F Igor Chernyshov - MHK Dynamo Moscow, MHL (2024, 33rd, SJS)

[Kshahdoo]

Using two 5’9” players as examples.

And?

 

[Kshahdoo]

Using two 5’9” players as examples.

So you want someone bigger? No problems:

Yevgeni Svechnikov - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Yevgeni Svechnikov, 1996-10-31 Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, RUS Russia. Most recently in the KHL with Torpedo Nizhny Novgorod. Complete player biography and stats.

www.eliteprospects.com

Andrey Kuzmenko - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Andrey Kuzmenko, 1996-02-04 Yakutsk, RUS Russia. Most recently in the NHL with Calgary Flames. Complete player biography and stats.

www.eliteprospects.com

 

[Bizz]

If Chernyshov turns into a Kuzmenko I'd be thrilled with that.

 

[Juxtaposer]

And?

And, don’t you think that being 5’9” has something to do with them not making it?

Besides, I like Gushchin a lot and definitely think that if he were 6’0” he would easily be an NHLer. He’s really good, it’s just going to be hard for him to find a role at his size. It’s only his lack of physical tools holding him back, which is nothing to do with his development path.

So you want someone bigger? No problems:

Yevgeni Svechnikov - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Yevgeni Svechnikov, 1996-10-31 Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, RUS Russia. Most recently in the KHL with Torpedo Nizhny Novgorod. Complete player biography and stats.

www.eliteprospects.com

Andrey Kuzmenko - Stats, Contract, Salary & More

Eliteprospects.com hockey player profile of Andrey Kuzmenko, 1996-02-04 Yakutsk, RUS Russia. Most recently in the NHL with Calgary Flames. Complete player biography and stats.

www.eliteprospects.com

Kuzmenko literally played in Russia exclusively until he was 25????

And using E. Svechnikov as an example when injuries played a part and his younger brother also played in NA pre-draft and turned out well doesn’t exactly support your point.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Using two 5’9” players as examples.

I'm not saying the general argument that NA development is bad for Russians, is right. Or that ever using a sample size of 2 proves anything.

But I will, say, that I do think using these 2 specific players MAY be informative to a more general discussion (though, I still don't put a lot of weight in looking at any 2 players and makin some pronouncement).

I think these 2 are a bit interesting precisely because they are undersized. Let's face it, there's a Canadian/USA bias against smaller players and a desire for larger players. There is (especially Canadian) also a bias for a certain brand of structured, meat and potatoes hockey.

W/ this in mind, you can understand that maybe a smaller skilled Russian SHOULD come over and play in a lower league early to acclimate himself to those styles. However, he might not get the right kind of coaching or nurturing here. The head coach of the Saskatoon Blades(random team) ain't going to care about what's best for a Russian prospect who may be with his team 1 year, 2 at most. If the kid doesn't back check and dump it in when told, then he's not going to play. Perhaps staying in Russia to just become the best version of himself would be better.

Now in this case, there is a difference in these 2 prospects that is also a factor. Marat was drafted as a more 200' player, with a tenacious style and good defense. So it makes sense that he more easily adapted, and it might not just be "NA development is bad for Russians".

 

[Zine]

Chernyshov can learn the NA game anytime.
But he has only a small window of opportunity to develop his skill-set, which is much harder to do when you have every change in the book thrown at you at once.

It's no different than a 19 year old American dropped in the middle of, say, Chelyabinsk. That kids gonna have a lot of issues to contend with too...., even if he has a good support system.

Can he develop properly in NA? Sure. But its such an unnecessary risk to take.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

If Chernyshov turns into a Kuzmenko I'd be thrilled with that.

The point is he probably won’t because he took a much harder path to have success from, and that’s before you even get to whether he has what it takes in other regards.

 

[coooldude]

One of my favorites from this class. Of course I’m going only off YouTube clips and scouting reports. I don’t blame the Sharks for (possibly) facilitating an early departure to NA, but I think one more year in the KHL would’ve been best for his development

Possibly. Let's dive into all these arguments.

Mind my own business?

Your post was naive, and I'm allowed to say so.

If you want to put your fingers over your ears and ignore all logic, none of us can stop you, but that doesn't mean others can't opine on it if you are going to broadcast this logical insanity to all of us.

Ah, I'm naive for saying I don't agree with you! Of course. Or wait, is it that I'm ignoring "all logic"? and I'm "logically insane?" Perhaps we should just check the tape and dive into your word salad.

I see you are trying to make this overly philosophical.

To me, I'll make it much simpler. This guy wasn't viewed as a first rounder. He clearly isn't good enough to be the exception.

Yet to engage your philosophical take, of course there are going to be exceptions to most trends. Yet, the trends are there for a reason. It's because there's something to them. It becomes a real uphill battle for these players to go against them (stupidly they think they will and almost all fail).

I get the "well, we can't prove what the reason is, so maybe it's more bogus than it sounds" instinct, but I think that's wishful thinking. Statistically, the numbers are very, very bad. I'll go with that. I'm not going to bet on anyone who isn't absolutely elite to break the trend.

As for my own opinion on what it may be, I think the way they teach forwards over in Russia is different from North America. It's more finesse hockey, more truly tiki-taka (to use a footballing term). It's an east to west game. A different mentality how they teach the game in North America. And let's face it, almost all these highly regarded Russian forwards over the years are skill guys. If they were gritty two-way centers, they might fit in with the concepts a little better they encounter in NA. Part of why I think it's different for defensemen. A defenseman, whether offensive in nature or not, has to play to certain minimum concepts of North-American type hockey to be in any way adequate at defending (you can't be dangling by two players in front of your own net, for instance).

If you change the methods these Russian forwards train with and give them the training of Mitch Marner or Patrick Kane, the same "individual skill" commonality probably isn't enough. Hockey isn't all about how purely skilled and smart you are. The training you put into the sport over the years makes a big difference. Marner or Kane might have the same gifts for the skill and smarts components, but they've learned that in an environment where they have to work that into a NA game that blends different style concepts. If you come from an environment where you didn't have to figure out how to mesh, it might be difficult later on to do so. As you get older, it becomes more difficult to learn habits. They become more engrained.

I tend to think there's also a curve to this. If you experience this in your formative years, you probably have an easier time just naturally adapting. When you are doing this at 16, 17, 18, 19, you think you literally know everything. These are the years that males think they are god. Earlier than that they aren't formed enough to have that attitude and later than that they tend to mature and even if they have difficult habits to break, they are generally more mature people and can manage these difficult habits a little more wisely.

None of this is to say that North American hockey doesn't have skill guys or skill to it, but the game is taught differently. It's very hard to experience all the shifts you mention and then also learn to fit into quite literal foreign concepts of how to play the game. The Russian forwards who have those hardened concepts and come over later seem to have more success. Majority of them never break those core concepts they learned. They are just literally more naturally gifted than those that bust and have wised up through aging to understand how to manage their differences with that of those that were taught in NA.

1. "This guy wasn't viewed as a first rounder." EP = 19OA ("EP is a joke"). Wheeler mocks him to 24 and ranks him 23 ("Wheeler is a joke"), Pronman mocks/ranks him 27/18 ("Pronman is a joke"), Chris Peters ranks him 19 and mocks him out of the first round, Bob McKenzie ranks him 21 on his final ranking. Caser made a joke earlier in the thread about his sunburn hurting his first round chances.

So who, exactly, didn't view him as a first rounder? Where's the irrefutable logic in your first claim about the player?

2. "Statistically the numbers are very, very bad." Can you prove this central claim? You have the opinion that "there is a trend and it's there for a reason" but can you actually statistically, convincingly show that russians picked in the late 1st-3rd rounds who go to NA "too early" (however you can cleanly define this) make NHL careers at lower rates than, say, EU or NA skaters? Can you show games played, points scored, is worse, or maybe you're just seeing results that fit your narrative? Maybe the n is too low to actually get into statistics rather than just anecdotal examples of some russians that stayed in the KHL longer and others that didn't, which isn't actually statistical evidence but is instead tea leaf reading? I have seen no statistics. I have seen a lot of anecdotes and incomplete lists.

