Toggle sidebar

Is AHL scoring/production overrated?

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
LAKings88

LAKings88

Formerly KOTR
Dec 4, 2006
14,075
6,392
Blackhole
Just a thought. Watching the youth (not so much the current crop but going going back a bit too) break into the NHL and not be able to duplicate scoring feats makes me wonder how much stock you can put into AHL numbers. I know there are other factors like role and ice time too. Tynan’s couple of games up actually got me thinking about this more. MVP AHLer but he looked pedestrian in the NHL. Amazed by the skill difference in the two leagues. I guess you still want that production from prospects and progression at every level but it doesn’t always seem like a good indicator for NHL success.
Click to read more...
 
Last edited:
Of course it is. It's a less organized league in terms of defense and systems. Same with the QMJHL. Laperriere put up 140pts one junior year, then broke 30pts in the NHL once.

The AHL is more about the play. The strength. Giving your body a couple extra days to fill out. It's more about can you physically compete. Can you take and give a hit. Can you make the right choice under pressure. I guess that's somewhat mental and emotional too. You'd rather see the pts scored than not, but yeah, guys like Tynan and Frk, they're tremendous AHL scorers, but not quite good enough for the next level for whatever reason. LaBarbera was an AHL MVP, but we know what he was in the NHL.

If Frk could score 40g in the NHL, he'd be there. Somewhere. With the Kings or elsewhere. But nobody sees it coming. Or else he'd have been given more chances by the time he's 28. No team is good enough that they would let a potential 40g guy twist in the wind. Especially a cheap one. For a game here and there though, Frk can do something for you.

It's a developmental league. It's not about winning. They have a championship and all that, but the AHL is about seeing if young guys can physically compete against men, regardless of the numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAKings88
I don’t even really care about vet scorers. I guess you want to see your top prospects putting up points. Spence has been great and is the only dman on the top rookie scoring list. I’m interested to see how that production translates. But yeah his usage will be different.

If a guy can’t produce on any level in the AHL I guess that is very bad sign. Inflated numbers for good players on bad team is also a thing too I guess. Shore and Amadio come to mind.
 
Last edited:
LAKings88 said:
Just a thought. Watching the youth (not so much the current crop but going going back a bit too) break into the NHL and not be able to duplicate scoring feats makes me wonder how much stock you can put into AHL numbers. I know there are other factors like role and ice time too. Tynan’s couple of games up actually got me thinking about this more. MVP AHLer but he looked pedestrian in the NHL. Amazed by the skill difference in the two leagues. I guess you still want that production from prospects and progression at every level but it doesn’t always seem like a good indicator for NHL success.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's overrated. Because quality NHL players DO produce in the AHL. It just gets misused as a predictor for NHL success.

The league is a developmental league, meaning there are many players trying to find their place in professional hockey. As such, there are mental, positional, and other lapses where you can't reliably predict that transition to the NHL.

Production in the AHL is still meaningful. It separates you from the rest of the league. And the rate/variety you can expose those lapses contributes to establishing a modicum of success in the NHL, where those lapses are often narrower in scope or frequency.

For example, the Kings had Jordan Weal in their system for many years. Skilled, decent skater. Small. From the juniors through minors, he would engage with the players by trying to check, but bounced off of them. The only way he would recover a puck from the opposition is if he snuck from behind and picked their pocket. He led the championship Monarchs in scoring. Yet his career high was 21 points in a season. No variety to his game with a niche skillset.

On the other hand, Derek Armstrong was much more successful in the AHL and NHL despite being less skilled with fundamentals. However, he had multiple ways to separate the player from the puck. He read his options better.

So yeah, on its own, AHL production without context or observation is useless. It has meaning though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingsfan, Raccoon Jesus, LAKings88 and 2 others
Patrick O'Sullivan always comes to mind. He was a great producer in the AHL. 93 points, 47 goals in the AHL as a 20 year old rookie.

It's not just because the AHL is a "developmental league". There's guys who can score in the KHL but can't in the NHL.

We've seen plenty of players who can score in every league except the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingsfan and LAKings88
LAKings88 said:
Just a thought. Watching the youth (not so much the current crop but going going back a bit too) break into the NHL and not be able to duplicate scoring feats makes me wonder how much stock you can put into AHL numbers. I know there are other factors like role and ice time too. Tynan’s couple of games up actually got me thinking about this more. MVP AHLer but he looked pedestrian in the NHL. Amazed by the skill difference in the two leagues. I guess you still want that production from prospects and progression at every level but it doesn’t always seem like a good indicator for NHL success.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.

Two words for confirmation: FRK and JAD
 
LAKings88 said:
Can you clarify a bit Jesse? As in production isn’t the end all be all in assessing value?
Click to expand...
Not to answer for him by any means, but my take is that there are two separate things going on - the game and the statistical analysis of elements of the sport in our never-ending collective game/bitch fest of "who is better".

The game itself is largely based on a teams ability to build, sustain and recover momentum. Goals scored against the run of play are fairly rare, so players whose main contribution is in consistently changing the tone of the game in their team's favor but don't happen to often be one of the last two people to touch the puck before it defects off a defenseman's skate don't get the statistical notch despite being making the more important play.

I LOVE the FIFA scoring of assists, it must be a play made directly leading to a goal. Assists are rarer than goals. Not every goal gets one, and only one is given out - no innocuous little touches given statistical value. But each assist given IS a terrific indication of the quality of play.

Doing that in the NHL would dramatically reduce the stat totals, lessen the gap from top to bottom, and by and large only affect the discussion of the game, not the game itself. All anyone ever really argues about is "who is better at what" anyway.

And it would make the stats more indicative of the actual play and promote a better understanding of what really happens to win hockey games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAKings88
Depends on the circumstance. If you are a 20 year old rookie pro putting up a lot of points in the AHL in your D+3 it's pretty impressive and in many cases it means you will end up as an NHL'er, if you are 22 year olds Gabe and JAD in D+5 it's quite a bit less impressive and you are kind of on the fringe of NHL'er and AAAA'er and if you are Frk and Tynan it just means you are full fledged AAAA player and it really means nothing for the NHL team, in fact a case could be made that the presence of both has maybe taken away from the development of some players who could maybe contribute to the Kings down the road.

Most of the best scorers in the NHL never even play in the league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAKings88
Overrated? I don't think so, but it's age dependent. A good rule of thumb is if you are 23 or younger as a forward and putting up .50 PPG or higher (depending on your role on the team and how many years you have played pro hockey) you're likely going to get a shot at the NHL. It all depends on what you do with it at that point. Of course there are other factors like what else you can bring to a team, like physical play, high end skater and puck skills, face offs, hockey IQ, high end release, above average defender etc. When you have 27-30 year olds who have been long time pros that can't crack the NHL but are dominant AHL players, it throws off the skew. Pay attention to the young guys. Those young players that are close to a point per game are pretty much always a shoe in to produce at the next level in put in a position to succeed or at least carve out an NHL career. No rule is 100% of course, but it's a good rule of thumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus, lumbergh, Herby and 1 other person
The highest paid and highest drafted players are usually the ones who generate the most offense, with a few exceptions for those who are elite at suppressing offense. If offensive production is overrated most teams have been wrong in who they pay a lot to and draft high.

I think the grit and character guys are actually the ones overrated in importance while elite defensive stoppers like Slavin are underrated. Not saying grit and character aren't important to winning, but grit and character means nothing if you don't have players who can generate and suppress offense enough at a high level to put you in position to win games.
 
Herby said:
The highest paid and highest drafted players are usually the ones who generate the most offense, with a few exceptions for those who are elite at suppressing offense. If offensive production is overrated most teams have been wrong in who they pay a lot to and draft high.

I think the grit and character guys are actually the ones overrated in importance while elite defensive stoppers like Slavin are underrated. Not saying grit and character aren't important to winning, but grit and character means nothing if you don't have players who can generate and suppress offense enough at a high level to put you in position to win games.
Click to expand...
All components of a successful team are equally valuable.

Teams are teams. Not a collection of individuals.
 
All The Kings Men said:
All components of a successful team are equally valuable.

Teams are teams. Not a collection of individuals.
Click to expand...
Equally valuable by what objective measure? Certainly not salary. Maybe by sentimentality, if there was a way to measure that.

Point in fact, Marian Gaboriks goals were more valuable to the 2014 playoff game wins than Kyle Clifford’s grit during a regular season blowout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumpelstiltskin
DoktorJeep said:
Equally valuable by what objective measure? Certainly not salary. Maybe by sentimentality, if there was a way to measure that.

Point in fact, Marian Gaboriks goals were more valuable to the 2014 playoff game wins than Kyle Clifford’s grit during a regular season blowout.
Click to expand...
The engine in my car is more expensive and harder to build than my tires.

I'm not going anywhere without my tires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumpelstiltskin, DoktorJeep and King'sPawn
LAKings88 said:
Just a thought. Watching the youth (not so much the current crop but going going back a bit too) break into the NHL and not be able to duplicate scoring feats makes me wonder how much stock you can put into AHL numbers. I know there are other factors like role and ice time too. Tynan’s couple of games up actually got me thinking about this more. MVP AHLer but he looked pedestrian in the NHL. Amazed by the skill difference in the two leagues. I guess you still want that production from prospects and progression at every level but it doesn’t always seem like a good indicator for NHL success.
Click to expand...
For some guys -
Small guys without super skating.
Guys like Frk with heavy feet
It just doesn't translate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom