Toggle sidebar

LW Lawson Crouse - Kingston Frontenacs, OHL (2015 Draft)

  • Xenforo Cloud is doing server maintenance Thurdsay 13th at 9 AM GMT. Downtime is to be expected during the process. Server changes were implemented recently to cope with the traffic surge last week. This seems to be affecting the user login, so please anyone experiencing this, log out and clear the browser cache. We expect to have this issue solved once the maintenance is complete.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
I did some math, just to compare Crouse and Landeskogs pre-draft totals, to give a little insight into the affect of quality of team/linemates on production.

While this isn't an exact science, it does provide some food for thought:

In Landeskog's draft year, the Rangers scored 3.7 GPG. This year, Kingston is currently scoring at 2.86 GPG. (about 30% difference)

He was also playing with players like Akeson (108 pts), and Murphy (79 pts). Kingston's current scoring leaders are McEneny (37 Pts), Polesello (36 Pts), and Crouse (36 Pts).

As you can see, Landeskog had a whole lot more to work with.

If you subtract the % in difference from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG, and apply it to Landeskog's pre-draft totals, Landeskog would be a sub 60pt player.


If you take Crouse's current scoring pace (55pts/68 games), and add the difference in % from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG,and apply it to Crouse's pre-draft totals, Crouse is over a PPG.

Like I said, not an exact science, but I think it definitely has some merit, when you consider how Landeskog translated to the NHL.
 
benjiv1 said:
I did some math, just to compare Crouse and Landeskogs pre-draft totals, to give a little insight into the affect of quality of team/linemates on production.

While this isn't an exact science, it does provide some food for thought:

In Landeskog's draft year, the Rangers scored 3.7 GPG. This year, Kingston is currently scoring at 2.86 GPG. (about 30% difference)

He was also playing with players like Akeson (108 pts), and Murphy (79 pts). Kingston's current scoring leaders are McEneny (37 Pts), Polesello (36 Pts), and Crouse (36 Pts).

As you can see, Landeskog had a whole lot more to work with.

If you subtract the % in difference from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG, and apply it to Landeskog's pre-draft totals, Landeskog would be a sub 60pt player.


If you take Crouse's current scoring pace (55pts/68 games), and add the difference in % from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG,and apply it to Crouse's pre-draft totals, Crouse is over a PPG.

Like I said, not an exact science, but I think it definitely has some merit, when you consider how Landeskog translated to the NHL.
Click to expand...

Nice post man :thumbu:
 
benjiv1 said:
I did some math, just to compare Crouse and Landeskogs pre-draft totals, to give a little insight into the affect of quality of team/linemates on production.

While this isn't an exact science, it does provide some food for thought:

In Landeskog's draft year, the Rangers scored 3.7 GPG. This year, Kingston is currently scoring at 2.86 GPG. (about 30% difference)

He was also playing with players like Akeson (108 pts), and Murphy (79 pts). Kingston's current scoring leaders are McEneny (37 Pts), Polesello (36 Pts), and Crouse (36 Pts).

As you can see, Landeskog had a whole lot more to work with.

If you subtract the % in difference from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG, and apply it to Landeskog's pre-draft totals, Landeskog would be a sub 60pt player.


If you take Crouse's current scoring pace (55pts/68 games), and add the difference in % from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG,and apply it to Crouse's pre-draft totals, Crouse is over a PPG.

Like I said, not an exact science, but I think it definitely has some merit, when you consider how Landeskog translated to the NHL.
Click to expand...

Really good post.

Another factor in this comparison: Landeskog has a late November birthday. He was 18 almost his entire draft year.

Crouse won't turn 18 until his draft season is over. Very young for this draft.
 
We will see how his numbers change playing with Sam Bennett, I think this will have a major influence on his draft position. If he isn't slightly over a PPG with this kid then I really start doubting his ability to create offense.
 
Jason MacIsaac said:
We will see how his numbers change playing with Sam Bennett, I think this will have a major influence on his draft position. If he isn't slightly over a PPG with this kid then I really start doubting his ability to create offense.
Click to expand...

