LW Patrik Laine (2016, 2nd, WPG) XVI

[BB88]

Maybe you also wait until his first NHL season is over, before you loudly claim who has been overhyping, or who just plain don't understand how exceptional player Laine is. So far with what is happening, it would seem like the hypers are closer to being right than the naysayers. But only after his first season is over we really know how good and consistent he is at NHL level in a full 82 game season. This all knowing attitude is truly BS here. Is it possible to say what your opinion is without always mocking the others opinion? Even if it differs very much from yours...

When one mentions 80 goals yeah one can be called out for that.
That's just ridiculous and something these threads don't need. I'd like to be able to have good talks in Laine threads but it's almost impossible.

 

[ijuka]

Huh? People like me predicted around 25 goals because it was realistic.

This "realistic" mantra is becoming very tired. It's as if everyone predicting a poor performance is realistic and everyone predicting a good performance is unrealistic. You can miss the mark both ways - Underrating a player doesn't make you any more realistic than someone overrating him by the same amount.


Anyway, shot generation is, again, a pretty weak indicator of anything because every shot has such a different value. His shot totals don't do his shot generation justice. What Laine has been generating is many high quality shots. He's barely even scored garbage "puck luck" goals at all.

When one mentions 80 goals yeah you can be called out for that.
That's just ridiculous and something these threads don't need. I'd like to be able to have good talks in Laine threads but it's almost impossible.

80 goals is probably over the top, but you have to keep in mind that the goalie equipment changes are supposed to positively affect scoring.

 

[Hobby Bull]

I'm not good at math, but if his SH% drops to 20% but he starts to generate 8 shots a game, he might still become a decent scorer, eh?

If you're bad at math, just go with 10 shots a game. The math is easier.

There, I fixed it.

 

[BB88]

This "realistic" mantra is becoming very tired. It's as if everyone predicting a poor performance is realistic and everyone predicting a good performance is unrealistic. You can miss the mark both ways - Underrating a player doesn't make you any more realistic than someone overrating him by the same amount.


Anyway, shot generation is, again, a pretty weak indicator of anything because every shot has such a different value. His shot totals don't do his shot generation justice. What Laine has been generating is many high quality shots. He's barely even scored garbage "puck luck" goals at all.



80 goals is probably over the top, but you have to keep in mind that the goalie equipment changes are supposed to positively affect scoring.

I highly doubt they impact the game that much.

 

[Bruce Granville]

No need to score 80 goals in his rookie season...77 is enough.

But in a few years he should aim for 93...or make it 100 while at it.

If the goalie equipment really will be changed, it might be possible.

 

[QnebO]

25 goals wouldn't actually be bad for 18 year old rookie, even if he is expected to be NHL best goal scorer in future.

That said, he has good chance to get more than that.

 

[QnebO]

There are no need to shot hundreds and hundreds times if you make goals from those relatively few opportunities you get.

Quantity vs quality -metrics. Quality i.e. Hit accuracy is what is more important, though statistically more shots made generate also more goals.

Goals are what makes the real difference. Not S% percentages or total amounts of shots.

If you score goal when you have good change/opportunity, and pass or make play otherwise when changes are not there, it's obvious your S% percentage stays relatively high.

Laine is genius in how to recognize real scoring changes.

This is one thing that I think there is clear difference between North American prospect and European prospect. Sniper prospects is where it gets interesting. North American game is more "shoot from every chance" game, and european game is more looking for pass if there is low quality chance.

Not sure if this stereotype plays role at all on Laine case, though. I think he shoots alot. But high % might suggest that player might some times skip low % shot from boards when he can't see the net between pipes, and look for pass slot or something else. Like shoot only to scoring goal in your mind, basically never just bidding it on net.

 

[Ippenator]

When one mentions 80 goals yeah one can be called out for that.
That's just ridiculous and something these threads don't need. I'd like to be able to have good talks in Laine threads but it's almost impossible.

You are the master of twisting other people's text into your own purposes. Quite disgusting honestly. First of all I have not discussed anything about 80 goals, and especially not anything close to it during his rookie season. I pointed out earlier that I believe that his prime ceiling could be even 60-80 goals. If you know how to read you should understand that the ceiling is still under 80 goals. I will even spell it for you: it means the ceiling could be somewhere between 60 and 80 goals. And I also pointed out that the ceiling of 70-80 goals would depend on if the goal amounts in general rise in the NHL due to goalie equipment and rule changes.

I think some people over here would be better off overhyping lower tier talents like Rantanen. It's much easier to predict their production than an absolute super talent's like Laine's.

