C Connor McDavid - Erie Otters, OHL (2015 Draft) V

[EichHart]

First of all: not even close.

Second of all: McDavid is doing significantly more in comparison to his peers if you want to use that metric. 0.7 PPG to closest peer compared to 0.18 PPG.

If you didn't want people to use that stat, you shouldn't have posted it.

Don't think you understand stats. Look up the average ohl scorer compared to ncaa scorer. They are very comparable.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Don't think you understand stats. Look up the average ohl scorer compared to ncaa scorer. They are very comparable.

I don't understand stats? Do you understand the stats you posted? Doesn't look like it. We're not talking about the average OHL scorer (why is that relevant?). You posted stats that don't support what you seem to believe. Those stats show a massive gap between McDavid and his peers and a not so large one between Eichel and his peers.

Seriously, people on these boards need to read what they're posting before they do it. It should have been painfully obvious that people were going to infer what I and others have said about that comparison.

 

[Paxon]

First of all: not even close.

Second of all: McDavid is doing significantly more in comparison to his peers if you want to use that metric. 0.7 PPG to closest peer compared to 0.18 PPG.

If you didn't want people to use that stat, you shouldn't have posted it.

You should not directly compare the difference between X and Y from group 1 to the difference between A and B from group 2 in PPG. They're completely separate statistical sets. McDavid's PPG rate is 138% of Tavares' and Eichel's is 112% of Parise's. That would indicate McDavid's production is more impressive, which I agree with, but I don't believe it's quite to the degree those percentages indicate.

Comparing the best producer from one year to another is useful, but it doesn't authoritatively measure the comparative performances of McDavid et al and Eichel et al, therefore it is lacking in the same regard when comparing McDavid to Eichel. One single player's performance from each season is a pretty poor sample to compare one single player's performance to. If someone really wants to put in the effort they'll have to breakdown scoring this year in the both leagues as well as scoring in the leagues across the span referenced by top draft-eligible scorers. Not to mention there are no (NCAA) or incomplete (CHL) advanced statistics to give context to any of this. After all that work McDavid will still come out looking more impressive in the numbers, to what degree I don't know, and on the ice. The same arguments will still exist with people unfairly cutting down one guy to raise up the other.

BTW it's quite arbitrary to go all the way back to Zach Parise (2003) for Eichel but not to Patrick Kane's (2008) 2.5 PPG (in his first CHL season) for McDavid.

 

[Bjorn Le]

You should not directly compare the difference between X and Y from group 1 to the difference between A and B from group 2 in PPG. They're completely separate statistical sets. McDavid's PPG rate is 138% of Tavares' and Eichel's is 112% of Parise's. That would indicate McDavid's production is more impressive, which I agree with, but I don't believe it's quite to the degree those percentages indicate.

Comparing the best producer from one year to another is useful, but it doesn't authoritatively measure the comparative performances of McDavid et al and Eichel et al, therefore it is lacking in the same regard when comparing McDavid to Eichel. One single player's performance from each season is a pretty poor sample to compare one single player's performance to. If someone really wants to put in the effort they'll have to breakdown scoring this year in the both leagues as well as scoring in the leagues across the span referenced by top draft-eligible scorers. Not to mention there are no (NCAA) or incomplete (CHL) advanced statistics to give context to any of this. After all that work McDavid will still come out looking more impressive in the numbers, to what degree I don't know, and on the ice. The same arguments will still exist with people unfairly cutting down one guy to raise up the other.

BTW it's quite arbitrary to go all the way back to Zach Parise (2003) for Eichel but not to Patrick Kane's (2008) 2.5 PPG (in his first CHL season) for McDavid.

Why not? It ought to be fairly constant the separation of skill levels. If one player is significantly better than his peers, that is something that would set him apart from a competitor who isn't as far. A quick skim of goal totals in the NCAA, it appears that college hockey is higher scoring today then it was when those guys were playing. If we adjusted the PPG Eichel might even be closer. McDavid plays in a lower scoring time (teams are score about .30 goals less per game, which is just over 400 goals total in a season).

Kane is a little tough to compare because he played on what was arguably the most offensively gifted CHL team ever. Hunter also had the habit of double shifting his best players. Kane probably played about 30-40 minutes a game in 2007. McDavid probably plays about 25 minutes a game for Erie (OHL doesn't keep TOI figures so we'll never know exactly what). At least the contextual environment of the NCAA during Parise's time is very close to what it is now for Eichel.

