

[theoforever]

The way I see it Jankowski had a big jump to make going into much better league.
Putting on weight and getting used to his size, surely it takes time to get coordinated.
Considering all the adjustments he had to make, playing out of position on a weak team, etc.
He did ok, not great and not bad.


I would treat him like a 2013 pick and not 2012 due to his age.
If he can get 0.75ppg in the upcoming season he will be on track.
We will know soon enough.

Guys who hate Feaster, don't like Janko at all.
I hope he has a good season and shuts everyone up, it would be sweet.

[Vulcan]

About this 'normal time line' deal, he has been obviously late in physical maturing so the 'normal time line' doesn't apply. Being late maturing, it could also contribute to his maybe lack of confidence or assertiveness. Taking this into consideration, I give him a break on his first year low stats with the main consideration being, can he gain more assertiveness in his game as he realizes he is tougher and stronger than he thinks.

[Flames_F.T.W]

I think a lot of people are jumping the gun on Janko and are being overly critical. Lets see what happens this year for him. I think if he doesn't take some major steps forward this year, there will be cause for concern, although all will not be lost. Management knew he was a long term project and that he would likely play all 4 years college. I'm patient. I can wait. I think given his growth spurt and adjustment to NCAA hockey, it might take a while before he hits his stride and we really know what we have in him.

[Robbob]

They may seem like built in excuses (early draft age, physically maturing, playing on a defensive team, etc), but one ting for certain is that his path isn't a regular path for a prospect so he kind of bucks the trend a little. I do think that this year will be a better representation of where he is at.

Last year Providence was suppose to be a development year and with out Gilles should not have been within a game of going to the frozen four tournament. I wonder if Gilles success in turn made the coach play a more defensive system because with him they had a chance to win. Last year 7 of the top 10 scorers on that team were Freshman or sophomore players. I would expect this years team offense be much better. This is definitely the prove it year for him as all the other factors seem to have been addressed in some manner.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Robbob

They may seem like built in excuses.

They don't seem like excuses, the are excuses.

The question is are they valid, if valid how impactful, and if valid for what duration should they be excused.

In my opinion the answers are Yes, I don't know, and not any longer.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Parallex

They don't seem like excuses, the are excuses.

The question is are they valid, if valid how impactful, and if valid for what duration should they be excused.

In my opinion the answers are Yes, I don't know, and not any longer.

They are NOT excuses...they are reasons....two completely seperate things.

Making these projections based on the areas debated here simply dont apply to every single player the same way. Why? because everyone is different, and in this kids case, VERY different than others.

[sureLoss]

Just playing around with league equivalencies I calculated the equivalency of a player from Canadian HS to the NCAA to be 0.14.

The league equivalency of going from the OPJHL to the NCAA is 0.32 according to http://www.behindthenet.ca/blog/2008...or-junior.html.

I was able to find 8 players since 2010 that went from Canadian HS immediately to the OPJHL and determined the equivalency to be 0.45 with a standard deviation of 0.22. Small sample size I know, but its the largest number of players going from Can Hs to a NCAA feeder league I could find

Therefore by combining the Can HS to OPJHL equivlancey with the previously known OPJHL to NCAA equivlancey we get a Can HS to NCAA equivalence of 0.14.

Now given Jankowski's Can HS Pts/g of 1.39 and the Can Hs to NCAA equivalence, he should have only scored 6 to 7pts in 34 games in the NCAA.

So what can we conclude?
1. Jankowski's 18 pts in 34 games is much higher than it should be according to league equivalencies (almost 3 times higher). It implies has made a remarkable adjustment to a higher level of hockey or perhaps this season is just a fluke...
2. There is a flaw in league equivalencies (either in my methodology of calculating [i.e. small sample size] and using them or just with league equivalencies in general).

Anyways some food for thought, and I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

[SebC]

So you'd peg his draft year NHLE(82) at 6.5 then, using the NCAA-NHL factor of 0.41.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by SebC

So you'd peg his draft year NHLE(82) at 6.5 then, using the NCAA-NHL factor of 0.41.

Yup. Although it could be lower as Robert Vollman has shown that each conference in the NCAA has a different NHL factor. I believe his estimate is .33 for Hockey East.

[Day Tripper]

Speaking of NHLE, here are the latest values according to Rob Vollman's new book, Hockey Abstract:

KHL - 0.78
Elitserein - 0.55
Czech Extraliga - 0.44
WCHA - 0.42
National League A - 0.36
Hockey East - 0.33
SM-Liiga - 0.30
CCHA - 0.30
OHL - 0.30
QMJHL - 0.26
WHL - 0.26
ECAC - 0.25

...and AHL to NHL by age:



These look a bit strange (SM-Liiga = OHL?), don't they?

Here are the NHLE of Flames forward prospects by these numbers, anyway:

Corban Knight - 41 points
Johnny Gaudreau - 39 points
Sven Baertschi - 35 points
Sean Monahan - 33 points
Ben Hanowski - 29 points
Bill Arnold - 25 points
Morgan Klimchuk - 23 points
Emile Poirier - 23 points
Ken Agostino - 23 points
Michael Ferland - 22 points
Turner Elson - 19 points
Coda Gordon - 18 points
Markus Granlund - 15 points
Mark Jankowski - 14 points
Max Reinhart - 14 points
Matt DeBlouw - 12 points
Greg Nemisz - 7 points
Ryan Howse - 2 points

[Iniggywetrust]

This is one of the best discussion I have seen on this site. Such insightful, well thought out posts.....that's all I have to contribute right now.

[kirant]

vo

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Speaking of NHLE, here are the latest values according to Rob Vollman's new book, Hockey Abstract:

KHL - 0.78

Elitserein - 0.55
Czech Extraliga - 0.44
WCHA - 0.42
National League A - 0.36
Hockey East - 0.33
SM-Liiga - 0.30
CCHA - 0.30
OHL - 0.30
QMJHL - 0.26
WHL - 0.26
ECAC - 0.25

Curious: How much data did Vollman use? I've seen others who have expanded the points out to include a large amount of data and the numbers I've heard are:
KHL 0.65
Elitserein 0.49
AHL 0.45
SM-Liiga 0.42
NHA 0.39
Czech Extraliga 0.38
NCAA/CCHA 0.35
Allsvenkan 0.28
ECHL 0.26
CHL 0.22

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Just playing around with league equivalencies I calculated the equivalency of a player from Canadian HS to the NCAA to be 0.14.

The league equivalency of going from the OPJHL to the NCAA is 0.32 according to http://www.behindthenet.ca/blog/2008...or-junior.html.

I was able to find 8 players since 2010 that went from Canadian HS immediately to the OPJHL and determined the equivalency to be 0.45 with a standard deviation of 0.22. Small sample size I know, but its the largest number of players going from Can Hs to a NCAA feeder league I could find

Therefore by combining the Can HS to OPJHL equivlancey with the previously known OPJHL to NCAA equivlancey we get a Can HS to NCAA equivalence of 0.14.

Now given Jankowski's Can HS Pts/g of 1.39 and the Can Hs to NCAA equivalence, he should have only scored 6 to 7pts in 34 games in the NCAA.

So what can we conclude?
1. Jankowski's 18 pts in 34 games is much higher than it should be according to league equivalencies (almost 3 times higher). It implies has made a remarkable adjustment to a higher level of hockey or perhaps this season is just a fluke...
2. There is a flaw in league equivalencies (either in my methodology of calculating [i.e. small sample size] and using them or just with league equivalencies in general).

Anyways some food for thought, and I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Apologies on quoting myself and seemingly talk to myself but I have thought of a different way to look at this and remove the small sample size problem I have in determining the equivalency between Canadian HS and OPJHL.

In the quoted text I calculated what Jankowski was predicted to get in the NCAA by league equivalences by using the equation:
(Canadian HS pts/g) * (league equivalence of Canadian HS to OPJHL) * (league equivalence of OPJHL to NCAA) * 34 = (predicted number of points that Jankowski is supposed to get in 34 games in the NCAA)


Just a reminder that league equivalency is the factor by which the average player will adjust their scoring stats when transferring from one league to another.

One of the problems I had was that in calculating the league equivalence of Canadian HS to OPJHL is that I only had a sample size of 8 players to draw upon, while the source I had for equivalence of OPJHL to NCAA had close to 100 players.


So then lets look at this a different way.

Let us assume that Jankowski had an average season (i.e. the points he put up were the average case for a 100 players that were making the jump from Canadian HS to the NCAA) and calculate the resulting league equivalence of Canadian HS to OPJHL by rearranging the previously stated equation:

(league equivalence of Canadian HS to OPJHL) = (number of points that Jankowski got in 34 games in the NCAA) / ((Canadian HS pts/g) *34*(league equivalence of OPJHL to NCAA))

You would calculate

(league equivalence of Canadian HS to OPJHL) = 18 /((1.39*34*0.32)) = 1.19


So if you argue that Jankowski had an average season for a player jumping from Canadian HS to the NCAA, you are then also arguing by the logic of league equivalencies that Canadian High School hockey league plays much higher quality hockey than Ontario Junior 'A' (also AJHL, BCHL, and SJHL as their equivalencies to the NCAA are similar to the OPJHL). This is not the general consensus on Canadian High School hockey.

If you argue that Jankowski had a below average season for a player in his situation then you are saying the league equivalence of the Canadian HS to OPJHL is even higher than 1.19 and therefore Canadian HS hockey is extremely strong compared to Junior 'A'.

Assuming there are no flaws in the logic of league equivalences, the data I have sourced is accurate and you believe that Canadian HS < Junior A then you must conclude that Jankowski overreached this season or he had an above average to great season for a player in his situation.

More food for thought.

[Knut]

^ I like Sureloss' gobbledy#### stats better than that other guys. It tells me what I want to hear.

[Calgary4LIfe]

This is how I look at Jankowski since he has been drafted from the Flames:

• Billed as a project due to his
  • Lack of quality competition
  • Lower level of hockey system employed in his league
  • Lack of physical development
  • Huge growth spurt in the previous 18 months
• 'Super Skilled High-Ceiling Center
  • Touted as the next Joe Nieuwendyk
  • No other center past where Grigorenko was selected had as much upside
  • Already had the height but needed to fill into it
• Achieved just over 0.5 PPG
  • On a team that that is below average in scoring relying on defensive systems and a hot goalie to eke out wins
  • On a team with few skilled players
  • In one of the (if not the most) toughest divisions in NCAA

The above just makes me think he had a pretty decent season. Not a 'wow' season for sure, but considering all the factors above, i was relatively pleased with how it went. This kid was a project. We all hoped that he would just be amazing in the NCAA, but he is what he is - a project.

We can analyze all the stats until we are all blue in the face. Both the 'pro' crowd who seem to be huge fanboys of his, and the 'con' crowd who are suspect of this pick and his progress thus far can (and have) made very valid points. Both sides are 'right', and neither side is proven wrong thus far. What this kid needs at the moment, is some patience, some good development, and a really good off-season development plan (which apparently is going extremely well).

I am hoping he 'busts out' next season and really does something to make us all believe in him. I am tempering my expectations, however. He is still a project. Like Mastodon posted earlier - as long as he is improving month-to-month and year-to-year, it will be positive. I am sure MOST will agree that the Flames needed to pick a 'home-run' prospect at that draft. I think they did that. What is left to be determined is if indeed that ball is flying out of the ball-park, or is about to be caught as a fly ball. The next 2 years at least will determine that.

I think he is by the far the biggest enigma in the prospect pool. Gaudreau, Jankowski and Ferland all possess qualities that make them potentially critical impact players for the future. All of them have question marks as to whether they have the capability to even make the big show, much less be impact players at all. They all require more time to see where they are going.

