Aerrol
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
- Sep 18, 2014
- 6,555
- 3,208
Its war and peace, my lord. almost impossible to wade through all that. The difficulty is when one goes into the degree of minutiae you did there its beyond discussion and starts to resemble legal articling One would have to be intimately familiar with every argument, and sub argument referred to to even follow along.
That said there is a particular distortion contained in your Book of Puljujarvi, and its comparison bias. That the comparisons picked are of course arbitrary, but not exactly random, because the comparisons picked are largely successful NHL players that are being, for some reason, equated to Puljujarvi. Theres a lot longer lists of players who struggled to produce in first few years that simply vanished from the NHL landscape. That would be much more the normal curve distribution Pulju is on. The Wheeler prognosis would be outlier projection at this point. One of the few that would have struggled early and then succeeded greatly.
My own take is that Pulju may go on to pound out 40pt seasons and 20 goal seasons but right now its hard to see more than that in terms of what he has actually brought.
The reality is that the argument people are bestowing on Pulju, that he could be a wheeler, could be made in relation to any struggling player. So that a Spooner could be X great player, Rattie could be an undeveloped 60pt player etc.
Its pie in the sky comparison. Its simple distortion hand selecting the players you WANT to compare to Pulju and has no relation to Pulju, or HIS actual development.
The point of the comparisons at the outset was that there are multiple examples of bigger wingers taking longer to figure it out, and so there's still room to be hopeful about the player. To pull a quote out of my novel for you, these are my own rough estimates for likely outcomes:
"As for likelihood of development, I do think it’s in the very unlikely category that Puljujarvi develops into a star. I’d say if I were to estimate right now, I’d put it at 10% chance of total back-to-Europe bust ala Yakupov, 40% chance of turning into a Paajarvi type player, 30% chance of becoming a valuable but ultimately disappointing 3rd line checking winger, and 20% chance of turning into a legitimate top-6 forward."
edit: And the Rattie example shows you're missing the central point - Pulju is still young. Rattie is significantly further along in his NHL career and is unlikely to keep growing at this point. Pulju is still much earlier on. Time will tell where he ends up.
Last edited: