I tend to lean more towards the player changed side of things and that purgatory is an apt description. However things are rarely black and white. If a team puts more resources into their AHL team (or simply has better coaching) does that change things? You'd expect that environment would impact things to some extent, no? Maybe getting the best of everything available has an impact on success. I wonder how a team by team breakdown of this would look.
This is a pretty interesting subject CJ. There are 2 things that initially come to mind:
1. Given that the majority of drafted players never make it to the nhl, doesnt it stand to reason that the average prospect playing in the AHL will be less likely to develop into an NHLer than the average prospect playing in the NHL? After all, the prospect playing in the nhl must have a certain pedigree/ability to be in that position in the first place; of course, there are prospects with similar pedigree/ability being sent to the AHL, but there are also a WHOLE BUNCH of players in the AHL that likely will never be expected to realistically develop into NHL players. Wouldnt that bring the AHL average down significantly?
2. I do wonder if there is some better way to evaluate this hypothesis, besides going in depth on every prospect and their actual development (which seems like it would be the most accurate way, but not realistic in terms of the amount of work involved). For example, how would this development rate trend look if it was just top 10 draft picks? or First round?
On question #1, of course AHLers are less likely to be long term NHLers than NHLers. That's why the go into the season with lower probabilities of being NHLers. That doesn't explain why that number DECREASES by the end of their AHL season though.
On #2, I'm toying around with a few ideas. This topic is really raw in terms of research. This is, to my knowledge, the first time anyone's even looked at it.
But if most AHLers don't really have a shot at the NHL anyway, wouldnt it be logical that their probabilities are going to continue to decrease over time in the AHL, as it becomes clearer that they are not going to make it?
Glad to hear you are toying around with some ideas. I've been reading your stuff for years (at AATJ and here) and appreciate your unique takes and willingness (intent?) to go against common, preconceived conventions.
Tell me who spent meaningful time in the AHL developing and who was pushed into an NHL role.
Nylander
Zacha
Boqvist
Zegras
Kotkaniemi
Rantanen
Patrick
Connor
Mittelstadt
Never a fan of CJ's takes but this one comes off as an especially bad & misleading in that doesn't take into account survivorship bias. Seems like he always has a pre-determined conclusion and twists the data any way possible in order to "prove it".
I address the selection bias specifically in the piece. I say that it could be picking up on a signal from offseason development. But that picture of the AHL is no more flattering. It's not obviously the case that the AHL /hurts/ development. It does seem obvious, however, that the AHL doesn't /help/ development.
And which NHL vets are you going to take out of the lineup to make room for them? Everybody on the NHL roster has earned their spot. No coach is going to bench proven talent just so they can maybe, possibly develop some new kid. Maybe if it's late in the season and the team is already out of playoff contention. But until then, the coach's goal on any give night is to WIN THE GAME. That's it. Not develop youngsters or gamble on newbies. Just WIN THE GAME. And 99% of the time, that means rostering proven, veteran players, not rookie projects.
I agree with this, and I think most players who are stuffed in the AHL would be better off playing overseas. Just take Jacob Josefson becoming a respectable SHL player, or former AHL legend Brian O'Neill becoming a *very good* KHL scorer. So they play in a better league, make more money than they did in the AHL...so why does anyone over the age of 25 want to stay there?
CJ dont miss
I tend to lean more towards the player changed side of things and that purgatory is an apt description. However things are rarely black and white. If a team puts more resources into their AHL team (or simply has better coaching) does that change things? You'd expect that environment would impact things to some extent, no? Maybe getting the best of everything available has an impact on success. I wonder how a team by team breakdown of this would look.
This is a pretty interesting subject CJ. There are 2 things that initially come to mind:
1. Given that the majority of drafted players never make it to the nhl, doesnt it stand to reason that the average prospect playing in the AHL will be less likely to develop into an NHLer than the average prospect playing in the NHL? After all, the prospect playing in the nhl must have a certain pedigree/ability to be in that position in the first place; of course, there are prospects with similar pedigree/ability being sent to the AHL, but there are also a WHOLE BUNCH of players in the AHL that likely will never be expected to realistically develop into NHL players. Wouldnt that bring the AHL average down significantly?
2. I do wonder if there is some better way to evaluate this hypothesis, besides going in depth on every prospect and their actual development (which seems like it would be the most accurate way, but not realistic in terms of the amount of work involved). For example, how would this development rate trend look if it was just top 10 draft picks? or First round?
On question #1, of course AHLers are less likely to be long term NHLers than NHLers. That's why the go into the season with lower probabilities of being NHLers. That doesn't explain why that number DECREASES by the end of their AHL season though.
On #2, I'm toying around with a few ideas. This topic is really raw in terms of research. This is, to my knowledge, the first time anyone's even looked at it.
But if most AHLers don't really have a shot at the NHL anyway, wouldnt it be logical that their probabilities are going to continue to decrease over time in the AHL, as it becomes clearer that they are not going to make it?
Glad to hear you are toying around with some ideas. I've been reading your stuff for years (at AATJ and here) and appreciate your unique takes and willingness (intent?) to go against common, preconceived conventions.
Tell me who spent meaningful time in the AHL developing and who was pushed into an NHL role.
Nylander
Zacha
Boqvist
Zegras
Kotkaniemi
Rantanen
Patrick
Connor
Mittelstadt
Never a fan of CJ's takes but this one comes off as an especially bad & misleading in that doesn't take into account survivorship bias. Seems like he always has a pre-determined conclusion and twists the data any way possible in order to "prove it".
I address the selection bias specifically in the piece. I say that it could be picking up on a signal from offseason development. But that picture of the AHL is no more flattering. It's not obviously the case that the AHL /hurts/ development. It does seem obvious, however, that the AHL doesn't /help/ development.
And which NHL vets are you going to take out of the lineup to make room for them? Everybody on the NHL roster has earned their spot. No coach is going to bench proven talent just so they can maybe, possibly develop some new kid. Maybe if it's late in the season and the team is already out of playoff contention. But until then, the coach's goal on any give night is to WIN THE GAME. That's it. Not develop youngsters or gamble on newbies. Just WIN THE GAME. And 99% of the time, that means rostering proven, veteran players, not rookie projects.
"It is hockey purgatory."
I agree with this, and I think most players who are stuffed in the AHL would be better off playing overseas. Just take Jacob Josefson becoming a respectable SHL player, or former AHL legend Brian O'Neill becoming a *very good* KHL scorer. So they play in a better league, make more money than they did in the AHL...so why does anyone over the age of 25 want to stay there?