Good point, but you can be assured that the opposite perspective will be brought up if he does succeed. ie. Can't produce without Bennett.
 
Jason MacIsaac said:
We will see how his numbers change playing with Sam Bennett, I think this will have a major influence on his draft position. If he isn't slightly over a PPG with this kid then I really start doubting his ability to create offense.
Click to expand...

It's not a lock he'll play with Bennett. The coaching staff has gone back to the Crouse/Lammikko/McGlynn line in the past couple of games, which could mean Bennett will simply be inserted between Sam Schutt and Spencer Watson. The thinking being the Crouse/Lammikko/McGlynn line has shown some chemistry and could give Kingston a solid second line, with Bennett anchoring the top line. The alternative is stacking line one with Bennett, Crouse, and Watson, but that would leave Kingston as a one-line team.
 
Jason MacIsaac said:
We will see how his numbers change playing with Sam Bennett, I think this will have a major influence on his draft position. If he isn't slightly over a PPG with this kid then I really start doubting his ability to create offense.
Click to expand...

He's been playing PPG since he got back from World Juniors.
 
There's absolutely some merit to looking at how low scoring a team is when evaluating production, but at the same time, it is never a straight % in team production. It is probably more like half, because the player themselves have to take some accountability and with a low scoring team, the top line guys like Crouse gets tons of quality PP time and minutes. He might be 2nd line on another team with much less PP time. Seeing how Crouse performs with Bennett though, and keeping in mind his production at Hlinka, has already driven his draft stock well above where his production merits. Based on his production, he would be a late 1st rounder, and pretty much everyone - even scouts who don't see Crouse in the top 10 - see him as ranked higher than that.

The real thing to look at from my perspective would be if you were comparing a player who is clearly his team's best PPG player (which Crouse is close to, but not) and then comparing to another player who is perhaps 4th or 5th on a team's depth chart in scoring. Back '07, Sam Gagner was rated ahead of Logan Couture by everyone, because of his superior production for the most part. But Gagner was the third most productive guy on his LINE, and Couture was the top PPG guy for the 67's. Gagner was a better skater, but everything else about Couture's skill set was superior. That was a classic production comparison failure by scouts (although it wasn't a huge gap in the ranking).

Looking at a % of team's goals a player is part of though, is definitely a factor to consider, as long as you weight it alongside line mates and ice time.

While Landeskog's production was superior by a fairly wide margin, one could certainly argue the upside of Crouse offensively is in line with Landeskog. Although Landeskog brought better intangibles (not that Crouse's are bad).
 
benjiv1 said:
I did some math, just to compare Crouse and Landeskogs pre-draft totals, to give a little insight into the affect of quality of team/linemates on production.

While this isn't an exact science, it does provide some food for thought:

In Landeskog's draft year, the Rangers scored 3.7 GPG. This year, Kingston is currently scoring at 2.86 GPG. (about 30% difference)

He was also playing with players like Akeson (108 pts), and Murphy (79 pts). Kingston's current scoring leaders are McEneny (37 Pts), Polesello (36 Pts), and Crouse (36 Pts).

As you can see, Landeskog had a whole lot more to work with.

If you subtract the % in difference from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG, and apply it to Landeskog's pre-draft totals, Landeskog would be a sub 60pt player.


If you take Crouse's current scoring pace (55pts/68 games), and add the difference in % from Kingston and Kitchener's GPG,and apply it to Crouse's pre-draft totals, Crouse is over a PPG.

Like I said, not an exact science, but I think it definitely has some merit, when you consider how Landeskog translated to the NHL.
Click to expand...

Actually done a fair bit of research on this idea. As a general rule it's doesn't seem to pan out though.

It does seem to hold some truth when player is highest scorer on a team by a noticeable margin and to a certain or larger extent with assists and probably more so with secondary assists.

My best guess right now is that lack of quality help is offset by increase in quality offensive opportunities. In addition or maybe a better way to say this is quality of line mates trump overall quality of team. I don't have anything that nicely graphs this out to post sorry.
 
