C Connor Bedard - Regina Pats, WHL (2023 Draft) Part 5

[Turin]

Well, Gretzky and McDavid both aren't really natural athletes so I would say the practice is much more important than natural born talent.

On what basis?

 

[93LEAFS]

It takes 10,000 hours of intensive practice to achieve mastery of complex skills and materials, like playing the violin or getting as good as Bill Gates at computer programming. That's essentially Gladwell's theory.

I don't entirely buy his theory because he disregards natural-born talent. I mean I would probably never be as good as Bedard if I practised as much as he did. However, all my hours spent makes me an elite HfBoarder.

Sort of funny that Gladwell is being mentioned in this thread, since Bedard is an exception to a massive talking point in one of his books (most elite Canadian NHLers are disproportionally born in the first 1/4 of the year due to our development system and school grades going by the Jan 1-Dec 31st calendar). Not that's its universal and there are obvious exceptions, but guys like Lindros, McDavid, and Gretzky were all born in the first 2 months of the year, so like 3 of the 5 biggest Canadian prospects since 1978 were born within the first 20% of the year (and Lemieux is the only one who was born after the mid-September cut-off date). Whereas with prospects from other nations it tends to be more skewed, most of the top American prospects of recent memory were actually late-birthdays (Matthews, Eichel, Kane, S. Jones, and Kessel), and one of the notable exceptions Jack Hughes spent his formative years in the GTA development system.

 

[Mr Buckles]

...guys like Lindros, McDavid, and Gretzky were all born in the first 2 months of the year, so like 3 of the 5 biggest Canadian prospects since 1978 were born within the first 20% of the year (and Lemieux is the only one who was born after the mid-September cut-off date).

Gretzky having played against older competition from when he was very young would largely negate the advantage of birth month. Not sure about if the others were playing up or not...

 

[93LEAFS]

Gretzky having played against older competition from when he was very young would largely negate the advantage of birth month. Not sure about if the others were playing up or not...

McDavid played up, most Canadian's who are that level played up at somepoint (I believe Crosby also did given the level of comp he was playing in Nova Scotia, partially why when he aged into his natural level he went to Shattuck for a challenge). But, it's also about your starting point competition which builds confidence to move up. And, when looking at something that really is about looking at larger sample sizes, it's more about overall trends than single examples.

 

[Halfy]

I’m hitting the panic button. Bedard has simply regressed. Sad

 

[95snipes]

Sort of funny that Gladwell is being mentioned in this thread, since Bedard is an exception to a massive talking point in one of his books (most elite Canadian NHLers are disproportionally born in the first 1/4 of the year due to our development system and school grades going by the Jan 1-Dec 31st calendar). Not that's its universal and there are obvious exceptions, but guys like Lindros, McDavid, and Gretzky were all born in the first 2 months of the year, so like 3 of the 5 biggest Canadian prospects since 1978 were born within the first 20% of the year (and Lemieux is the only one who was born after the mid-September cut-off date). Whereas with prospects from other nations it tends to be more skewed, most of the top American prospects of recent memory were actually late-birthdays (Matthews, Eichel, Kane, S. Jones, and Kessel), and one of the notable exceptions Jack Hughes spent his formative years in the GTA development system.

US is based on birth year too. I think that's just noise.

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Dahlin at 13???

This list is so bad in so many ways, he's saying "on draft day" but then clearly uses NHL careers to rank them. Kane and stammer are both way too high, I know he's trying to say he knew all along how good they would be and that Laf would bust, but there's no way he takes Kane over Dahlin on draft day for example.

I also find it amusing that he has MacKinnon at 8 but during that year he was a Jones #1 fanboy. He's basically saying he would have taken Jones over Dahlin, Hughes , Lafreniere, Hall etc. He's a tv mouthpiece who likes to generate clicks, nothing he says can or should be taken seriously

 

[EdJovanovski]

-2 & a penalty when his team was down with a few mins left. The next Lafreniere smh

 

[93LEAFS]

US is based on birth year too. I think that's just noise.

It varies. A lot of the United States is I believe school year calendar based for what grade you are in (so like August 1st or something to July 31st). Considering talent historically in the States comes out of the New England Prep School scene and Minnesota HS hockey, it would have impacts there. As more talent comes out of AAA development that may change. For example, Matthews was in grade 11 when with the USNTDP his final year, and would have had to fast track to go the NCAA route, one of the reasons that contributed to him going to Europe, same with Matthew Tkachuk and Patrick Kane going to London (some friends of mine were in high-school with Kane while he played for the Knights, despite him in the Canadian system would have been in University).

 

[95snipes]

It varies. A lot of the United States is I believe school year calendar based for what grade you are in (so like August 1st or something to July 31st). Considering talent historically in the States comes out of the New England Prep School scene and Minnesota HS hockey, it would have impacts there. As more talent comes out of AAA development that may change. For example, Matthews was in grade 11 when with the USNTDP his final year, and would have had to fast track to go the NCAA route, one of the reasons that contributed to him going to Europe, same with Matthew Tkachuk and Patrick Kane going to London (some friends of mine were in high-school with Kane while he played for the Knights, despite him in the Canadian system would have been in University).

But school grade and hockey year are completely different. Minnesota I believe is the only state where it's the same and even then I'm not 100% sure if that's true. And these days more and more of the MN kids are leaving for the USHL.

Matthews, as the example you used, was a '97 birth year and played Arizona AAA before NTDP. So he would have been one of the younger players in his age group as a September birthday.

All of the Mass/NY prep kids played AAA most of their youth before going to the school and that's based off birth year. And those kids come from all over the United States too. Avon for example (where Zegras went), is one of the better programs and if you looks at their elite prospects they have kids from all over. The exceptional kids play prep for grade 9 and 10 and most likely are going to go play NTDP or USHL after that if they are an NHL caliber prospect.

 

[daver]

No disagreement there. McDavid's PP skills have really taken off.

At the expense of his ES production though.

 

[daver]

@WhiskeyYerTheDevils

I liked what you brought to the Bedard discussion so much that ima gonna post it here.

You broke down what many others see outside of this board, Bedard is good but likely will end up not quite being a generational player.

If the other poster had been banging the "PP points by a prospect don't count" drum from the get go, then maybe you could appreciate their contribution. And frankly, the argument doesn't have any foundation other than confirmation bias which is a common theme among their arguments; no precedence or foundation.

Instead it has been:

Claim: "Bedard is overhyped, his size will hold him back, I don't care how many points he puts up in the W or at the WJC's"

Counter: "Where is the precedent for a "generational" point producer in the CHL in their draft year to not meet that standard in the NHL?" "Wayne, Mario, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid all peaked at levels that was expected of them."

Claim: "His numbers aren't generational, his PPG is lower than Kane's"

Counter: "Kane was not as dominant when you compare his PPG to the league; Kane also had better linemates and was physically smaller"

Claim: "Ok, yes his dominance is similar to McDavid and Crosby (with context as to the high end talent in the league) but he relies on PP scoring more than them"

Counter: "Why is this relevant? McDavid's PPG has been propped up by PP scoring the last two seasons and in most of Mario's seasons. Great players produce regardless. And Crosby relied on PP scoring as much as Bedard does in his draft year."

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

If the other poster had been banging the "PP points by a prospect don't count" drum from the get go, then maybe you could appreciate their contribution. And frankly, the argument doesn't have any foundation other than confirmation bias which is a common theme among their arguments; no precedence or foundation.

Instead it has been:

Claim: "Bedard is overhyped, his size will hold him back, I don't care how many points he puts up in the W or at the WJC's"

Counter: "Where is the precedent for a "generational" point producer in the CHL in their draft year to not meet that standard in the NHL?" "Wayne, Mario, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid all peaked at levels that was expected of them."

Claim: "His numbers aren't generational, his PPG is lower than Kane's"

Counter: "Kane was not as dominant when you compare his PPG to the league; Kane also had better linemates and was physically smaller"

Claim: "Ok, yes his dominance is similar to McDavid and Crosby (with context as to the high end talent in the league) but he relies on PP scoring more than them"

Counter: "Why is this relevant? McDavid's PPG has been propped up by PP scoring the last two seasons and in most of Mario's seasons. Great players produce regardless. And Crosby relied on PP scoring as much as Bedard does in his draft year."

You really are just living in your own reality huh?

Name me a generational player who didn't dominate his peers at ES. Until then just take the L and move on.

 

[ijuka]

You really are just living in your own reality huh?

Name me a generational player who didn't dominate his peers at ES. Until then just take the L and move on.

The sample for generational players is so tiny that specific observations like this really aren't that meaningful.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

The sample for generational players is so tiny that specific observations like this really aren't that meaningful.

It doesn't matter. It's pretty much impossible to be consensus best player of your generation without being the best ES producer.

 

[Siludin]

Well, Gretzky and McDavid both aren't really natural athletes so I would say the practice is much more important than natural born talent.

Gretzky played baseball and lacrosse in addition to hockey. He was a good athlete.

There is this clip of him sprinting against a bunch of other random noteworthy athletes. Gretzky was young and in his prime for this stunt race but it still shows that he is no slouch.

 

[Love]

Name me a generational player who didn't dominate his peers at ES.

Connor McDavid

 

[majormajor]

Connor McDavid

In the stats @WhiskeyYerTheDevils presented, McDavid had the highest even strength points per game, even higher than Crosby did.

 

[daver]

It doesn't matter. It's pretty much impossible to be consensus best player of your generation without being the best ES producer.

Mario, Crosby, and McDavid all have been the best ES scorers and the best PP scorers at various times in their careers. Great players produce regardless.

Have you not looked up the definition of confirmation bias yet? It is the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. Your position is textbook.

You have not provided a single example that a generational point producer in the CHL at age 17 didn't reach that status in the NHL due to a "reliance on PP scoring" in order to reach those generational levels.

When Bedard had a chance to play with better linemates, a notable disadvantage in comparison to McDavid in junior, in international competition, his ES scoring went through the roof.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Mario, Crosby, and McDavid all have been the best ES scorers and the best PP scorers at various times in their careers. Great players produce regardless.

Have you not looked up the definition of confirmation bias yet? It is the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. Your position is textbook.

You have not provided a single example that a generational point producer in the CHL at age 17 didn't reach that status in the NHL due to a "reliance on PP scoring" in order to reach those generational levels.

When Bedard had a chance to play with better linemates, a notable disadvantage in comparison to McDavid in junior, in international competition, his ES scoring went through the roof.

Patrick Kane was similarly as elite at ES as Bedard. He was not generational.

 

[Bfan14]

Patrick Kane was similarly as elite at ES as Bedard. He was not generational.

Wasn't Kane also a year older? I'm sure Bedard would absolutely crush the competition if he could play in the WHL next season

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Wasn't Kane also a year older? I'm sure Bedard would absolutely crush the competition if he could play in the WHL next season

He was 8 months older.

 

[Love]

Wasn't Kane also a year older? I'm sure Bedard would absolutely crush the competition if he could play in the WHL next season

Yes he was. And the Knights had like 4 guys with a PPG over 2. The difference in PPG between Kane and the next most productive player on his team was like .1 PPG whereas for Bedard the difference is over 1 PPG. It’s really not even close when you consider the age and team differences between the two.

It would be like asking: “What’s more impressive, an 18 year old scoring 2.5 PPG playing for the Lightning or a 17 year old scoring 2.45 PPG playing for the Blackhawks?” One team is elite offensively with an elite PP. The other is as inept as it gets offensively. This is the comparison he’s trying to make.

 

[GermanSpitfire]

He was 8 months older.

Kane would have been eligible for 3 CHL seasons before he got drafted.
*had Kane not gone NTDP.

Without getting Exceptional Status, Bedard would he eligible for 2 CHL seasons before he was drafted.

I think that’s what he was alluding to.

 

[Bfan14]

He was 8 months older.

So an entire develpment year?

Kane would have been eligible for 3 CHL seasons before he got drafted.
*had Kane not gone NTDP.

Without getting Exceptional Status, Bedard would he eligible for 2 CHL seasons before he was drafted.

I think that’s what he was alluding to.

Correct. So whatever Kane was doing would be similar to what Bedard would theoretically do next season if he would still be in the WHL. Which would be unfair to the rest of the league.