C Quinton Byfield (2020, 2nd, LAK) part IV

[ORRFForever]

yup. The big kid with the Sabres says hi

??? Who do you mean? ???

 

[displacedsabre]

??? Who do you mean? ???

Tage Thompson

 

[ORRFForever]

Tags Thompson

Fair enough.

 

[Bank Shot]

Most people that post here dont understand development. Big players take longer.

I wonder if there is actually any truth to that old adage?

Some big players show up right away, like Anze Kopitar. Some smaller players take years to break out like Martin St.Louis.

Some players just never find another step, like Jordan Staal who just stayed at the same level for his whole career.

Be interesting if anyone has done the stats on whether big players actually take longer to reach their peak.

 

[bert]

I wonder if there is actually any truth to that old adage?

Some big players show up right away, like Anze Kopitar. Some smaller players take years to break out like Martin St.Louis.

Some players just never find another step, like Jordan Staal who just stayed at the same level for his whole career.

Be interesting if anyone has done the stats on whether big players actually take longer to reach their peak.

Nick Paul, Tage Thomson, Joe Thornton, Shane Doan, Tom Wilson, Dustin Penner, Mark Stone, Jerome Iginla, Chris Pronger, Victor Hedman, Todd Bertuzzi, it's not a hard concept to understand when you're bigger coordination comes later. Even Spezza took longer than expected because he needed to get faster.

Byfield is literally still a teenager. Even guys like Getzlaf and Perry were 21 before they were impact guys. Give him 2 years. He will close the gap on his draft pretty quick between 21 and 23. By 24/25 he should be dominant. Where guys like Stutzle, Raymond etc likely peak at 22/23, Byfields peak will be years later.

 

[Bank Shot]

Nick Paul, Tage Thomson, Joe Thornton, Shane Doan, Tom Wilson, Dustin Penner, Mark Stone, Jerome Iginla, Chris Pronger, Victor Hedman, Todd Bertuzzi, it's not a hard concept to understand when you're bigger coordination comes later. Even Spezza took longer than expected because he needed to get faster.

Yeah I get the idea behind why people say big guys take longer, but I would like to see actual hard data rather than just anecdotal evidence.

You can create a list of big players that had immediate impacts and small players that were late bloomers so anecdotal evidence isn't very reliable IMO.

 

[Bank Shot]

......

 

[bert]

Yeah I get the idea behind why people say big guys take longer, but I would like to see actual hard data rather than just anecdotal evidence.

You can create a list of big players that had immediate impacts and small players that were late bloomers so anecdotal evidence isn't very reliable IMO.

Naming a large group of players that took longer to develop into stars isnt evidence?

Go for it then show your work.

I've been watching hockey for a long time, this isn't something that's changed. Human physiology hasnt either. I have no dog in this fight there is no bias here.

On the other hand there is definitely an HF bias against size and physicality because it doesn't look as good on a spread sheet and only one team gets to win the cup each year. It's usually a heavier team so most of the narratives and arguments on here for ones favorite team get crushed. Which typically results in posters digging their heals in even more.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Surprised no post after Byfield got 2 assists last night. Apparently had one of his best games according to the LA Kings GDT.

Personally i prefer not to get too excited after a couple of assists and to keep relaxed after some bad games.

Its okay he was visible.

 

[57special]

Nick Paul, Tage Thomson, Joe Thornton, Shane Doan, Tom Wilson, Dustin Penner, Mark Stone, Jerome Iginla, Chris Pronger, Victor Hedman, Todd Bertuzzi, it's not a hard concept to understand when you're bigger coordination comes later. Even Spezza took longer than expected because he needed to get faster.

Byfield is literally still a teenager. Even guys like Getzlaf and Perry were 21 before they were impact guys. Give him 2 years. He will close the gap on his draft pretty quick between 21 and 23. By 24/25 he should be dominant. Where guys like Stutzle, Raymond etc likely peak at 22/23, Byfields peak will be years later.

Burns, though Lemaire confused him by asking that he play defense.

 

[Schmooley]

Personally i prefer not to get too excited after a couple of assists and to keep relaxed after some bad games.

Its okay he was visible.

Hes really raw still so its not as much about the points. For the first time he went a full 60 minutes two games in a row where he imposed himself on both ends of the ice. He got the best of Zegras multiple times and I think we can all agree Zegras is the best young forward in the game right now. Byfield belongs. This kid has all the tools. Size speed and skill.
It depends on how hard he works and how bad he wants it. He can be an absolute force like Mackinnon or he could be a faster but softer Brian Boyle.
If I had to bet on it Id say he puts it all together at 21 years old and becomes a top player in the league by 23 years old.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

Burns, though Lemaire confused him by asking that he play defense.

He is still confused til this day.

 

[Romang67]

Naming a large group of players that took longer to develop into stars isnt evidence?

Go for it then show your work.

I've been watching hockey for a long time, this isn't something that's changed. Human physiology hasnt either. I have no dog in this fight there is no bias here.

On the other hand there is definitely an HF bias against size and physicality because it doesn't look as good on a spread sheet and only one team gets to win the cup each year. It's usually a heavier team so most of the narratives and arguments on here for ones favorite team get crushed. Which typically results in posters digging their heals in even more.

Naming 11 players over a span of almost 30 years isn't exactly rock solid evidence, no. Especially when the list includes players like Penner who had a career best year of just over 60 points and basically was out of the league at 30, and Iginla who was 6'1.

 

[bert]

Naming 11 players over a span of almost 30 years isn't exactly rock solid evidence, no. Especially when the list includes players like Penner who had a career best year of just over 60 points and basically was out of the league at 30, and Iginla who was 6'1.

Off the top of my head those were the first that came to mind. There are plenty more. If you dissagree enough to post do you have any evidence that its incorrect and that bigger players don't take longer?

 

[Romang67]

Off the top of my head those were the first that came to mind. There are plenty more. If you dissagree enough to post do you have any evidence that its incorrect and that bigger players don't take longer?

Do you mean evidence as in can I list 11 large players who didn't develop into good players? Or who step on the ice and immediately contribute?

Or an actual study that shows your assertion to be incorrect? Because if that's your ask, I'd say the burden of proof falls on you. I don't know if your claim is true, but I do know that a short list of players doesn't actually convince me that it's true.

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

watched him in person a couple weeks back when LA was in town. Physical skills are evident. Big guy with some good hand who can skate. In his draft year I was lower on him than most (he was 6th on my board). I think he's going to be a great top-6 center, but I don't know that I see him developing into the elite point producer a lot of people thought he'd be.

 

[Osprey]

Naming a large group of players that took longer to develop into stars isnt evidence?

That list of players satisfies your conclusion, but isn't necessarily evidence of it.

We can make an equally long list of taller players who didn't take long to develop: Ovechkin, Malkin, E. Staal, J. Staal, Pietrangelo, B. Tkachuk, Laine, Rantanen, Barkov, Trouba, Lindholm, E. Johnson, Kopitar.

We wouldn't conclude from that list that taller players contribute almost immediately, so we shouldn't conclude from the other list that taller players take longer to develop.

 

[bert]

That list of players satisfies your conclusion, but isn't necessarily evidence of it.

We can make an equally long list of taller players who didn't take long to develop: Ovechkin, Malkin, E. Staal, J. Staal, Pietrangelo, B. Tkachuk, Laine, Rantanen, Barkov, Trouba, Lindholm, E. Johnson, Kopitar.

We wouldn't conclude from that list that taller players contribute almost immediately, so we shouldn't conclude from the other list that taller players take longer to develop.

You are correct its not an exact science but more often then not big players have longer development curves. Just because they came in and were good players doesnt mean it didnt take them longer to reach their peak. For example Brady Tkachuk: he has developed by leaps and bounds since entering the league. Getting to see it first hand its like night and day and he is still not close to his peak. He was very sloppy when he first came in, much slower he fell alot etc. Malkin didnt start playing in the NHL until he was 21... Ovechkin the same thing. Pietrangelo didnt become an NHL player until his D + 3 season. Barkov didnt start breaking out until his D + 3 season and we are seeing him peak now in his late 20's. Rantanen broke out in his 22 year old year D + 3.

If anything your list has helped strengthen my argument....

Laine was immediate, Eric Johnson D +2, was Eric and Jordan Staal were good right away yup. But overall my point remains its a longer curve even if they start out strong.

 

[bsu]

He seems to play his best games vs Anaheim

Everyone plays their best games vs Anaheim. Sad.

 

[Osprey]

You are correct its not an exact science but more often then not big players have longer development curves. Just because they came in and were good players doesnt mean it didnt take them longer to reach their peak. For example Brady Tkachuk: he has developed by leaps and bounds since entering the league. Getting to see it first hand its like night and day and he is still not close to his peak. He was very sloppy when he first came in, much slower he fell alot etc. Malkin didnt start playing in the NHL until he was 21... Ovechkin the same thing. Pietrangelo didnt become an NHL player until his D + 3 season. Barkov didnt start breaking out until his D + 3 season and we are seeing him peak now in his late 20's. Rantanen broke out in his 22 year old year D + 3.

If anything your list has helped strengthen my argument....

Laine was immediate, Eric Johnson D +2, was Eric and Jordan Staal were good right away yup. But overall my point remains its a longer curve even if they start out strong.

