LW Kristian Vesalainen (2017, 24th, WPG)
- Thread starter JJTT
- Start date
Speaking of full seasons, that is how much Pettersson is ahead of Vesalainen in development in comparison to Vesalainen. It would be alarming if he was not better.
Numminen
Registered User
- Aug 23, 2012
- 54
- 2
Fun to see the swedes down playing and they are over hyping their own prospects as always
Vesalainen was never given a fair chance in the season
Maybe. Still, he has some real weaknesses. His hockey IQ seems very low at moments and he does very bad decisions on the ice. Keeping the puck too long, shooting puck to first defender or miles away from the net, even hitting the net seems hard for him when it matters the most.
But he's pretty good skater and can keeps the puck nicely, he just needs a tad of killer instict.
Last edited:
Asiantuntija
C.Ronaldo > L.Messi
- Nov 4, 2016
- 2,211
- 376
What are those thinks that make Pettersson better than Vesalainen? If we take a look at their production, we can't say anything, because we don't have any data. It's totally different scenario to score on second highest division, that doesn't tell anything, level of defense is much worse. I think Vesalainen could also go point per game at Mestis.
Asiantuntija
C.Ronaldo > L.Messi
- Nov 4, 2016
- 2,211
- 376
He is a power forward. He doesn't need to have high vision as Laine. He is just a kid so we shouldn't expect him to play with monster IQ. I don't think there is any problems with his hockey IQ, everyone makes mistakes once in a while. And by the way he does way more good thinks than bad thinks on the ice. Ehlers from Winnipeg Jets does these same mistakes so much, but he is still one our best players.
Asiantuntija
C.Ronaldo > L.Messi
- Nov 4, 2016
- 2,211
- 376
That doesn't tell anything. He said himself that they didn't give a **** about him in Frölunda and didn't even talk to him. It's pretty hard to play if coach doesn't give any kind of orders. And by the way, Vesalainen has much harder competition in U-18 WC than J18 Frölunda.
Fun to see the swedes down playing and they are over hyping their own prospects as always
Vesalainen was never given a fair chance in the season
I see good size, quite ok skill level, good hockey IQ, good speed. Good everything. But I dont see the high end skill level and IQ, that would take him to the absolute top in NHL. Physical tools are there, but that will even out in NHL. Still worth of 1st round pick, and his upside is a solid 1st line winger. But I see him more of a 2nd-3rd liner, with good all around game. Just a solid player.
HockeyHistorian
Registered User
- Mar 17, 2015
- 1,563
- 1,451
I partly agree.
However, I don't think we should just accept Vesalainen's take on how Frölunda treated him as a concrete fact, but we cannot deny that that is how Vesalainen felt he was treated. I suspect that the guys in Frölunda organization would tell a rather different tale. Nonetheless, If Vesalainen really did feel like he wasn't appreciated, it's pretty likely that he wasn't giving his best performance.
However, that leads us to the questions of Vesalainen's character:
Is it OK to not give your best if you feel you are not appreciated? Or is Vesalainen so reliant on his coach's advice that without it he simply disappears (against relatively weak opposition in the J18 playoffs)?
If he really was treated poorly by the Frölunda organization, I think it's understandable that he wasn't at his best. However, it's just as likely that he was treated like any other player and that he is just exaggerating how poorly he was treated. If that is true he sounds like a bit of a diva and I would steer clear of him if I was the one making the picks in June.
That right there is pretty much why the teams always interview the draftees.
Anyway, to sum up, the difference between the J18 and U18 performances could tell us plenty if we had only a little more information. One thing is for sure; we shouldn't just accept whatever anyone says about how they were treated as fact if we don't have any evidence.
Hockeyisl1fe
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2016
- 2,368
- 793
And now he is able to produce in the u18 wjc. Your logic is that Swedish u18 league is better? Okay.
He is just lucky now. 1p in HPK, was that frölundas fault also? Sounds like a diva to me.
kelsier
Registered User
- Aug 17, 2013
- 4,280
- 1,741
Exactly. "Couldn't even produce in U18 Swedish league", while being arguably the best forward in the U18 WC. Doesn't add up. Either Swedish U18 is by far the best U18 league in the world. So good that even the best of the rest can't bare it there, or that we're missing pieces of the puzzle. If the first statement was true, the Swedes should pretty much be handed out the gold medal on the silver plate, without breaking a sweat.
I always wondered why would a Finnish youngster go develop elsewhere in the Europe. Especially when the Swedes have nothing to gain (nation-wise) if they succeeded in the player breeding. While if he'd have stayed in Finland, being treated as one of the top prospects of his age class, I think almost any team would do their utmost to give him every chance to succeed. Of course this doesn't apply for someone like Lehkonen who was already a ready player when he changed the scenery. Could serve as a great lesson for the future and younger generations.
Numminen
Registered User
- Aug 23, 2012
- 54
- 2
He was OK in HPK, just couldn't produce in points. I wouldn't take comments about Frölunda so seriously and call him a diva, he's a young player in a foreign country, maybe it just wasn't the place for him. We will see how he manages in mens games next season.
Last edited:
If you insist...
You really can't make this stuff up. I didn't edit a thing, didn't change a thing, those two sentences are really right after reach other. "He did poorly in a tournament series, let's draw conclusions!" followed immediately by "you can't evaluate one tournament over a full season's body of work!" Not to even begin on what a shaky hockey argument that is due to recency weighting, the irony of the way this post is structured is beyond me. I can't tell if you were trying to contradict yourself for irony but
Then because you truly hate small sample sizes, we get one anecdotal example of a player who was successful in the WJC-18 and didn't not either boost his stock or pan out. Nevermind all the people who have been successful in the WJC and gone on to be successful later. Don't bother with a thorough statistical analysis of how top scoring prospects have fared, no, an anecdote is a large enough body of evidence. We have an anecdote here, that is unbeatable.
The last comment was about Finland overvaluing prospects, but the last argument made (and I quote) "One full season >>> short tournament". So when others use a tournament to make a claim it is illegitimate, but when you use one series in a tournament to make an argument it's totally effective. There's no hypocrisy in this.
because small sample sizes (if even anecdotes, defined as a small sample size of one) are totally ok when I use them and bad bad bad when other people use them.
So please decide. Is it only ok to evaluate his performance based on holistic season analysis of his scoring that aggregates all the different levels and venues he scored at compared to his peers or are we allowed to trade arbitrary anecdotes and share small sample sizes and call them valid arguments?
You really can't make this stuff up. I didn't edit a thing, didn't change a thing, those two sentences are really right after reach other. "He did poorly in a tournament series, let's draw conclusions!" followed immediately by "you can't evaluate one tournament over a full season's body of work!" Not to even begin on what a shaky hockey argument that is due to recency weighting, the irony of the way this post is structured is beyond me. I can't tell if you were trying to contradict yourself for irony but
Then because you truly hate small sample sizes, we get one anecdotal example of a player who was successful in the WJC-18 and didn't not either boost his stock or pan out. Nevermind all the people who have been successful in the WJC and gone on to be successful later. Don't bother with a thorough statistical analysis of how top scoring prospects have fared, no, an anecdote is a large enough body of evidence. We have an anecdote here, that is unbeatable.
Wait what? I thought just in your very last post single anecdotes and short tournament series were enough for evidence? Now that's no longer the case. Now we are taking into account his entire season's body of work, from his points in the SHL, Liiga scoring, CHL scoring, WJC scoring, we're being holistic in our evaluation now right? Got it, I'll remember that.
Now let's generalize potentially a few posters to a nation...there could be nothing inaccurate or insulting about that.
What?
The last comment was about Finland overvaluing prospects, but the last argument made (and I quote) "One full season >>> short tournament". So when others use a tournament to make a claim it is illegitimate, but when you use one series in a tournament to make an argument it's totally effective. There's no hypocrisy in this. More anecdotes
because small sample sizes (if even anecdotes, defined as a small sample size of one) are totally ok when I use them and bad bad bad when other people use them.This is from the same poster who said "You cant just put one tournament over a full season", the same poster who said "One full season >>> short tournament".
Mhm, he's lucky that he got the puck to bounce into the net 13 times in 5 games, but there's absolutely no way luck was involved in any prior tournament series...it's just not possible.
