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

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I see where you're coming from, but point I was trying to make is that Jankowski is supposed to be the offensive wunderkind, not benefitting off of playing along side one. We drafted him 21st overall, while none of Knight, Arnold, or even Gaudreau went top 100.

While I gave him a pass in his rookie season, it's my expectation that he performs just as well or better than the above players in his sophomore season.

To me, saying stuff like "giving him a pass" is just flawed thinking plain and simple. It's not about busting out, it's about gradual improvements to not just his offensive totals but overall game. You're really not putting everything into perspective or giving his point totals and sort of context. You're just saying "this guy got A and this guy got B and I want Jankowski to get that". Way too simple.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Sure, maybe. What do you think it is?

Jankowski is a pretty special race and it's almost impossible to compare him to other players coming up. A guy that was a relative unknown moving into juniors and basically up to his draft year. Played at a Canadian High School hockey club, made the massive jump from that league to the America College ranks, skipping prep school all together.

Looked out of place early, which is totally acceptable and started to get really comfortable as the season wore on. I don't give a crap if he "breaks out" next year (not your quote, seen it in this thread though) because it's about just improving game-to-game, month-to-month, season-to-season for Jankowski.

I don't think I've ever seen a more wide-eyed and bushy tailed kid at the draft like I did with him last year, he was very much a boy.. with fantastic hockey skill. I think it's all about maturing and keeping pace with the steep learning curve he has ahead of him.

We'll see how it plays out.

I think that the system effect, while it almost certainly exists (though, nobody in this thread has actually shown that yet), isn't sufficient to invalidate concern about Jankowski's low production relative to what typically makes a guy good in the NHL, and relative to other members of his draft class and even this year's draft class.

For starters, there are clawback effects. Team can't score? Well then, if Jankowski was a good scorer he'd likely be getting more minutes, and that would negate some (or maybe all) of the effect of having low quality of teammates. Would Monahan have scored more if he were in Halifax? I don't think it's clear, but the argument that Jankowski's stats were depressed suggests that it is clear. And maybe it is. So show me.

Secondly, Jankowski's NHLE(82) isn't just slightly low, it's quite low. 18 points. Monahan's a 33. Klimchuk and Poirier got 26. Jankowski would need 45% more scoring just to be on par with the late first rounders from the year after him. Is that how much his stats are depressed because of who he plays for? Maybe it is, but then again, show me. Back up those assertions with some proof.

I get that Jankowski's circumstances make him less likely to produce on par with his draft class. But then don't they also make him less likely to ultimately become the impact player that we hope he will? The "Superfreakonomics" argument says that all the factors depressing Jankowski's current performance are likely to depress his ultimate performance. And that's why I feel that he was overrated by the Flames management, as is overrated in our survey.

Here is a correlation between draft NHLE82 and career PPG.



Jankowki is about a 10. But hey, I guess that's not cause for concern if he's young, played in Quebec high school (not even Junior 'A'), and his college team doesn't score. Or maybe, those are simply causes for concern that are reflected in his NHLE.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Jankowski is a pretty special case and it's almost impossible to compare him to other players coming up. A guy that was a relative unknown moving into juniors and basically up to his draft year. Played at a Canadian High School hockey club, made the massive jump from that league to the America College ranks, skipping prep school all together.

This is pretty much why i am excited for this kid....I think he's going to be player.

I think if he is given a chance he's going to break out at WJC's and I have absolutely nothing to back up my thought....nothing, not one stat, just a hunch.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It's not about busting out, it's about gradual improvements to not just his offensive totals but overall game.

If the improvements are too gradual, then he's a UFA before he's an impact player. So there is a clock, and it's ticking. If Jankowski is to be a #1C (particularly if he's to do it for the Flames), he either needs to pick up the pace of his improvement, or he needs to sustain his improvement rate much longer than the average NHLer does.

[edslunch]

Jankowski has had what 37 games of competitive systems hockey, Monahan has had more like 137. Experience matters

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by SebC

For starters, there are clawback effects. Team can't score? Well then, if Jankowski was a good scorer he'd likely be getting more minutes, and that would negate some (or maybe all) of the effect of having low quality of teammates. Would Monahan have scored more if he were in Halifax? I don't think it's clear, but the argument that Jankowski's stats were depressed suggests that it is clear. And maybe it is. So show me..

Truthfully I've never been a huge fan of the low numbers-bad team, high numbers-good team argument. I think there are pros and cons to individual stats to either side of that coin.

Though obviously playing with high end skilled players helps (Arnold-Gadreau). Jankowski certainly didn't have that besides himself.

Jankowki is about a 10. But hey, I guess that's not cause for concern if he's young, played in Quebec high school (not even Junior 'A'), and his college team doesn't score. Or maybe, those are simply causes for concern that are reflected in his NHLE

I don't think anything is a "cause for concern" honestly. You seem to be brushing off his development curve, to me it seems like a big deal. Jankowski is still catching up to guys in his draft year. He's closing that gap, but he's not there yet.