 

[Paxon]

Why not? It ought to be fairly constant the separation of skill levels. If one player is significantly better than his peers, that is something that would set him apart from a competitor who isn't as far. A quick skim of goal totals in the NCAA, it appears that college hockey is higher scoring today then it was when those guys were playing. If we adjusted the PPG Eichel might even be closer. McDavid plays in a lower scoring time (teams are score about .30 goals less per game, which is just over 400 goals total in a season).

Kane is a little tough to compare because he played on what was arguably the most offensively gifted CHL team ever. Hunter also had the habit of double shifting his best players. Kane probably played about 30-40 minutes a game in 2007. McDavid probably plays about 25 minutes a game for Erie (OHL doesn't keep TOI figures so we'll never know exactly what). At least the contextual environment of the NCAA during Parise's time is very close to what it is now for Eichel.

What you say about Kane should tell you the issue with just using one scorer per season. Each player has his own unique circumstances which may lend themselves to easier or harder PPG production relative to other top peers.

With regards to Eichel and the NCAA I generally have two thoughts that always pop in my head:

Despite arguments I've seen to the contrary, an NCAA point should absolutely be considered worth more than a CHL point, regardless of why that is the case. So direct comparisons are always off the table.

The importance of the uniqueness of what Eichel's doing as a freshman is oversold. The uniqueness comes in large part from there being a freshman of 1st overall talent level in the NCAA, which is a rarity. Tavares, Kane, Stamkos, MacKinnon etc comparable players didn't play in the NCAA. If they did, one should assume they'd also have had crazy good freshman seasons. Better than or equal to Eichel's? I wouldn't say that with any certainty, but to answer that question is to answer the underlying question of where McDavid and Eichel slot in among the best prospects of the past 10 years. The fact no one's put up as high a PPG as Eichel since maybe Kariya (not sure on that) doesn't say as much as some make it out to say, though it's still a feat. The uniqueness of McDavid's numbers is more impressive not because the CHL is better than the NCAA as a whole, but because there have been many 1st overall-level talents who've achieved far less statistically. It's much easier to compare McDavid to the best talents of the past 10 years than it is to compare Eichel, and McDavid obviously comes out favorably in that. That Eichel's different situation makes that close to impossible isn't a knock on him, nor is his relative success in that situation as readily impressive.

 

[Bjorn Le]

What you say about Kane should tell you the issue with just using one scorer per season. Each player has his own unique circumstances which may lend themselves to easier or harder PPG production relative to other top peers.

With regards to Eichel and the NCAA I generally have two thoughts that always pop in my head:

Despite arguments I've seen to the contrary, an NCAA point should absolutely be considered worth more than a CHL point, regardless of why that is the case. So direct comparisons are always off the table.

The importance of the uniqueness of what Eichel's doing as a freshman is oversold. The uniqueness comes in large part from there being a freshman of 1st overall talent level in the NCAA, which is a rarity. Tavares, Kane, Stamkos, MacKinnon etc comparable players didn't play in the NCAA. If they did, one should assume they'd also have had crazy good freshman seasons. Better than or equal to Eichel's? I wouldn't say that with any certainty, but to answer that question is to answer the underlying question of where McDavid and Eichel slot in among the best prospects of the past 10 years. The fact no one's put up as high a PPG as Eichel since maybe Kariya (not sure on that) doesn't say as much as some make it out to say, though it's still a feat. The uniqueness of McDavid's numbers is more impressive not because the CHL is better than the NCAA as a whole, but because there have been many 1st overall-level talents who've achieved far less statistically. It's much easier to compare McDavid to the best talents of the past 10 years than it is to compare Eichel, and McDavid obviously comes out favorably in that. That Eichel's different situation makes that close to impossible isn't a knock on him, nor is his relative success in that situation as readily impressive.

It's isolating McDavid with recent peers who were top prospects. As long as you avoid situations where there is clearly an anomaly going on (London in 2006-07 for example), you've got a good set to compare.

I wouldn't say an NCAA point is worth more. It's not even necessarily harder to get. The leagues are different and not comparable, but we have some traits that explain why they're different. The CHL, bar none, is a level above the NCAA when it comes to raw talent. Raw talent manifests itself in scoring in juniors as the defense is undersized and still working on top tier positioning. The NCAA has older players who aren't as skilled, but have had that seasoning so they're not as raw, and they're in general more man than boy (even if the argument that NCAA players are bigger is *********). Results in a league where there is less scoring but not necessarily harder to score.

Yes what Eichel is doing is special, but the fact he's not that far off PPG wise his elite company (and we need to go back farther because the NCAA has lacks elite forwards). The fact the contextual environment is more constant in the NCAA allows this comparison to stick better.

 

[Paxon]

It's isolating McDavid with recent peers who were top prospects. As long as you avoid situations where there is clearly an anomaly going on (London in 2006-07 for example), you've got a good set to compare.

Yet all we have to go on to qualify or disqualify a comparison is purely anecdotal, which is the issue I raised in the first place. We have no contextual data. A truly valid and convincing comparison would require both contextual data and a larger sample size. You would or at least could still compare McDavid to the elite prospect from each season, but you'd do so through through abstraction by comparing each elite player's performance to that of the league and by considering the rest of the context.

I wouldn't say an NCAA point is worth more. It's not even necessarily harder to get. The leagues are different and not comparable, but we have some traits that explain why they're different. The CHL, bar none, is a level above the NCAA when it comes to raw talent. Raw talent manifests itself in scoring in juniors as the defense is undersized and still working on top tier positioning. The NCAA has older players who aren't as skilled, but have had that seasoning so they're not as raw, and they're in general more man than boy (even if the argument that NCAA players are bigger is *********). Results in a league where there is less scoring but not necessarily harder to score.

What you've come up with is something that seems like a valid theory as to why CHL scoring is 'harder' than NCAA scoring, which it would be if that premise were true. That premise is not true because data shows NCAA production is reproduced at the next level at a higher rate than CHL production. This is articulated in the methodology and resulting formula of NHLe. Perhaps the data has changed in a significant way since the original publication of NHLe, but I doubt the relationship has reversed. If we have two rookie players of the same age in the NHL next season, one from the NCAA and one from the CHL, the player from the NCAA would be statistically more likely to reproduce a larger percentage of his NCAA production in the NHL the following season than the CHL player. That right there should imply that the same prospect would put up less production in the NCAA than he would in the CHL, which is otherwise already something few would argue. That certainly indicates that in fact, yes, an NCAA point is more valuable than a CHL point.

It is not debatable that the CHL, particularly the OHL, has more latent talent than the NCAA. It's also not debatable that all things being equal, older means more experienced and more physically developed, two things which both directly map to tougher competition. What there is to argue is the relative weight of those factors. That argument is reduced to nothing but conjecture when the data already shows what it shows. All we can do is breakdown why that may be, how these factors interrelate, etc, but the main argument seems pretty well settled to me. Note that this doesn't indicate if the NCAA is better head-to-head (as in, if two teams played each other), better at developing, or features better hockey, but it does indicate that NCAA production is 'worth' more.

Yes what Eichel is doing is special, but the fact he's not that far off PPG wise his elite company (and we need to go back farther because the NCAA has lacks elite forwards). The fact the contextual environment is more constant in the NCAA allows this comparison to stick better.

The contextual environment is more constant in the area which you are considering, but you're neglecting to also consider that it is less reliable for the purposes of comparing 1st overall-level prospects, since the sample size is almost non-existent.

 

[daver]

Notable NCAA players in their draft year:

Jack Eichel - 23 GP, 15 G, 25 A, 40 PTS (1.74 PPG)
Zach Parise - 39 GP, 26 G, 35 A, 61 PTS (1.56 PPG)
Dany Heatley - 38 GP, 28 G, 28 A, 56 PTS (1.47 PPG)
Thomas Vanek - 45 GP, 31 G, 31 A, 62 PTS (1.38 PPG)
Phil Kessel - 39 GP, 18 G, 33 A, 51 PTS (1.31 PPG)
Jonathan Toews - 42 GP, 22 G, 17 A, 39 PTS (0.93 PPG)

First CHL player taken in their draft year (last 8 seasons):

Connor McDavid - 27 GP, 24 G, 45 A, 69 PTS (2.56 PPG)
John Tavares - 56 GP, 58 GP, 46 A, 104 PTS (1.86 PPG)
Taylor Hall - 57 GP, 40 G, 66 A, 106 PTS (1.86 PPG)
Sam Reinhart - 60 GP, 36 G, 69 A, 105 PTS (1.75 PPG)
Steven Stamkos - 61 GP, 58 G, 47 A, 105 PTS (1.72 PPG)
Nathan MacKinnon - 44 GP, 32 G, 43 A, 75 PTS (1.70 PPG)
Nail Yakupov - 42 GP, 31 G, 38 A, 69 PTS (1.64 PPG)
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins - 69 GP, 31 G, 75 A, 106 PTS (1.54 PPG)

That stat makes it look like McDavid's season alot more impressive than Eichel's. Which it is.

One list of players is also much more impressive than the other which takes a bit of the shine of McDavid's season.

Also, Tavare's draft year was disappointing given what he did two years prior. I don't think the PPG difference is indicative of their relative talent levels.

 

[duul]

Two assists halfway through the game for him. IS HE SLOWING DOWN?

 

[Halfy]

3 assists final! REALLY stood out again today. The way he weaves in and out of traffic is truly remarkable...

 

[BigD66]

One list of players is also much more impressive than the other which takes a bit of the shine of McDavid's season.

How would comparing McDavid with the much more impressive list take a shine off of his season?

Cause you can't be serious if you think the list with Stamkos, Tavares and Hall isn't the better of the two lists there.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

When people compare him to Crosby shouldnt they factor in league? The Q is more a small skilled mans league no?

 

[lawrence]

When people compare him to Crosby shouldnt they factor in league? The Q is more a small skilled mans league no?

Different era, at the time the q wasnt very well defensive too, and out of the 3 canadian leagues the q is pretty much the worst at developing dmans, and the past 5 years, the worst at generating any type of talent. That said it's still the chl, age eligibility is the same, they recruit from the same pool of talent, they are still a junior pro league,etc etc. the comparisons are based in their style of play, pro scouts sees the centre of gravity and they way they both handle the oucj at high speed.

Crosby might be a tad stronger , with the puck, and maybe a tad better passer,
Connor seems to be a superior stick handler, and a better shot then Crosby.

but indeed a generational player. Kid is amazing. I really hopes in ends up in the pacific division.

 

[Plastic Joseph]

When people compare him to Crosby shouldnt they factor in league? The Q is more a small skilled mans league no?

The Q was a lower wer scoring league then than the O is now. There are pages of debate regarding this somewhere in a McDavid thread

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Different era, at the time the q wasnt very well defensive too, and out of the 3 canadian leagues the q is pretty much the worst at developing dmans, and the past 5 years, the worst at generating any type of talent. That said it's still the chl, age eligibility is the same, they recruit from the same pool of talent, they are still a junior pro league,etc etc. the comparisons are based in their style of play, pro scouts sees the centre of gravity and they way they both handle the oucj at high speed.

Crosby might be a tad stronger , with the puck, and maybe a tad better passer,
Connor seems to be a superior stick handler, and a better shot then Crosby.

but indeed a generational player. Kid is amazing. I really hopes in ends up in the pacific division.

At 17, Crosby was significantly stronger than McDavid, and had better offensive awareness without the puck - he was much more effective finding junk around the net (and at winning those battles). McDavid is faster, has better hands, and a better shot at the same age. But Crosby had him beat in 2 areas that are key to a successful transition to the NHL.

McDavid gets pushed around very easily relative to 87, and has not exhibited that generational "nose for the net" that we saw with Sid. He'll still be a top liner as a rookie, but I wouldn't expect him to break 80 points.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Notable NCAA players in their draft year:

Jack Eichel - 23 GP, 15 G, 25 A, 40 PTS (1.74 PPG)
Zach Parise - 39 GP, 26 G, 35 A, 61 PTS (1.56 PPG)
Dany Heatley - 38 GP, 28 G, 28 A, 56 PTS (1.47 PPG)
Thomas Vanek - 45 GP, 31 G, 31 A, 62 PTS (1.38 PPG)
Phil Kessel - 39 GP, 18 G, 33 A, 51 PTS (1.31 PPG)
Jonathan Toews - 42 GP, 22 G, 17 A, 39 PTS (0.93 PPG)

First CHL player taken in their draft year (last 8 seasons):

Connor McDavid - 27 GP, 24 G, 45 A, 69 PTS (2.56 PPG)
John Tavares - 56 GP, 58 GP, 46 A, 104 PTS (1.86 PPG)
Taylor Hall - 57 GP, 40 G, 66 A, 106 PTS (1.86 PPG)
Sam Reinhart - 60 GP, 36 G, 69 A, 105 PTS (1.75 PPG)
Steven Stamkos - 61 GP, 58 G, 47 A, 105 PTS (1.72 PPG)
Nathan MacKinnon - 44 GP, 32 G, 43 A, 75 PTS (1.70 PPG)
Nail Yakupov - 42 GP, 31 G, 38 A, 69 PTS (1.64 PPG)
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins - 69 GP, 31 G, 75 A, 106 PTS (1.54 PPG)

You should include draft years from guys like Drouin (2.14 ppg). Also, why not include Pat Kane (2.34 ppg)? What he's done is arguably the best comp for McDavid. He played on a great line, but so did Zach Parise and you've included him.

I expect 97 to end up anywhere between Kane and Crosby in terms of NHL production.

 

[Draw Me a McElephant]

At 17, Crosby was significantly stronger than McDavid, and had better offensive awareness without the puck - he was much more effective finding junk around the net (and at winning those battles). McDavid is faster, has better hands, and a better shot at the same age. But Crosby had him beat in 2 areas that are key to a successful transition to the NHL.

McDavid gets pushed around very easily relative to 87, and has not exhibited that generational "nose for the net" that we saw with Sid. He'll still be a top liner as a rookie, but I wouldn't expect him to break 80 points.

I think this is spot on. McDavid might be more skilled than Crosby, but Sid's ability to grind and make plays in tight spaces is the perfect skillset for the modern day NHL. Connor will probably have a more difficult transition as he learns to deal with the size and speed of NHL defenders.

 

[daver]

How would comparing McDavid with the much more impressive list take a shine off of his season?

Cause you can't be serious if you think the list with Stamkos, Tavares and Hall isn't the better of the two lists there.

Only JT and Stamkos are in the class of the players of the other list, Hall maybe. And as others have pointed out, no reason why Drouin and Kane should not be included.

Scoring levels are also relevant.

The point was McDavid is not as far away from the pack as those numbers make it out to be.

 

[RoyalGremlin]

I wish we could get highlights for every point.

 

[Hale The Villain]

This talk of translating to the NHL should begin and end with his skating ability.

Look at the numbers speedsters like MacKinnon and Duchene put up in junior versus what they have been doing in the NHL. McDavid has elite skating ability just like these two, but much more pure skill. He'll translate just fine.

 

[Bill Waters*]

Will he look better in the Leafs blue or the Leafs white? Should I make a poll?

 

[Topgoon]

I think this is spot on. McDavid might be more skilled than Crosby, but Sid's ability to grind and make plays in tight spaces is the perfect skillset for the modern day NHL. Connor will probably have a more difficult transition as he learns to deal with the size and speed of NHL defenders.

I too don't expect him to adapt as well as Crosby did for the exact same reason (despite the fact that I also think he is more skilled). Unless you have a great supporting cast, winning puck battles to generate offense is essential... and 1st overall draft eligible teams don't usually land on teams with great supporting cast.

Also, McDavid really, really seems to rely on one signature move to generate offense - his drive wide to the net and pass or wrap around play might not translate well against faster, smarter NHL defensemen.

Lastly, if McDavid has a good shot that can actually threaten NHL goaltenders more than 5 feet away from the net, I've never seen him use it.

With that said though, there's a good reason why he's statistically dominating the OHL. He's shown the potential to be a fantastic hockey player. But just like how it took till his 3rd OHL season to really dominate, I expect he'll need a bit more adjustment time in the NHL to reach his full potential (when compared to instant 18 year old hits like Kane and Crosby).

 

[1972]

He had 1.78PPG in his second year and had something like a 20 game point streak his rookie year, he has basically dominated his entire OHL career.

 

[sabrebuild]

He had 1.78PPG in his second year and had something like a 20 game point streak his rookie year, he has basically dominated his entire OHL career.

I think he was comparing McDavid to Crosby in reference to domination taking a bit. Crosby didn't get to the Q early like McDavid, but in his first year he was over 2 pts a game. A moderately bigger production level than McDavid in his 16-17 year old season.

 

[EON]

Interesting stat.

Last season Connor Brown set the Otters franchise scoring record with 128 points. Despite McDavid missing 20 games he could still possibly break it. If he ups his current PPG pace from 2.57 to 2.7 by the end of the year, he'd break the record.

Of course, Strome might beat him to it.