How much of prospects busting is "their fault"?

[Svencouver]

With Kaapo Kakko, a former 2nd overall that has failed to meet expectations despite glimpses of the skill and smarts he was drafted for, being traded and a general negativity swirling around the Rangers (a team that seemingly struggles more than average with developing prospects and young players) in recent weeks, I've got to thinking about the magical "what ifs" of what prospects *could* have been in different circumstances.

It's incredibly hard to become an impact player in the NHL, and there are, seemingly, any number of reasons why a prospect might end up busting. Development may be affected in surprisingly significant ways by things as seemingly small and invisible to fans as how good your linemates are in the AHL, or what opportunities you're given when called up, or whether or not you get PP time, or how sporadic or consistent your ice time is, or what practices your team runs, or how buried you are on the depth chart, or what kind of system your coach is running and how suitable you are for it. Would an Olli Juolevi that failed to develop in Vancouver succeed if he were drafted by someone else? Would someone like Brayden Point who blossomed in Tampa Bay flounder if he were drafted one or two spots earlier? We all imagined that New York was set once they drafted Lafreniere and Kakko first and second overall: were they really just never all that talented after all, or were there systematic failures in how the Rangers introduced them into the league that stunted their ability to succeed?

The importance of all of this is underlined by players that end up "breaking out" somewhere else; while on the other hand, some players seem to have no more success when shopped around than they did on the team they already busted on to begin with (but maybe at that point the damage is already done - and failures to develop at critical developmental points cripple you as a player for good). A player like Nail Yakupov never had any success anywhere else, even after he had left the black hole of the pre-McDavid Oilers, but the pariah of the hour, Buffalo, is notorious for players developing into elite talent after they've moved on somewhere else.

This is all, ultimately, rooted in the ephemeral concepts of "talent" and "learning," which are both extremely complicated and abstract topics that hardly anyone really understands. I've always imagined that anyone who ends up drafted in the first round has plenty of talent to spare and is receptive to teaching and learning new things - so why do so many of them struggle to keep improving once they're in the NHL? Are scouts really just failing to properly assess a players ability - or lack thereof - to learn new skills and develop further in the NHL? What are teams that successfully develop talent, like Tampa Bay, doing that teams that seem to struggle, like NYR, aren't? How much is busting a psychological process, where losing all of the confidence you had in junior cripples your ability to both play at peak performance and your ability to be passionate for the game? Do we place too much blame on individual players for failing to meet expectations, or are there real failures on their part to meet the expectations of the team that drafted them? Are there any prospects that you really believed in and think could have succeeded if a few things here and there were different?

Click to read more...

 

[SEALBound]

It's certainly not one or the other for most. I think it's combination of a lot of things.

There's always been a debate of "nature vs nurture" when it comes to those who succeed and those who don't. Some guys just don't have it and some get jacked around by their organization. I don't think there's an exact answer and it's unique for each player.

For Kakko, I think it's more along the lines of "he's a 3rd line level player and that's tough for people to accept because he was draft 2nd overall". No one would think twice about this if was draft in the 2nd round. Sometimes draft years are weak.

 

[LeonDraisaitl]

It all depends on the prospect and the situation

 

[Horvat1C]

I think Lafreniere and Kakko were both sabotagedby New York. Around the same time Vancouver had 3 straight Calder trophy finalists (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes) and I'm confident that if either was drafted by Vancouver their careers would've gone differently.

 

[Sol]

I think it varies. Some prospects play too little and some prospects play too much. The issue with Byfield has been while he’s been very mediocre, he hasn’t been given a green light to go screw up. He’s been unlucky with that. But also, the times where he does play you rarely notice him doing anything important.

 

[TheNumber4]

Have questioned this many times of the years. But i lean towards it’s MOSTLY on the prospect. And failures in development are often overrated.

 

[eojsmada]

Some prospects dominate lower levels because they physically matured faster than their peers. Once their peers reach an equilibrium, physically, then the once-thought-of domination is no longer the case and the player is simply who they always were. In the recent memory, Jordan Greenway falls into this category, and it appears Owen Power may be headed this way as well.

Generally speaking, from having played sports professionally, the commitment level needed is something that not all prospects are willing to buy into. It was okay when they were in junior or college, but at the highest levels it's a whole different level of emotional and physical commitment.

It's only human nature to see people basically "nope" out of constantly playing injured or having to endure a training regiment that lasts almost year round with a great deal of self-sacrifice. It's a choice that a player has to make and sometimes they choose not to make it.

 

[Breakers]

nHL prospects want that first rookie deal to get those $95k signing bonuses.

You can give them to them in the CHL and not worry

But rushing prospects in the NCAA realm has turned out bad consistently for prospects

Sakic even acknowledged this. If you rush a prospect he could potentially have 4 or 5 coaches in 3 years time.
You need the same voice for a couple seasons in a row so they know what to do and work

You have to keep their confiedence so high when developing them and don’t rush them.

 

[JackSlater]

Case by case basis, and even then it's still just guessing to some degree. Some prospects were not as good as people believed or didn't have much room for improvement, some were wrecked by injuries, some hindered their own development, and some had their development hindered by the team that drafted them.

 

[Voight]

For some of these guys they were always just so much better than everybody else and when they get to the NHL they dont put the required work in because they never really had to.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Impossible to say. Players only get one shot at a career. There is no way to ever know how someone might have done in a different environment.

 

[HisNoodliness]

I think it depends on the player and the circumstances. Mike Babcock absolutely destroyed the self confidence of a number of Detroit Red Wings prospects that I think otherwise would have been decent NHL players. Tomas Jurco and Jakub Kindl immediately jump to mind as players that got worse the more coaching that they received. You could see them grow afraid of the puck. Furthermore by stressing a defense first style for Brendan Smith, he robbed him of what made his game effective as a fast river boat gambler type.

Alternatively you can look at Braden Point in Tampa. He was a small guy that couldn't skate that well and so despite having great hands, vision and shot, he fell in the draft. The Lightning brought in a renowned skating coach, Barb Underhill, she turned him into a speedster and now he's a star player.

Would those guys Babcock ruined have made it elsewhere? I honestly think they may have. Similarly I think Point would have never reached these heights outside Tampa. You can't be sure, but you can point to clear causes and effects from the development strategy taken.

Then there are guys like Zadina. We all like someone that's cocky in hockey. You need to have an irrational belief in yourself if you're going to make it as an NHL player. But his arrogance makes him entitled, and he lacks the resiliency to overcome adversity. That doesn't work. No matter how much talent you have, when you're like that, you're going to shoot yourself in the foot. Under the perfect circumstances could you have saved him? Maybe, but it would require an incredible development path and life coach.

Then there's guys like Martin St Louis. No one wanted him. No one tried to develop him. He worked his ass off until he got a chance and ran with it. Those kinds of guys make it almost no matter what.

The majority of NHL players fall in the middle of these extremes. You could ruin them or elevate them if you do something unconventional and personalized with their development. Ultimately I think that the vast majority of development paths give you a very similar final product. The best teams are turning a couple of their 40 point prospects into 50 point players. The worst are turning a couple of their 40 point prospects into 30 point drop outs.

 

[SensontheRush]

Some guys succeed no matter what, most others need a good environment to truly develop.

Simple as that.

 

[McGarnagle]

Really talented and motivated prospects can overcome shortcomings in an organization's player development program

Excellent player development staff/culture can overcome a prospect's limitations

Most cases are somewhere in between the two.

 

[JoVel]

Depends. The biggest talents will prevail no matter what imo. But for a lot players, the organization drafting you can literally make or break your career. Do you guys think it's just a coincidence that players keep leaving the Buffalo Sabres and they become completely different players?

 

[Akrapovince]

Someone give me an example of a prospect that busted on a team that wouldn’t have busted on another.

Boucher would have busted anywhere else, but I always wonder if Yakupov could have carved himself a second line power play career. 30 goal, 20 assist kind of guy if he was deployed better.

 

[badfish]

Hard to say. I know in my experience, I know two athletes who were olympic-qualifier level. They had invested in the best coaching, training, diet, etc. that money and sponsorship could reasonably buy, and lived a life 100% dedicated and focused on qualifying, and still fell just barely short. Sometimes in life you can do everything right and still not "win" and I have to imagine that same thing applies to NHL prospects.

 

[HockeyVirus]

Part identifying and developing skills, part keeping confidence high during this process, part having a player who will listen and put in the work.

 

[Neil Racki]

42

Dont overthink it

 

[Mrfenn92]

Combination of everything

 

[Dickie Dunn]

I think there is a pressure to being over-drafted that plays a role. A player knows down deep who they are and what they are prepared for.

I’d guess 25% organization, 75% player if I had to guess.

 

[FlyguyOX]

Usually a female is also at fault.

 

[Crow]

Nature va Nurture argument fundamentally. No one ever wins or can dissect how much of each is worth.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I generally think that players are going to be what they're going to be, unless a team egregiously gets in their way. Teams can maybe "develop" a player into a little better (B+ player instead of a B) but it's not like a C player in Minnesota would've been an A player in Tampa Bay, or wherever.

 

[Golden_Jet]

It’s hard to predict with teenagers.
I’ll say 39%.