So please decide. Is it only ok to evaluate his performance based on holistic season analysis of his scoring that aggregates all the different levels and venues he scored at compared to his peers or are we allowed to trade arbitrary anecdotes and share small sample sizes and call them valid arguments?
Hockeyisl1fe
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2016
- 2,368
- 793
Diva? I can tell you he is anything but a diva. He's been described as a maniac when it comes to his offseason training... I believe there are another reasons this season has been supbar for him (low confidence and unhappy about his treatment/playtime). You can see how well he can play under right circumstances (under a coach that trusts him for example). His points are certainly not lucky this tournament, I can assure you that... should have an assist last game too, but his teammate shot wide what basically was an empty netter.
Kaako Kappo
Kaako Kappo
Hockeyisl1fe
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2016
- 2,368
- 793
I wondered during the season what the **** was Frölunda doing with him... in men's games he was healthy scratched or played minimal minutes. Then he was sent to juniors... I bet he lost all the confidence after that and wasn't even 100% dedicated to play against inferior players. It's totally reasonable to expect his low production considering all the things Frölunda ****ed up with his development. Now people are surprised to see that a top 15-10 prospect before the season is actually capable of producing under a good coach and right circumstances. Some posters here are right about small sample sizes: usually they shouldn't be taken into big consideration. In Vesalainen's case I think it should be the opposite however. I bet with his current level of play he would have dominated u20 superelit.
Last edited:
If you insist...
You really can't make this stuff up. I didn't edit a thing, didn't change a thing, those two sentences are really right after reach other. "He did poorly in a tournament series, let's draw conclusions!" followed immediately by "you can't evaluate one tournament over a full season's body of work!" Not to even begin on what a shaky hockey argument that is due to recency weighting, the irony of the way this post is structured is beyond me. I can't tell if you were trying to contradict yourself for irony but
Then because you truly hate small sample sizes, we get one anecdotal example of a player who was successful in the WJC-18 and didn't not either boost his stock or pan out. Nevermind all the people who have been successful in the WJC and gone on to be successful later. Don't bother with a thorough statistical analysis of how top scoring prospects have fared, no, an anecdote is a large enough body of evidence. We have an anecdote here, that is unbeatable.
Wait what? I thought just in your very last post single anecdotes and short tournament series were enough for evidence? Now that's no longer the case. Now we are taking into account his entire season's body of work, from his points in the SHL, Liiga scoring, CHL scoring, WJC scoring, we're being holistic in our evaluation now right? Got it, I'll remember that.
Now let's generalize potentially a few posters to a nation...there could be nothing inaccurate or insulting about that.
What?
More anecdotes
This is from the same poster who said "You cant just put one tournament over a full season", the same poster who said "One full season >>> short tournament".
Mhm, he's lucky that he got the puck to bounce into the net 13 times in 5 games, but there's absolutely no way luck was involved in any prior tournament series...it's just not possible.
So please decide. Is it only ok to evaluate his performance based on holistic season analysis of his scoring that aggregates all the different levels and venues he scored at compared to his peers or are we allowed to trade arbitrary anecdotes and share small sample sizes and call them valid arguments?
You guys overvalue u18 tournament. I cant believe some scouts put wo much stock in it over a regular season.
Under a good coach? Are you serious. Roger ronnberg is tye best coach in sweden for prospects.
I have at no point given an evaluation of him based on the U18 tournament. I merely pointed out the blatant double standard you're setting, that when other people use small sample sizes that is impermissible but your even smaller sample sizes, even anecdotes, are valid.
Hockeyisl1fe
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2016
- 2,368
- 793
Yeah whatever. Vesalainen himself said that the coach didn't talk to him at all... he might be a fantastic coach for prospects, but for Vesalainen he certainly wasn't. Might not have liked him for some reason, but a prospect like Vesalainen needs proper minutes to be able to get out 100% of him. If I remember correctly, he was one of the best players for Frölunda in preseason.
Hockeyisl1fe
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2016
- 2,368
- 793
Those are not excuses... low confidence = low production. He was almost ppg in Superelit a season ago. You can see yourself what he is capable of do under a coach that trusts him and let him play in a big role. "The way they treated me made no sense at all. They didn't care about me and no one talked to me" was his own words according to a Finnish news outlet.