West said:
Actually done a fair bit of research on this idea. As a general rule it's doesn't seem to pan out though.

It does seem to hold some truth when player is highest scorer on a team by a noticeable margin and to a certain or larger extent with assists and probably more so with secondary assists.

My best guess right now is that lack of quality help is offset by increase in quality offensive opportunities. In addition or maybe a better way to say this is quality of line mates trump overall quality of team. I don't have anything that nicely graphs this out to post sorry.
Click to expand...

I agree for the most part, if you were comparing more than 2 players, and is the players had dissimilar usage.

I don't have any concrete evidence available, but from what I remember watching Landeskog, both him and Crouse were used similarly. ("Line 1", 1ST unit PP, and PK minutes)
 
Dr.Sens(e) said:
There's absolutely some merit to looking at how low scoring a team is when evaluating production, but at the same time, it is never a straight % in team production. It is probably more like half, because the player themselves have to take some accountability and with a low scoring team, the top line guys like Crouse gets tons of quality PP time and minutes. He might be 2nd line on another team with much less PP time. Seeing how Crouse performs with Bennett though, and keeping in mind his production at Hlinka, has already driven his draft stock well above where his production merits. Based on his production, he would be a late 1st rounder, and pretty much everyone - even scouts who don't see Crouse in the top 10 - see him as ranked higher than that.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume the bolded, if Crouse were on a deeper, more offensively strong team? If he was on Erie, he'd probably be on McDavid's LW. If he was on London, he'd probably be with Marner/Dvorak (Domi likely would be split from Marner to "spread the offense").

I think you're comparing Crouse's situation to that of "fringe" players in the NHL who play on a weak team's top line, but if they got traded to a powerhouse would be a 2nd or 3rd line player (like Ponikarovsky was on Toronto's top line, but became a 2nd/3rd liner when dealt to deeper teams, or recently Matt Moulson going from the Isles top line to Minnesota's 2nd or 3rd line and less PP time).

West said:
Actually done a fair bit of research on this idea. As a general rule it's doesn't seem to pan out though.

It does seem to hold some truth when player is highest scorer on a team by a noticeable margin and to a certain or larger extent with assists and probably more so with secondary assists.

My best guess right now is that lack of quality help is offset by increase in quality offensive opportunities. In addition or maybe a better way to say this is quality of line mates trump overall quality of team. I don't have anything that nicely graphs this out to post sorry.
Click to expand...

Which is what Crouse has going against him, regardless of whether you put more stock in "quality of linemates" or "quality of overall team".

I'm not saying Crouse would suddenly be leading the league in scoring otherwise, but how can one NOT look at who Crouse's regular linemates are and not see a correlation between that and his production, especially his assist production?

Look at Erie. Forget Strome's production, but take guys like Elie, Baptiste, Betz, or Debrinkat. Is it really a stretch to think Crouse's numbers would be similar or better than theirs if he had either McDavid or Strome centering him? How about if he was on London and played with Dvorak or Marner? Would he still be under a point per game if those guys were on his line, as opposed to what he's played with in Kingston?

I know I'm harping on the team/linemate thing, but I just don't think people are putting enough importance on just how much easier it is to put up points when you play with other talented players, no matter your own talent level. If one player is playing with a 100 point guy, and another player is playing with a 45 point guy, you can't just shrug your shoulders and say the second guy just needs to produce regardless.

In Crouse's case in particular, the biggest complaint is always "but he's not even a point per game guy". So I think the linemate excuse is perfectly valid in his case because if he was playing with the same kind of talent that guys on Oshawa, Soo, Erie, or London have to play with, suddenly he WOULD be over a point per game. And would all these "where's the offense" posts be popping up about Crouse if he had, say, 50 points right now (in 44 games)? I don't think they would because people seem absolutely obsessed with the "below a point per game" thing.
 
West said:
My best guess right now is that lack of quality help is offset by increase in quality offensive opportunities. In addition or maybe a better way to say this is quality of line mates trump overall quality of team. I don't have anything that nicely graphs this out to post sorry.
Click to expand...

Certainly a factor, but I don't see how it would be an offset. I'd be interested in seeing your analysis.
 
benjiv1 said:
I agree for the most part, if you were comparing more than 2 players, and is the players had dissimilar usage.

I don't have any concrete evidence available, but from what I remember watching Landeskog, both him and Crouse were used similarly. ("Line 1", 1ST unit PP, and PK minutes)
Click to expand...

Point I was trying to make was Landeskog was on ("Line 1", 1ST unit PP, and PK minutes) and had to beat out a number of good players for the opportunity to play those minutes. Crouse had to beat out lesser quality players to get those minutes and maybe would have been a 2nd or even 3rd liner on the Kitchener team and would have less points because of it (yes maybe a 1st liner but who knows). Austin Watson is probably the poster boy for this example in reverse.

Actually I believe effectively equal points is what I came up with a fair bit of randomness.

As for line mates I don't think a top 10 prospect should need any better than average to slightly above average players to get results. While Kingston isn't a super power team I don't think you can honestly say there 1st line isn't average or above (not compared to other teams first lines just any line).

Finally would love to post something that shows this but best I could probably come of with is a line in a notebook somewhere saying test failed. What I ended up doing was digging deeper into the details which seemed to work.

p.s. I seem to come out here to bash Crouse a fair bit. He's someone I be very comfortable drafting 10-20 so overall I'm pretty high on him.
 
Last edited:
Rangersfansince99 said:
http://overtimesportsnation.com/2015-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-lawson-crouse/
Click to expand...

This article is a little over the top in it's love for Crouse. How many times can you use the phrase "racking up"? It's even more ridiculous when you use it for Crouse whose low point total is a common argument against his top prospect status. 27 points in 63 games last year, and then 3 points and no goals in 7 playoff games is not impressive, and 8 points in 12 games to start the year isn't that special either.

This article literally makes him seem like a flawless player. "ELITE IQ, shot and skating ability. His offensive game is not yet amazing because he tries so hard defensively."

It really was a waste of time reading this.

I have no problem with Crouse as a prospect, but this was just too much.
 
Rangersfansince99 said:
http://overtimesportsnation.com/2015-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-lawson-crouse/
Click to expand...

Some of the descriptions of Crouse's rookie season are incorrect in this article. Specifically, this statement:

Crouse was instantly given top 6 minutes with a deep Frontenacs forward core, and would often play along side Sam Bennett,
Click to expand...

He wasn't given top six minutes, and her certainly did not "often play along side" Bennett. Crouse was given largely third line minutes last year, with the top two lines being made up of veterans. And for 90% of the season, Bennett played with Ikonen and Watson. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Bennett and Crouse played together for about 4 or 5 games last year. I don't think that qualifies as "often".

What was correct were the parts about Crouse stepping in and looking like a veteran on the defensive side of the puck right off the bat, and despite him only registering 3 assists in the playoffs, he was one of the few consistently hard workers and bright lights in an otherwise embarrassing series loss after going up 3-0.
 
Crouse with a goal so far in Bennett's return. I was right, though. Crouse is playing with Lammikko and McGlynn, while Bennett's with Steege and Watson. On the PP and late in the period, Crouse was put on the Bennett/Watson line, though.
 
24 goals in 45 games. 12 games left in the season. If he scored 7-8 goals in that time (in line with post-WJC production) then we are looking at 33-34 goals in 58 games.

That is on a LOW scoring team. No team in playoff position has scored less goals in the OHL than Kingston. Stats are ALL RELATIVE.
 
Could you guys please stop making valid points about how good this kid is? How are the Jets supposed to get him then??
 
I think they are mixing things up in terms of lines, at least in the bits of games I've caught. They are playing together sometimes.

And Crouse has 3 goals and 3 assists in the six games since Bennett's return. And all three assists occurred in the latest game, on goals either scored or set-up by Bennett, so they are getting some time together, and not just on the power play.

No doubt his assist totally would be better if he was playing with Bennett all year. And goals, too. But so would any player's.
 

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom