Something lacking... an Alpha-male perhaps?

[moon111]

Snips from Wilkipedia:
In junior hockey, Phaneuf was known .... for his calm demeanour...  compared to Hockey Hall of Famer Scott Stevens... praised for his the poise... Praised for his leadership abilities, Phaneuf was named the captain of team WHL....was counted upon to take a leadership role with the Canadian junior team at the 2004 and 2005 World Junior Championships....Ralph T. Scurfield Humanitarian Award...Leafs coach Ron Wilson credited him with creating a positive change in the mood in the Toronto dressing room. 

Fans are use to a scorer being the leader, otherwise there's no question who's the leader of the club. 

 

[hockeyfan1]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/41346-Kennedy-NCAA-shakeup-spells-promise-not-doom.html

 

[TheMightyOdin]

Sundin was definitely the Alpha male when he was the Leafs the Captain. Did we look at him that way when Gilmour was here? I didn't.

 

[Bullfrog]

In my opinion, it's a real mistake to rely heavily upon the Don Cherry stereotyping of hockey talent or blow off the talent coming up via the NCAA. Some of these guys have been proving for some time they're world class and they're very likely to continue that trend into the foreseable future - including the production of more NHL stars.

Due to expansion from 6 to the 30 teams we have now, of course there are more opportunities for NCAA players to come through. I think Burke has done a wonderful job in covering up holes with mediocre NCAA players because he didn't have anything left in the cupboard. This is his way of keeping the wolves at bay.Christian Hanson will be the first of many here that served a purpose, then get cut or not re-signed, as soon as the Leafs get better players signed or drafted. Tyler Bozak has already been demoted without having training camp started. Leaf fans hoping against all hope that Joe Colborne will be the next Joe Thornton need to have their heads examined.

I will ignore your little Don Cherry shot at me.

What does any of that have to do with where they're drafted/signed from?

 

[Erndog]

What we're really asking is the lack of an All-star right?  Just having an Alpha-male on the club doesn't guarantee a thing.

It's not that simple.  We had Tomas Kaberle, he was an 'All-Star' and he didn't improve out fortunes.  Guys like Dany Heatley, Martin Havlat, Daniel Briere, Mike Cammalleri are 'All'stars' but none of them are what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a guy who owns the team (not literally).  A guy who is the face of the franchise, a guy who people can easily identify the Toronto Maple Leafs as being HIS team.

It could be Phaneuf sure, but it's not yet.  Not right now anyways.

 

[AvroArrow]

It could be Phaneuf sure, but it's not yet.  Not right now anyways.

Wasn't there an article recently that pretty much said Phaneuf *is* what you're referring to (the alpha male - guy who "owns" the team)?

 

[leafplasma]

Not surprised we do not have that alpha male.  This is a young team void of any vets.  Perhaps one of the young players will sieze that persona once they have a few more years in the league.

 

[Erndog]

It could be Phaneuf sure, but it's not yet.  Not right now anyways.

Wasn't there an article recently that pretty much said Phaneuf *is* what you're referring to (the alpha male - guy who "owns" the team)?

Perhaps.  Clearly we aren't as privy as the players/coaches/etc to who 'owns' the team but I still get the sense that Phaneuf isn't quite the big ring leader he should be yet.  Not a knock on him really, he's still young, was recently traded and has experienced a little bit of career turmoil so I'm not surprised really.

I will say this though, I definitely saw flashes of what I am talking about in Phaneuf in the second half of last season that is for sure.

 

[Leaflifer]

I was just thinking of Tampa's cup win. I don't think there were any players on that team that was a "leader by force" kind of guy. It's hard to say though without being in the dressing room. For all we know, it could have been someone we least expect. Probably Torts.

An "alpha male" type may npt fit the chemistry of all teams. I have a feeling Roberts tried that approach here and it did more harm than good. Some teams it's probably best if the coach is that guy.

 

[Leaflifer]

It could be Phaneuf sure, but it's not yet.  Not right now anyways.

Wasn't there an article recently that pretty much said Phaneuf *is* what you're referring to (the alpha male - guy who "owns" the team)?

Perhaps.  Clearly we aren't as privy as the players/coaches/etc to who 'owns' the team but I still get the sense that Phaneuf isn't quite the big ring leader he should be yet.  Not a knock on him really, he's still young, was recently traded and has experienced a little bit of career turmoil so I'm not surprised really.

I will say this though, I definitely saw flashes of what I am talking about in Phaneuf in the second half of last season that is for sure.

I agree. Phaneaf could be that guy and maturity and maintained health will get him there.

 

[Kin]

In my opinion, it's a real mistake to rely heavily upon the Don Cherry stereotyping of hockey talent or blow off the talent coming up via the NCAA. Some of these guys have been proving for some time they're world class and they're very likely to continue that trend into the foreseable future - including the production of more NHL stars.

I agree with your post but there's a part of me that wonders maybe if we're seeing kind of a post-Moneyball world when it comes to NCAA players these days. Previously, when just about everyone came out of the CHL, there was this kind of perception that the NCAA was sort of the undiscovered country when it came to hockey talent. That there was a bunch of talent in the league and the really smart GM could sift through it all and come up with gems like CuJo or Oates or St. Louis. These days I can't help but feel as though the NCAA is as scouted as any other source and your likelihood of pulling a gem from there is no better than anywhere else.

 

[cw]

In my opinion, it's a real mistake to rely heavily upon the Don Cherry stereotyping of hockey talent or blow off the talent coming up via the NCAA. Some of these guys have been proving for some time they're world class and they're very likely to continue that trend into the foreseable future - including the production of more NHL stars.

I agree with your post but there's a part of me that wonders maybe if we're seeing kind of a post-Moneyball world when it comes to NCAA players these days. Previously, when just about everyone came out of the CHL, there was this kind of perception that the NCAA was sort of the undiscovered country when it came to hockey talent. That there was a bunch of talent in the league and the really smart GM could sift through it all and come up with gems like CuJo or Oates or St. Louis. These days I can't help but feel as though the NCAA is as scouted as any other source and your likelihood of pulling a gem from there is no better than anywhere else.

I think that's pretty close to the reality. Canadians, Americans & Euros prospects get dropped into each team's draft bin and they each order them according to how their scouting staff forecasts they'll turn out.

Years ago, there was a detailed article on Mike Penny who worked for Quinn at the time and his office being full of computer data reports on prospects. Mike still works for the Leafs as a scout. During Quinn's time the Leafs implemented a scouting database accessed and updated by their scouts around the world (I linked to it once in a post here years ago). Recently, Burke talked about routinely reviewing new software and databases that help them uncover talent (moneyball-like). My sense with the Leafs is that they take all this stuff into consideration but the final judgments are human come draft time.

I've read that the Sabres in particular and smaller market teams who cannot afford the 24 scouts the Leafs have rely heavier on video review for scouting and this type of moneyball software. There has been very good statistical analysis done so that players in different leagues can be compared ie 1 pgg in the NCAA = 1.25? ppg in the QMJHL (gross ballpark - only for example) and they associate those with the age the scoring got done to project how a player is likely to score in the NHL. The limiting factor is the quality of the data on these kids. Over time with improvements in technology, I expect it will be cost justified to improve the data and the league will migrate closer to moneyball type drafting because of all the dollars invested in development and salaries. The better stats will provide them with a higher level of predictability. It may be that this type of software helped to identify and percolate NCAA players upwards in the drafts.

I suspect Canada may currently have a slight edge in producing 'gems' per player drafted but when one takes draft order into consideration, it probably comes pretty close to evening out. Some of that impression comes from the saw tooth effect of these talents integrating into the league over their careers. As each year goes by, whatever differences there were seem to diminish bit by bit.

I looked at Cup winning rosters to find the following:
- the last team to win a Cup without a NCAA player was the 1976 Philly Flyers
- since the lockout, Cup winning rosters have averaged about 6 NCAAers
- since 1994, 24% of the Conn Smythe winners ("stars when it mattered most") played in the NCAA

Can anyone imagine the Bruins winning their Cup without Tim Thomas? In spite of Rask, that's not easy to imagine given his Conn Smythe performance. Who thinks the Hawks would win their Cup without NCAAers Toews & Duncan Keith? Probably no reasonable person.

Any GM taking the stereotyping position that NCAA players don't cut the NHL mustard to the extent that they shouldn't be drafted would just be a chronic loser who would be looking for a job in a new industry in the near future. That's why we don't see NHL GMs doing that. They know it's been proven time and time again that NCAA players have talent to the extent some of them have been stars in this league while many, many others have their names engraved on the Stanley Cup.

Was ignoring NCAA/USA hockey talent or giving it less respect than it deserved when constructing a club years ago a factor resulting in no Canadian city winning a Cup since 1993? That's an interesting question. Let's just say that it wouldn't shock me if the facts supported it to some maybe mild degree.

To intentionally ignore the NCAA hockey pool of young talent while trying to build a Cup winner ignores the long established facts that the NCAA/USA currently produces very good NHL players on nearly any basis one wants to look at it and therefore, executing that excluding practice would have to be based upon stereotyping that went extinct among many NHL GMs some time ago.

 

[Kin]

For what it's worth I wasn't referring to any specific emphasis on stats or the like but rather the more sort of central premise of in Moneyball of looking for and exploiting market inefficiencies. Like you say, we're seeing an uptick in the amount of NCAA players producing big time in key situations but I think increasingly we're seeing those NCAA players being heavily scouted and highly drafted as opposed to falling through the cracks.

This is entirely speculative on my part but I think that there's probably been some sort of general improvement in the coaching/training of NCAA programs of late that are making University hockey a more attractive option for top prospects. Toews was a #3 pick, Kessel #5, Heatley #2 and so on.

Like you say, I think the NCAA is a known and valuable commodity. Any team ignoring it or undervaluing is probably cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The flip side of that, though, is that players are probably getting properly valued coming out of the NCAA. I think signing college FA's is probably more about adding depth than mining for gold.

 

[cw]

For what it's worth I wasn't referring to any specific emphasis on stats or the like but rather the more sort of central premise of in Moneyball of looking for and exploiting market inefficiencies. Like you say, we're seeing an uptick in the amount of NCAA players producing big time in key situations but I think increasingly we're seeing those NCAA players being heavily scouted and highly drafted as opposed to falling through the cracks.

I think we're seeing that with all development leagues. It started more with the Euros due to the Canada Cup international type of events where NA fans saw some of these Euro players could really play and then migrated to other leagues from there arriving at the NCAA along the way. The Miracle on Ice in 1980 helped the US/NCAA program as well.

This is entirely speculative on my part but I think that there's probably been some sort of general improvement in the coaching/training of NCAA programs of late that are making University hockey a more attractive option for top prospects. Toews was a #3 pick, Kessel #5, Heatley #2 and so on.

I think it's improved all over - some due to Canadian coaching migrating. A thing some may be overlooking with the NCAA is what it also provides. There's no guarantee a hockey player will make it with chances falling as they slip downwards in the draft. The NCAA provides the parents of these young players with a fallback degree for their kids and they tend to get a decent education along with their hockey development. Along with that came more scholarship funding to attract them. So the NCAA did make some significant effort to attract better young hockey players to it's ranks and improve their hockey programs. As their graduates started to have some success in the NHL, I think the appeal of the NCAA for young hockey players snowballed some.

The flip side of that, though, is that players are probably getting properly valued coming out of the NCAA. I think signing college FA's is probably more about adding depth than mining for gold.

For forwards and maybe dmen, I'd go along with that more today. Goalies being the least predictable at a draft age (though that has improved as well) - you're probably still more likely to find an undrafted diamond in the rough there than a skater.

I think drafting has improved substantially. Here's a small sample of an example of top 30 scorers for 2011 and 1998
                                          2011        1998
Drafted in top 30                      23            15
Drafted outside top 30                6*            13
UFA                                          1              2
Average Draft position              22            43

*= of those 6 outside the top 30, five were drafted before 2000 and the UFA was signed before 2000.

In other words, when you compare those two years, over the last 10+ years, they've nailed top picks into that top 30 with much fewer from the lower rounds compared with 1998.

Development scoring statistics are now more predictable to project to the NHL whereas they weren't nearly so much in 1998. Part of the reason for that is the better coaching, equipment & training these kids are getting - leaving fewer surprises because you're seeing the young player perform closer to his potential at a younger age. And another part of the reason is the scouting, more games & tournaments and technology (video, internet, stats analysis) for finding these players is better.

With all that going on, it was just a matter of time before GMs connected with NCAA players to mine those youngsters. But snagging top notch young UFAs from any league is becoming a more rare event - particularly for the skaters.

The other thing to note with improvements in scouting and drafting is that the top picks are worth more in talent value. The odds are now higher that that #1 pick will turn into a decent player in my opinion. My sense is that along with the cap placing a premium on the price performance of youth that is part of the reason why we're seeing fewer #1 picks get moved in trades.

 

[Number 5]

They've probably been scouting the NCAA as heavily as all the rest for years. It's just Burke, and his blustery obfuscation at work, trying to make us think he's digging in places other GM's aren't. Throw a "new" talent pool source at the general public, and they'll think you're going above and beyond. He's buying time.

 

[cw]

They've probably been scouting the NCAA as heavily as all the rest for years. It's just Burke, and his blustery obfuscation at work, trying to make us think he's digging in places other GM's aren't. Throw a "new" talent pool source at the general public, and they'll think you're going above and beyond. He's buying time.

Looking at his years in Vancouver (as assistant and as GM), Burke drafted and played US players (ie Morrison, Kesler, Ruutu, Brookbank & Sean Pronger in '04) though it was a more Euro flavored team.

In Anaheim's Cup winning year, 37% (14 players) of the guys Burke dressed for the Ducks played in the NCAA/USHL and 12 of them (43% of the playoff roster) appeared in the playoffs for the Ducks.

I strongly suspect the Ducks Cup winning roster had the highest percentage of NCAAers in the history of Cup winning rosters. I'd bet 2nd place probably isn't that close.

So what Burke is up to with US players in Toronto isn't for appearances. He's done it before and won a Cup doing it.

 

[Number 5]

Oh, I more meant that his talking about it is for appearance. To make it look like he's doing more than the average GM, when in reality, it's something they all do anyway.

Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice.

 

[Corn Flake]

It could be Phaneuf sure, but it's not yet.  Not right now anyways.

Wasn't there an article recently that pretty much said Phaneuf *is* what you're referring to (the alpha male - guy who "owns" the team)?

Perhaps.  Clearly we aren't as privy as the players/coaches/etc to who 'owns' the team but I still get the sense that Phaneuf isn't quite the big ring leader he should be yet.  Not a knock on him really, he's still young, was recently traded and has experienced a little bit of career turmoil so I'm not surprised really.

I will say this though, I definitely saw flashes of what I am talking about in Phaneuf in the second half of last season that is for sure.

I agree. Phaneaf could be that guy and maturity and maintained health will get him there.

I think experience is the biggest factor in turning a guy with the raw personality traits to lead into a true leader.  Playoff experience that is.  Those types of players usually step up when the big games come along and take charge when it matters most. 

Its one thing for Phaneuf to be loud in the room and get the guys going like he apparently does today but its another to truly step up and lead - and that mostly requires some very critical moments in key games to demonstrate.  Like ErnDog said, he did show it later in the season last year - now we need to see it consistently but also turn some big moments in key games, and hopefully in the playoffs.

 

[Leaflifer]

It could be Phaneuf sure, but it's not yet.  Not right now anyways.

Wasn't there an article recently that pretty much said Phaneuf *is* what you're referring to (the alpha male - guy who "owns" the team)?

Perhaps.  Clearly we aren't as privy as the players/coaches/etc to who 'owns' the team but I still get the sense that Phaneuf isn't quite the big ring leader he should be yet.  Not a knock on him really, he's still young, was recently traded and has experienced a little bit of career turmoil so I'm not surprised really.

I will say this though, I definitely saw flashes of what I am talking about in Phaneuf in the second half of last season that is for sure.

I agree. Phaneaf could be that guy and maturity and maintained health will get him there.

I think experience is the biggest factor in turning a guy with the raw personality traits to lead into a true leader.  Playoff experience that is.  Those types of players usually step up when the big games come along and take charge when it matters most. 

Its one thing for Phaneuf to be loud in the room and get the guys going like he apparently does today but its another to truly step up and lead - and that mostly requires some very critical moments in key games to demonstrate.  Like ErnDog said, he did show it later in the season last year - now we need to see it consistently but also turn some big moments in key games, and hopefully in the playoffs.

That's what I mean by maintained health...if he can stay in the game he will get experience. I think he may have the tools to make the most of that experience and become an on ice leader.

The dressing room "big personality" thing actually worries me a bit. I know myself, I tend to tune those people out as they interfere with my own focus at my job (unless they are for real)

As mentioned, he did show some sign of being capable of doing big things on the ice, and as you say, experience can get him the rest of the way there.

 

[hockeyfan1]

In my opinion, it's a real mistake to rely heavily upon the Don Cherry stereotyping of hockey talent or blow off the talent coming up via the NCAA. Some of these guys have been proving for some time they're world class and they're very likely to continue that trend into the foreseable future - including the production of more NHL stars.

I agree with your post but there's a part of me that wonders maybe if we're seeing kind of a post-Moneyball world when it comes to NCAA players these days. Previously, when just about everyone came out of the CHL, there was this kind of perception that the NCAA was sort of the undiscovered country when it came to hockey talent. That there was a bunch of talent in the league and the really smart GM could sift through it all and come up with gems like CuJo or Oates or St. Louis. These days I can't help but feel as though the NCAA is as scouted as any other source and your likelihood of pulling a gem from there is no better than anywhere else.

Something to ponder....

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/41447-Kennedy-NCAA-takes-beating-on-1112-recruits.html



....earlier this week, the NCAA was dealt a double body-blow. There was Phoenix first-rounder and Miami commit Connor Murphy deciding to take his game to the Ontario League?s Sarnia Sting instead. That same afternoon, it was confirmed that for the second straight summer, the University of Michigan would lose its incoming goaltender to the OHL as well.

John Gibson, Anaheim?s second-rounder from 2011, would be heading to Kitchener, much like Jack Campbell chose Windsor the season before. (The fact both Campbell and Gibson were Team USA national team development program products and the first American goalies taken in their draft classes only added to the bitter taste for college hockey fans.)

This came on the heels of New York Rangers first-rounder J.T. Miller spurning North Dakota in favor of Plymouth and Dallas top pick Jamie Oleksiak leaving Northeastern for Saginaw (though Oleksiak had played a year with the Huskies and left in part because coach Greg Cronin took a job with the Toronto Maple Leafs).

In 2009, six first-rounders spent their next season in college, while in 2010 it was eight. Back in ?07, 10 made the choice, including James van Riemsdyk and Kyle Turris, the second and third players drafted overall.

So is this summer just an anomaly? Unfortunately for college hockey fans, probably not.

?I think (top prospects) are finding out the OHL prepares you for the NHL and you still get your schooling,? said London GM Mark Hunter.

Education packages entice kids who worry about their academic futures and the OHL is still the best developmental league in the world.

The conventional wisdom in Canada is that major junior provides a quicker path to the NHL thanks to a schedule that mirrors the pros. But college hockey also has its upsides and I think there is a certain class of player in particular that benefits from less games and more time in the gym or at the rink.

?Pretty much every morning I could go to the rink before class,? said Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews, who played for the University of North Dakota. ?People thought I would leave school right after I was drafted, but I?m glad I stayed a second year. It worked out for me because I felt physically ready when I did get to the NHL.?

A great case study involves Turris and van Riemsdyk. While Turris was rushed to the NHL by Phoenix after one season at Wisconsin, JVR actually rebuffed the Flyers for a year, choosing to return to the University of New Hampshire for a second lap. After one full season with the Coyotes, Turris was demoted to the American League. Since that 2008-09 NHL rookie campaign, the still-developing youngster has played more games in the AHL than the big league. JVR on the other hand, played a few games for the AHL?s Phantoms once his UNH season was finished, but hasn?t been back since, registering 75 points in 153 NHL games (Turris has 46 in 131).

The battle for the hearts and minds of hockey?s youth will continue to be feverish and while the OHL certainly won the summer, it?s doesn?t mean the NCAA has been dealt a death-strike. The faithful will still fill Yost and Ralph Engelstad this winter and top recruits will still be in the lineup. Just not as many as there once were.