Jankowski in particular is a very tough guy to measure statistically. There are just so many variables to him, so many question marks, but also lots of tangible upsides to him as a prospect. He is still a high-skill, high-reward but a wildcard.

However, I completely wrote off Gaudreau when the Flames selected him. Though he hasn't made the big show yet, and nobody really knows how successful (or not) the kid will be, there is very real excitement (and with good reason) surrounding this kid. Jankowski just needs to build up some confidence and continue developing. He has a great coach in Nate Leaman who has a VERY good track record and who should help Jankowski become a better player.

What is left is to see how he does. I was able to watch a couple of games this past season, and Jankowski has flashes of brilliance, but also looked a bit raw to me. The skill is undeniable. You can't teach skill. He is a strong skater. With the right development, there is no reason to believe he will not be a player in the NHL - even an impact top 6 (or daresay - #1 Center), but that still remains to be seen and he has to progress in this next couple of years. For myself, I am just preaching a little bit of patience. If Jankowski lights it up next year, I will try to temper my own expectation and will want another strong season. If he meets or just slightly exceeds his past season, I will temper that too and just wait to see what the finished project looks like. He is still a project.

[Vulcan]

I found this article on how Minnesota high school hockey translates to the NCAA. He gave it an equivalency of 0.18.

I looked at every player in that five-year period who had 48 or more points during the 25- or 26-game season. Normally goals and assists translate similarly, but high school hockey has a very low number of assists. It�s unclear if this is due to refereeing or too many individual efforts, but it�s virtually impossible for a defenseman � or a pure playmaker � to crack the scoring leaders.


Overall, Minnesota hockey translates to the NCAA (NHLE = 0.41) at approximately 0.18, giving an NHLE of 0.073. The translation to the USHL is 0.195; its translation to the NCAA is 0.65; the overall NHLE is 0.052. Via a similar process, the NHLE via the NAHL is also 0.052. This puts the difficulty level of Minnesota H.S. hockey somewhere between 5.2% and 7.3% - which is not very high: the leading scorer in Minnesota over the course of a decade might be good for 20 points as an 18-year-old rookie in the NHL.

http://www.puckprospectus.com/articl...192&mode=print

I guess the question is how does Canadian High School Prep Hockey compare to Minnesota High School Hockey. I noticed that Stanstead competes in a league with the Edge School here Calgary where Jankowski played 13 games in that Prep league.

Anyways using the Minnesota high school equivalencies and Jankowski's 13 games, I came out with Jankowski should have scored at a .4158 rate in College. He scored at a .53 rate, so he had an above average year and is progressing.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I found this article on how Minnesota high school hockey translates to the NCAA. He gave it an equivalency of 0.18.



http://www.puckprospectus.com/articl...192&mode=print

I guess the question is how does Canadian High School Prep Hockey compare to Minnesota High School Hockey. I noticed that Stanstead competes in a league with the Edge School here Calgary where Jankowski played 13 games in that Prep league.

Anyways using the Minnesota high school equivalencies and Jankowski's 13 games, I came out with Jankowski should have scored at a .4158 rate in College. He scored at a .53 rate, so he had an above average year and is progressing.

All the equivalencies that you and Sureloss posted show is that he improved, not how he fared compared to other NHL worthy prospects. I remain somewhat cool on his chances of reaching his potential.

I do agree with most on here though, that this year will tell us more than last.

* caveat - I am the worst talent evaluator on the planet and a 6 year old from Peru might have more skill at evaluating than me

[edslunch]

I'm not getting this obsession with NHL-E. So if Jankowski played in the NHL last year he would have had seven points...but he didn't and never would have.

[albertGQ]

I wonder what my NHL-E is

I scored 19 goals and 11 assists in 14 games in my ball hockey league.

[Iniggywetrust]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I wonder what my NHL-E is

I scored 19 goals and 11 assists in 14 games in my ball hockey league.

0.0000045.

Might get a accidental second assist in an 82 game schedule. Against the Oilers.