3. Now onto your philosophical musings. Eloquent as always! But lacking in meaning and coherency as about half your posts do (it's baffling, because the other half seem to make a lot of sense often).

You basically say that Russian hockey is a skill game, "tiki taka", "east to west." And that this kind of style doesn't fit with NA hockey, which is more direct. OK. Then you say that the only players who can succeed are skill players, and that the only way their skill can shine through is if they hone it in a different league first and then come over. If you boil this down, you're basically saying, "only the most skilled Russians can play a NA game." Charitably, you would say, "Chernyshov has the chance to be a most skilled Russian, but only if you keep him in Russia so he can really hone that skill."

Great, then in the next paragraph about Patrick Kane and Mitch Marner learning a more rounded playstyle, you essentially say that in your formative years, if you don't learn how to play in a different playstyle, it'll be really hard to learn that new playstyle. So you're basically contradicting your whole point. "As you get older, it becomes more difficult to learn habits. They become more engrained." In which case, you're essentially saying, "only the most skilled Russians can play in the NHL, and everyone else will fail, so the only and best way to develop as a Russian is to stay in Russia and try to become a player who will be so skilled that this skill will overcome their inability to mesh into a North American play style." This is the best most charitable interpretation I can find here, and it seems incredibly cynical, counterintuitive to how human and hockey growth happens, and rooted in little data.

For example -- Chernyshov is not a typical "skill Russian winger" - in fact, he's got a big body, was praised for being fairly direct as a player. Here's a pretty funny thing for you from the EP guide -- his NHL comp was - gasp! - Pavel Buchnevich - you will surely use this anecdote to argue he should stay in the KHL for 3 years. But it doesn't actually support your "skills development versus NA playstyle development" concept. Anyway, EP summarizes Chernyshov as "A hardworking power forward who excels at creating chances off the rush and dominates when play becomes physical." Sounds pretty counter to your "skill only" claim, and sounds like a NA style profile. To your point about learning as early as possible, wouldn't it be better to get over to the systems and playstyles that are more like what you want to go professional in - the NHL - and get to learning the language and the systems? Seems like you already made this argument for Igor!

Oh, and as for me "educating myself as to the very clear and logical discussion being had," here's Kshahdoo responding to my initial dismissiveness by saying it's not about development at all, but actually about how much money he's going to make.

It's not about to bust or not to bust, it's about chosing CHL money over KHL's. I assure you, the difference is pretty big.

But then he goes on to debate the development point in later posts. You guys can't keep your story straight, so please don't lecture me about logic. And it always seems to happen on the Russian player threads...

I will say again -- I don't buy any of this "Russians who go to NA too early are dooming themselves to bust" BS. Maybe he busts, but it might just be because he's not NHL caliber, and until I see stats that support the claim that Russians coming to NA bust out more than their expected draft position performance. I won't believe it's because he came to NA too early.

 

[Finster8]

Saginaw has all that will help Chernyshov develop into the NA game. He would get massive quality TOI with Misa, Parekh and Willis. That’s a team that has all the tools with the players mentioned and others a very good HC + GM. He is young, let him show what he can do with kids older and younger that usually is on average making up 25% of the NHL lineup. Hoping he can develop right on schedule with guys as good or better or worse.
Parekh was a 9th OA and Misa will be an automatic 1st next years draft in his 3rd season. IMO an automatic fit.

 

[Bizz]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1819116347076292911

 

[Kingpin794]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1819116347076292911

Get ready to learn euchre

 

[Zine]

2. "Statistically the numbers are very, very bad." Can you prove this central claim? You have the opinion that "there is a trend and it's there for a reason" but can you actually statistically, convincingly show that russians picked in the late 1st-3rd rounds who go to NA "too early" (however you can cleanly define this) make NHL careers at lower rates than, say, EU or NA skaters? Can you show games played, points scored, is worse, or maybe you're just seeing results that fit your narrative? Maybe the n is too low to actually get into statistics rather than just anecdotal examples of some russians that stayed in the KHL longer and others that didn't, which isn't actually statistical evidence but is instead tea leaf reading? I have seen no statistics. I have seen a lot of anecdotes and incomplete lists.

The IIHF actually conducted a deep study on the subject. The numbers concluded there was no statistical benefit from leaving early to play in North America. This was in regards to all Europeans... not just Russians.
IIRC, the numbers actually showed a net negative. The 'it helps to adjust to the North American game early' mantra wasn't backed up by numbers.

The study was done like 15 years ago though. I can try an find it when I have the time.

 

[hohosaregood]

Going back through the last dozen drafts, it doesn't really seem like there's a particularly strong argument for KHL developed vs NA developed players at the moment. I think the last top 6 F/top 4 D players to be drafted from Russia and developed there for multiple D+ years are Kaprizov and Gavrikov in 2015 and Nichushkin and Buchnevich in 2013. There's a few more recent ones that have some top 6/top 4 potential like Romanov, Voronkov, and Chinakhov but they're more likely to settle in as middle 6 guys.

There's a bunch of potential top 6/top 4 guys from the last couple drafts like Simashev, Yurov, and But who are still in the KHL. And there's Michkov and Demidov who are kinda arguable since they'll probably be in the NHL as teens.

 

[coooldude]

The IIHF actually conducted a deep study on the subject. The numbers concluded there was no statistical benefit from leaving early to play in North America. This was in regards to all Europeans... not just Russians.
IIRC, the numbers actually showed a net negative. The 'it helps to adjust to the North American game early' mantra wasn't backed up by numbers.

The study was done like 15 years ago though. I can try an find it when I have the time.

Great! I'd love to see it. I'm currently spending time that I shouldn't be, pulling draft history for Russians from NHL.com thru pick 100, step 2 would be to pull their career GP and points, step 3 compare that to expected games played based on draft position (there are a few curves that have been made public lately). I don't really have time for this, so if someone has a study that's already done, that would actually move us forward instead of going around in circles on theory.

That said, this study being 15 years old definitely weakens the argument.

If there's no benefit, and/or the net negative is not very big and basically noise, then it's hard to criticize a single player, because each player's specific circumstances will almost certainly outweigh whatever impact a zero-to-slightly-negative impact factor has on their development. If instead the impact is fairly strong, and we can somehow verify that for the past 15 years also, then there's an argument for any EU/RU player to stay in their home country for a few more years to stay stable in their "goldilocks" developmental years. But even then, to argue it's predictive is silly.

EDIT: here's the study

 

[Hanji]

A cursory look at first round forwards the past fifteen years.

Played in the CHL
Namestnikov
Burmistrov
Yakupov
Grigorenko
Scherbak
Goldobin
E. Svechnikov
Rubtsov
A. Svechnikov
Gridin

Non CHL players
Tarasenko
Kuznetsov
Nichushkin
Gurianov
Kostin
Kravtsov
Denisenko
Podkolzin
Amirov
Chinakhov
Svechkov
Miroshnichenko
Yurov
Michkov
But
Demidov
Surin

Draw your own conclusions

 

[coooldude]

A cursory look at first round forwards the past fifteen years.

Played in the CHL
Namestnikov
Burmistrov
Yakupov
Grigorenko
Scherbak
Goldobin
E. Svechnikov
Rubtsov
A. Svechnikov
Gridin

Non CHL players
Tarasenko
Kuznetsov
Nichushkin
Gurianov
Kostin
Kravtsov
Denisenko
Podkolzin
Amirov
Chinakhov
Svechkov
Miroshnichenko
Yurov
Michkov
But
Demidov
Surin

Draw your own conclusions

Draw your own conclusions = it doesn't work that way. (and I'm reading the aforementioned study -- it's more of an advocacy paper, not really a study).

The paper's main point is this: "If a player is good enough to play in the NHL, he will reach the NHL regardless of what route he chooses." And the point of the paper is to try to keep more players at home because it's obvious that at the time they were worried about talent drain to the CHL/AHL/NHL.

The paper is mainly debunking that there is any predictive power to toiling in the CHL/AHL. The paper does not prove with any numbers that "staying home is better for your chances" because it doesn't include the portion of players who stayed home and never made it across the Atlantic. And its biggest argument for keeping players home is "fewer games and more practice is better for development, versus too many games played in the CHL."

Taking the paper's "debunking" and Chernyshov directly, you could say this:

• If he's going to make the NHL, we'll see him in the CHL for no more than one season, but potentially in the AHL right away. Note that Saginaw has his rights but the Sharks signed him and maybe he makes AHL out of camp.
• If he's in the CHL for more than one season, he's probably not going to make the NHL and it probably wouldn't have happened if he had stayed home (although maybe there's a chance!)
• If he's not going to be a regular in the NHL, then playing in the CHL/AHL will at least give the Sharks a talent to play in on farm team. Gotta have bodies. This is of course maybe not the best for the player or for the player's home country but it benefits the NHL club. If he had taken the other route, then he would have kept playing KHL and likely never made it to the NHL that way either. Good for KHL to have another player, but nobody else cares.

tl;dr until we update that study, do it the right way, and prove that going to CHL/AHL is clearly worse for development than staying in an EU league/KHL

 

[Kshahdoo]

Draw your own conclusions = it doesn't work that way. (and I'm reading the aforementioned study -- it's more of an advocacy paper, not really a study).

The paper's main point is this: "If a player is good enough to play in the NHL, he will reach the NHL regardless of what route he chooses." And the point of the paper is to try to keep more players at home because it's obvious that at the time they were worried about talent drain to the CHL/AHL/NHL.

The paper is mainly debunking that there is any predictive power to toiling in the CHL/AHL. The paper does not prove with any numbers that "staying home is better for your chances" because it doesn't include the portion of players who stayed home and never made it across the Atlantic. And its biggest argument for keeping players home is "fewer games and more practice is better for development, versus too many games played in the CHL."

Taking the paper's "debunking" and Chernyshov directly, you could say this:

• If he's going to make the NHL, we'll see him in the CHL for no more than one season, but potentially in the AHL right away. Note that Saginaw has his rights but the Sharks signed him and maybe he makes AHL out of camp.
• If he's in the CHL for more than one season, he's probably not going to make the NHL and it probably wouldn't have happened if he had stayed home (although maybe there's a chance!)
• If he's not going to be a regular in the NHL, then playing in the CHL/AHL will at least give the Sharks a talent to play in on farm team. Gotta have bodies. This is of course maybe not the best for the player or for the player's home country but it benefits the NHL club. If he had taken the other route, then he would have kept playing KHL and likely never made it to the NHL that way either. Good for KHL to have another player, but nobody else cares.

tl;dr until we update that study, do it the right way, and prove that going to CHL/AHL is clearly worse for development than staying in an EU league/KHL

So both lists haven't impressed you at all?

 

[Hanji]

Draw your own conclusions = it doesn't work that way. (and I'm reading the aforementioned study -- it's more of an advocacy paper, not really a study).

The paper's main point is this: "If a player is good enough to play in the NHL, he will reach the NHL regardless of what route he chooses." And the point of the paper is to try to keep more players at home because it's obvious that at the time they were worried about talent drain to the CHL/AHL/NHL.

The paper is mainly debunking that there is any predictive power to toiling in the CHL/AHL. The paper does not prove with any numbers that "staying home is better for your chances" because it doesn't include the portion of players who stayed home and never made it across the Atlantic. And its biggest argument for keeping players home is "fewer games and more practice is better for development, versus too many games played in the CHL."

Taking the paper's "debunking" and Chernyshov directly, you could say this:

• If he's going to make the NHL, we'll see him in the CHL for no more than one season, but potentially in the AHL right away. Note that Saginaw has his rights but the Sharks signed him and maybe he makes AHL out of camp.
• If he's in the CHL for more than one season, he's probably not going to make the NHL and it probably wouldn't have happened if he had stayed home (although maybe there's a chance!)
• If he's not going to be a regular in the NHL, then playing in the CHL/AHL will at least give the Sharks a talent to play in on farm team. Gotta have bodies. This is of course maybe not the best for the player or for the player's home country but it benefits the NHL club. If he had taken the other route, then he would have kept playing KHL and likely never made it to the NHL that way either. Good for KHL to have another player, but nobody else cares.

tl;dr until we update that study, do it the right way, and prove that going to CHL/AHL is clearly worse for development than staying in an EU league/KHL

What does some paper have to do with what I posted?

 

[coooldude]

What does some paper have to do with what I posted?

What does what you posted have to do with trying to answer the question in the right way?

the question: does it matter for development whether a player from Russia (or EU even) goes to North America or stays in their home league?

You posted a list of 27 players split into CHL and non CHL. So what? Here are some reasons why one list might be better than another

• Small sample size -- 27 players is hardly enough to draw definitive conclusions
• Selection bias / "if they're good they'll make it" - maybe the good players don't need the CHL, so the players going to the CHL weren't likely to be as successful to begin with. Maybe it wasn't a decision to go to the CHL but an outcome that happened because they didn't make the AHL/NHL team. Therefore going to the CHL is not influencing any outcome
• Error/hiding the ball - some of your players who didn't go to the CHL DID go to the AHL (e.g. Kostin). So maybe it does, maybe it doesn't help to come to NA.

Maybe leaving home and coming to NA is bad for development -- no, your 27 player list, nor the IIHF advocacy paper, answer that question.

I mean, what do you think your list did?

So both lists haven't impressed you at all?

What lists? the paper and the list this guy posted? No, I don't think they prove anything.

 

[Mattb124]

Probably 3 times (at least) more tax free...

In the grand scheme of potential career NHL earnings, that difference is not material. The kid is smart to follow what he believes is the optimal development path to maximize his NHL opportunity - not make an extra few hundred K right now.

 

[Kingpin794]

 

[Hanji]

What does what you posted have to do with trying to answer the question in the right way?

the question: does it matter for development whether a player from Russia (or EU even) goes to North America or stays in their home league?

You posted a list of 27 players split into CHL and non CHL. So what? Here are some reasons why one list might be better than another

• Small sample size -- 27 players is hardly enough to draw definitive conclusions
• Selection bias / "if they're good they'll make it" - maybe the good players don't need the CHL, so the players going to the CHL weren't likely to be as successful to begin with. Maybe it wasn't a decision to go to the CHL but an outcome that happened because they didn't make the AHL/NHL team. Therefore going to the CHL is not influencing any outcome
• Error/hiding the ball - some of your players who didn't go to the CHL DID go to the AHL (e.g. Kostin). So maybe it does, maybe it doesn't help to come to NA.

Maybe leaving home and coming to NA is bad for development -- no, your 27 player list, nor the IIHF advocacy paper, answer that question.

I mean, what do you think your list did?


What lists? the paper and the list this guy posted? No, I don't think they prove anything.

Why so defensive? I simply posted a list of first round picks as a starting point. It clearly shows the CHL is bust central. Now perhaps you can dive into why that is? Or maybe that paper already properly describes why.

 

[Mattb124]

I see you are trying to make this overly philosophical.

To me, I'll make it much simpler. This guy wasn't viewed as a first rounder. He clearly isn't good enough to be the exception.

The guy that was pretty universally held to be a mid-teens to mid-twenties pick and we deemed to have fallen to the first draft slot outside the first round wasn’t viewed as a first rounder? I am used to seeing the passage of more than a couple of months before that sort or revisionist history bubbles to the surface.

 

[Bizz]

forget the CHL, I'm hoping he makes a statement in training camp and lands a top 6 role on the Sharks right away. Right now Kostin projects to be our 2nd line LW until Couture returns and he really isn't that exciting of a player.

 

[Juxtaposer]

forget the CHL, I'm hoping he makes a statement in training camp and lands a top 6 role on the Sharks right away. Right now Kostin projects to be our 2nd line LW until Couture returns and he really isn't that exciting of a player.

A bit ironic to bring up Kostin here when he strongly supports the “pro-Russian development” point of view being debated here.

In seriousness, Kostin is quite good when he wants to be. If he always gave 100% effort I would be excited about him.