At 19 (the age that Byfield is now), Brady Tkachuk had 22 goals, Barkov had 16 and Rantanen was over a PPG in the AHL.

At 20 (the age that Byfield will be next year), Tkachuk had 21 goals, Barkov had 28, Rantanen had 20, Malkin had 33 and Ovechkin had 52.

The first two were well ahead of Byfield at the same age, the third was arguably ahead and it's safe to guess that Byfield won't be an over-PPG player in the NHL next year like the last two were. Also, the fact that several of them didn't become star players until they were 21/22 (the same age or even younger than the more average sized players that you mentioned, like Stutzle) doesn't strengthen your argument, especially when you acknowledged that Byfield won't become dominant, himself, until he's 24/25. That suggests that he's developing more slowly than those players, which was the point of the list.

 

[steepdrop]

Scandemic Dude

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That list of players satisfies your conclusion, but isn't necessarily evidence of it.

We can make an equally long list of taller players who didn't take long to develop: Ovechkin, Malkin, E. Staal, J. Staal, Pietrangelo, B. Tkachuk, Laine, Rantanen, Barkov, Trouba, Lindholm, E. Johnson, Kopitar.

We wouldn't conclude from that list that taller players contribute almost immediately, so we shouldn't conclude from the other list that taller players take longer to develop.

I think we can leave out the generational talents in Ovechkin and Malkin.

E. Staal put up a modest 31 points at 19 in the NHL--Byfield isn't THAT far off at a 21 point pace and heating up. He then spent the lockout year in the AHL and blew up, as many others in that legendary draft class did, at 21. Most Blues fans will agree that Pietro took a bit to get going, he did next to nothing until age 21 and then really took over at 22-24. Brady tkachuk came out throwing but I'd argue he took it to another level this year at age 22 but has another gear left in him, story's not written yet there. Laine's an interesting one, I think he's an exception in some ways because he doesn't care to round out his all around game, he's a pure shooter that hasn't really developed anything beyond that. Rantanen did next to nothing at 19, went half a PPG at 20 and then really emerged at 21, but he's found another gear again in his mid-20s. @bert covered Barkov, he was going big in his early 20s but he's nuclear in his mid 20s after medicre 19 and 20 year old seasons. I dont' know enough about Trouba's emergence to comment. Assuming you're mentioning Hampus Lindholm--and I'm not sure there's a comparison to be made with the d-men anyway--he really jumped in at 20-21. Ej about the same, 21, 22. Kopitar, of course we're intimately familiar with, was able to score right away, but he absolutely found another gear at 22 and with Terry Murray's development.

I'm sorry but if these are 'counter' examples they're not great ones. The generational talents are just that so of course they burst right in, but the other ones 'contributing' immediately might be generous, and besides that we're not just talking about adjusting and merely playing, but reaching the levels they're capable of. It seems like they start doing stuff at 20-21 like other prospects, really emerge at 22-23, and completely take over at 24+.

That being said I do think Byfield is about a year behind a lot of those guys 1. because he's so raw anyway and 2. the combo of pandemic and broken ankle years sure didn't help, not like E staal's and the other 2003s years in the ahl did anyway.

In the end until someone really grinds out a spreadsheet with the stats this is all just going to be a hypothesis that seems to hold pretty strongly and every time in the past someone has come up with 'counterexamples' they've generally only helped the illustration, so I'm all for keeping it going haha.

 

[Osprey]

I think we can leave out the generational talents in Ovechkin and Malkin.

E. Staal put up a modest 31 points at 19 in the NHL--Byfield isn't THAT far off at a 21 point pace and heating up. He then spent the lockout year in the AHL and blew up, as many others in that legendary draft class did, at 21. Most Blues fans will agree that Pietro took a bit to get going, he did next to nothing until age 21 and then really took over at 22-24. Brady tkachuk came out throwing but I'd argue he took it to another level this year at age 22 but has another gear left in him, story's not written yet there. Laine's an interesting one, I think he's an exception in some ways because he doesn't care to round out his all around game, he's a pure shooter that hasn't really developed anything beyond that. Rantanen did next to nothing at 19, went half a PPG at 20 and then really emerged at 21, but he's found another gear again in his mid-20s. @bert covered Barkov, he was going big in his early 20s but he's nuclear in his mid 20s after medicre 19 and 20 year old seasons. I dont' know enough about Trouba's emergence to comment. Assuming you're mentioning Hampus Lindholm--and I'm not sure there's a comparison to be made with the d-men anyway--he really jumped in at 20-21. Ej about the same, 21, 22. Kopitar, of course we're intimately familiar with, was able to score right away, but he absolutely found another gear at 22 and with Terry Murray's development.

I'm sorry but if these are 'counter' examples they're not great ones. The generational talents are just that so of course they burst right in, but the other ones 'contributing' immediately might be generous, and besides that we're not just talking about adjusting and merely playing, but reaching the levels they're capable of. It seems like they start doing stuff at 20-21 like other prospects, really emerge at 22-23, and completely take over at 24+.

That being said I do think Byfield is about a year behind a lot of those guys 1. because he's so raw anyway and 2. the combo of pandemic and broken ankle years sure didn't help, not like E staal's and the other 2003s years in the ahl did anyway.

In the end until someone really grinds out a spreadsheet with the stats this is all just going to be a hypothesis that seems to hold pretty strongly and every time in the past someone has come up with 'counterexamples' they've generally only helped the illustration, so I'm all for keeping it going haha.

I addressed a lot of that in my follow-up reply to him. Even though most of them didn't really emerge until they were 21/22, that's still a lot earlier than the mid-20s that we seem to all think that it'll take Byfield until. As for the "generational" talents, how we label players isn't reason to conveniently leave them out of the conversation.

Also, his argument was that a list of a dozen tall players who developed slowly is evidence that tall players develop slowly in general. One can pick at his examples, too. Before you say that my counter examples aren't great ones, did you scrutinize his? Nick Paul is having a career year with only 31pts. Tom Wilson is having a career year with only 52pts. Dustin Penner scored more than 47pts only once. Shane Doan and Jerome Iginla are 6'1" and shouldn't even be used as examples of tall players. Todd Bertuzzi had 18 goals as a 20yo rookie. Joe Thornton had 41pts at 19yo and 60pts at 20yo. In fact, I shouldn't added him to my list. If those are some of the best examples of tall players who developed slowly, are many great counter examples of tall players who developed quickly even needed?

We can be optimistic for Byfield without believing that it's normal for big players to take as long as we expect him to take. We all knew that he was a project when he was drafted and would take 5+ years to develop, much longer than your average top-2 pick. In contrast, we didn't hear that about Owen Power this past draft, even though he's an inch taller.

 

[Bank Shot]

You are correct its not an exact science but more often then not big players have longer development curves. Just because they came in and were good players doesnt mean it didnt take them longer to reach their peak. For example Brady Tkachuk: he has developed by leaps and bounds since entering the league. Getting to see it first hand its like night and day and he is still not close to his peak. He was very sloppy when he first came in, much slower he fell alot etc. Malkin didnt start playing in the NHL until he was 21... Ovechkin the same thing. Pietrangelo didnt become an NHL player until his D + 3 season. Barkov didnt start breaking out until his D + 3 season and we are seeing him peak now in his late 20's. Rantanen broke out in his 22 year old year D + 3.

If anything your list has helped strengthen my argument....

Laine was immediate, Eric Johnson D +2, was Eric and Jordan Staal were good right away yup. But overall my point remains its a longer curve even if they start out strong.

That's true for many players though.

Gaudreau put up his first monster season at 25.
Marchand didn't break a point per game until he was 28.
Marchessault scored his first 50 point season at 25.
Kucherov didn't have a monster season until 24.
Kevin Fiala is having his first huge season this year. 25.
Zucarello first good season at 26.

And those guys are all small.

I could make a huge list of small, medium, and large players that took at least 4-5 seasons to find their game.

I should probably just stop as this is kind of derailing the thread and there is no reason to believe Byfield won't break out, but I'm not convinced size has anything to do with it.

 

[Docgonzo]

At 19 (the age that Byfield is now), Brady Tkachuk had 22 goals, Barkov had 16 and Rantanen was over a PPG in the AHL.

At 20 (the age that Byfield will be next year), Tkachuk had 21 goals, Barkov had 28, Rantanen had 20, Malkin had 33 and Ovechkin had 52.

The first two were well ahead of Byfield at the same age, the third was arguably ahead and it's safe to guess that Byfield won't be an over-PPG player in the NHL next year like the last two were. Also, the fact that several of them didn't become star players until they were 21/22 (the same age or even younger than the more average sized players that you mentioned, like Stutzle) doesn't strengthen your argument, especially when you acknowledged that Byfield won't become dominant, himself, until he's 24/25. That suggests that he's developing more slowly than those players, which was the point of the list.

Byfield definitely has some growing to do but just comparing stats to other players at the same age is a bit deceiving.

Brady Tkachuk in his 19 year old year had 16:01 ATOI with a total of 153 PP minutes.

Barkov had 17:06 ATOI and 147 PP minutes.

Byfield has 12:04 ATOI and 18 PP minutes.

One could argue that if Byfield played more than 3rd-4th line minutes and got PP time he could possibly put up more points.

Kaliyev is getting around the same ATOI but he’s at 151 TOI on the PP.