When you see him play, what do you think SebC?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the improvements are too gradual, then he's a UFA before he's an impact player. So there is a clock, and it's ticking. If Jankowski is to be a #1C (particularly if he's to do it for the Flames), he either needs to pick up the pace of his improvement, or he needs to sustain his improvement rate much longer than the average NHLer does.

Jankowski made pretty big strides last season, especially from the first half of the season to the 2nd half. Moving from Canadian High School hockey to American College hockey is a big move. He made massive adjustments and improvements. I expect the same thing this year, and I think he'll do it.

Mind you, I'm not just talking about offensive numbers.

Are you an engineer SebC? You seem to be solely number focused/obsessed. I try to mix both of them in with actually watching the games/players.

[timbit]

Curious, what were the "massive improvements" he made?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think that the system effect, while it almost certainly exists (though, nobody in this thread has actually shown that yet), isn't sufficient to invalidate concern about Jankowski's low production relative to what typically makes a guy good in the NHL, and relative to other members of his draft class and even this year's draft class.

For starters, there are clawback effects. Team can't score? Well then, if Jankowski was a good scorer he'd likely be getting more minutes, and that would negate some (or maybe all) of the effect of having low quality of teammates. Would Monahan have scored more if he were in Halifax? I don't think it's clear, but the argument that Jankowski's stats were depressed suggests that it is clear. And maybe it is. So show me.

Secondly, Jankowski's NHLE(82) isn't just slightly low, it's quite low. 18 points. Monahan's a 33. Klimchuk and Poirier got 26. Jankowski would need 45% more scoring just to be on par with the late first rounders from the year after him. Is that how much his stats are depressed because of who he plays for? Maybe it is, but then again, show me. Back up those assertions with some proof.

I get that Jankowski's circumstances make him less likely to produce on par with his draft class. But then don't they also make him less likely to ultimately become the impact player that we hope he will? The "Superfreakonomics" argument says that all the factors depressing Jankowski's current performance are likely to depress his ultimate performance. And that's why I feel that he was overrated by the Flames management, as is overrated in our survey.

Here is a correlation between draft NHLE82 and career PPG.



Jankowki is about a 10. But hey, I guess that's not cause for concern if he's young, played in Quebec high school (not even Junior 'A'), and his college team doesn't score. Or maybe, those are simply causes for concern that are reflected in his NHLE.

Some good points here.

But people have to be careful about trying to extract information from small sample sizes of incongruous data (remember, this is points from multiple different leagues, by players of different ages, trying to be converted to NHL points).

Yes, the line is upward sloping but the relation is far from tight.

If you look between about 25 and 35 for NHLE, about 75% of the data points fall in that range, but those same data points range between 0 and 75 in NHL PPG. If you dropped the two data points on the left and the half dozen on he right, the line of best fit would be vertical (suggesting no relation at all)

Is there a correlation? Obviously. Is there much real information here? Meh.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Jankowski has had what 37 games of competitive systems hockey, Monahan has had more like 137. Experience matters

I think everyone agrees on that. The question is whether or not Jankowski's lack of experience at some point no longer matters. I'll admit I thought the case that it perpetuates all the way through now appears to me to be less solid than I thought it was.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

When you see him play, what do you think SebC?

When I saw him play, he was outshone by Turner Elson. I think I'm more likely to arrive at an accurate assessment of him from a high-level overview of his body of work than that one time I saw him in person.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by SebC

When I saw him play, he was outshone by Turner Elson. I think I'm more likely to arrive at an accurate assessment of him from a high-level overview of his body of work than that one time I saw him in person.

So, you didn't see him play. You saw a small sample of his body of work at a rookie camp intersquad game, which isn't really a game.

Got it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think everyone agrees on that. The question is whether or not Jankowski's lack of experience at some point no longer matters. I'll admit I thought the case that it perpetuates all the way through now appears to me to be less solid than I thought it was.

When I saw him play, he was outshone by Turner Elson. I think I'm more likely to arrive at an accurate assessment of him from a high-level overview of his body of work than that one time I saw him in person.

Elson showed some real hustle in that massive, 2-game sample we just experienced.

But if you saw him as a better player than Jankowski in those scrimmages, then I am glad you are not a Flames scout.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Are you an engineer SebC? You seem to be solely number focused/obsessed. I try to mix both of them in with actually watching the games/players.

Yes, I'm an engineer. But if I was only interested in the stats, I'd probably be more of a baseball fan, and less of a hockey/soccer fan. I liked Claude Giroux before ever seeing him on a stat sheet, so it's not like I see no value in qualitative analysis. I see stats as the way to step back and see the big picture.

You can watch a player and see him just miss the net or get stoned and think "man, this guy is actually a good scorer". The only way to know if he's actually unlucky or just a bad shooter is to look at a large data set, and that's what stats do for us. Whether you get the stats from a stat sheet or by watching more games, you can't figure that out without stats.

In Jankowski's case, he's big and skilled, but there are big skilled guys who produce and big skilled guys who don't. For him to be a big skilled guy who produces, he needs to produce. That's really what it comes down to for me. Until he does, I don't think he's our 5th best prospect, which is probably about what you'd expect last year's first round pick to be if it's not a stretch pick.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I agree with all of that, SebC. Notice I've never once laughed or brushed aside any of your stats. I love reading them to be honest. I also don't take them at full face value and try to mix them in with as much actual game watching as possible. It seemed to me you lean way too much into just reading the stats, which is why I asked.

I think you'll really see Jankowski's story develop in his 2nd and 3rd seasons.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes, I'm an engineer. But if I was only interested in the stats, I'd probably be more of a baseball fan, and less of a hockey/soccer fan. I liked Claude Giroux before ever seeing him on a stat sheet, so it's not like I see no value in qualitative analysis. I see stats as the way to step back and see the big picture.

You can watch a player and see him just miss the net or get stoned and think "man, this guy is actually a good scorer". The only way to know if he's actually unlucky or just a bad shooter is to look at a large data set, and that's what stats do for us. Whether you get the stats from a stat sheet or by watching more games, you can't figure that out without stats.

In Jankowski's case, he's big and skilled, but there are big skilled guys who produce and big skilled guys who don't. For him to be a big skilled guy who produces, he needs to produce. That's really what it comes down to for me. Until he does, I don't think he's our 5th best prospect, which is probably about what you'd expect last year's first round pick to be if it's not a stretch pick.

I think we all agree on that

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

If you look between about 25 and 35 for NHLE, about 75% of the data points fall in that range, but those same data points range between 0 and 75 in NHL PPG. If you dropped the two data points on the left and the half dozen on he right, the line of best fit would be vertical (suggesting no relation at all).

If you eliminate the data points you don't like, you degrade the data. Doesn't look to me like the line of best fit would be vertical if you were to restrict it from 25 to 35 though. It looks to me like it would be sharply upwards, which would be even worse for Jankowski if you were to extrapolate back. Of course, eliminating the data from Jankowski's range nad then extrapolating back would be a really silly thing to do.

By the way, the biggest flaw in this whole Jankowski analysis, in my view, in that we don't really know Jankowski's draft year NHLE. There's a lot of uncertaintly there. 10 assumes that Quebec HS = Minnesota HS. Shaky assumption. So it's quite likely that Jankowski is either developing faster than I've given him credit for (but at the expense of having a lower draft year NHLE) or had a higher draft NHLE (but that would mean his rate of improvement is slower). Fortunately, his draft+1 NHLE is much more robust.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think we all agree on that

Yeah, I'd hope so.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

If you eliminate the data points you don't like, you degrade the data. Doesn't look to me like the line of best fit would be vertical if you were to restrict it from 25 to 35 though. It looks to me like it would be sharply upwards, which would be even worse for Jankowski if you were to extrapolate back. Of course, eliminating the data from Jankowski's range nad then extrapolating back would be a really silly thing to do.

By the way, the biggest flaw in this whole Jankowski analysis, in my view, in that we don't really know Jankowski's draft year NHLE. There's a lot of uncertaintly there. 10 assumes that Quebec HS = Minnesota HS. Shaky assumption. So it's quite likely that Jankowski is either developing faster than I've given him credit for (but at the expense of having a lower draft year NHLE) or had a higher draft NHLE (but that would mean his rate of improvement is slower). Fortunately, his draft+1 NHLE is much more robust.

But Jankowski had an atypical draft plus one year too so NHL-E may not be that robust there either. Most people seem to agree that he has an intriguing skillset but hasn't put it all together and is a long term project. If he succeeds it won't be on the normal timeline so lets park the normal timeline stats and see how he turns out.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by edslunch

But Jankowski had an atypical draft plus one year too so NHL-E may not be that robust there either. Most people seem to agree that he has an intriguing skillset but hasn't put it all together and is a long term project. If he succeeds it won't be on the normal timeline so lets park the normal timeline stats and see how he turns out.

True. Or at least, he needs a breakout to succeed on the normal timeline. But the assumption seems to be that he's not on the normal timeline now. I want people to think about the possibility that he is on the normal timeline (i.e. development will be slowed by 21, and his scoring will peak around 25), but just isn't that good.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by SebC

I want people to think about the possibility that he is on the normal timeline but just isn't that good.

I've thought about it, as I'm sure many others have. I like my thoughts on Jankowski.