 

[QnebO]

About Laine's ceiling and floor:

I think Laine's absolute ceiling with current rules could be between 60-70. "Absolute ceiling" = something that he might land short of, but if he reaches all his potentional and has relatively good puck luck also in the same season..

And if rules change, IDK. Maybe you could add another 10 there. I see that bad goal scorers would benefit more than Laine, because Laine can already just beat the goalies clean, but not sure.

I think his absolute floor is 25-30 barring fatalities (career ending hits or so). Absolute floor to me is if he doesn't develop at all and probably just regresses and nothing goes his way on his career, then he could be 25-30 goal scorer.


So the safest bet to me looks like to be to say that he'll pop between 30 to 50 goal seasons in his career. It's still quite a thing to have as a "safe bet" about 18 year old prospect. But he could very well start doing those 30-50 goal seasons right away and blow the whole bank in his prime scoring something that we hardly have guts to predict, though.

 

[PhilJets]

Don't get me wrong on this. Jets are a better team with Bryan Little and Matthew Perrault in the line up. But their injuries have allowed Laine, and other young Jets players to fill their roles. They have scored 15 goals the past 3 games. Led by a young line of young guns of Scheifele, Ehlers, and Laine. Not seasoned vets but young players all eligible to play for the Team NA had they all been picked. Making What Laine has accomplished this season thus far even more impressive.

I want to see Perrault and Little with Wheeler when they come back.

They can handle best on best also..


Laine feels comfortable with Schiefele and Ehlers

 

[NHL Dude 120]

I want to see Perrault and Little with Wheeler when they come back.

They can handle best on best also..


Laine feels comfortable with Schiefele and Ehlers

wouldnt that be your best line??

Laine-Schiefele-Ehlers would be f ing dynamite.

 

[93LEAFS]

This is one thing that I think there is clear difference between North American prospect and European prospect. Sniper prospects is where it gets interesting. North American game is more "shoot from every chance" game, and european game is more looking for pass if there is low quality chance.

Not sure if this stereotype plays role at all on Laine case, though. I think he shoots alot. But high % might suggest that player might some times skip low % shot from boards when he can't see the net between pipes, and look for pass slot or something else. Like shoot only to scoring goal in your mind, basically never just bidding it on net.

Then explain how the best sniper in regards to shooting percentage tended to be Stamkos, while the high-shot generator tended to be Ovi? Ovi led the league in shots by a wide-margin in his rookie year (and the next 3 players happened to be European). The other issue with this though is you are looking at very small sample sizes of prospects to create a tier to even find commonalities. Who else can we really compare Laine as a rookie to? Then we have to limit it to Euro's, your basically left with Kovalchuk and Ovechkin in the last 16 years. There are obvious NA guys who I'd call gunners who just take an insane amount of shots with no regard (see Evander Kane), but there are also a bunch of NA guys who basically will try to pass the puck into the net like 1970's Russians (see Alex Tanguay and his consistently high shooting %). I don't think this style of play really sticks or is shown to be prevalent in one-style over the other once they've started in the NHL.

In the end, Laine could be capable of generating 4 to 4.25 shots a game while shooting between 12% and 16% which would put him between 42 and 60 goals most years.

The one thing I would point out is that if there is anything that is going to affect shooting percentage it is more the situations the player is generating shots in. For example, if Laine is getting more than an average amount of shots on PP or 3v3 compared to 5v5 his shooting percentage will be higher.

 

[Lempo]

The cool thing about NHL seasons is that they are so long, so statistical abnormalities stretching over full seasons are quite rare. They happen and sometimes they happen for rookies, but in general predictions, one can follow the numbers to make an informed prediction.

If someone manages to pull something (normally considered to be) extraordinary for the whole length of the 82 game season, it can hardly be called a statistical abnormality anymore but rather that person's normal performance level, at least at that particular time of his career.

 

[93LEAFS]

If someone manages to pull something (normally considered to be) extraordinary for the whole length of the 82 game season, it can hardly be called a statistical abnormality anymore but rather that person's normal performance level, at least at that particular time of his career.

I'd say in one single season you can see freak occurrences. For example Brandon Pirri's season in 2014-15. Obviously, skill plays a significant part in creating unique statistical situations, and generally, all that matters is that it was accomplished. But, if something is so rare that it is unlikely to be repeated again then I would say that is an abnormality.

 

[ijuka]

I'd say that Laine's more picky with his shot than most snipers would be. He seems to pass pretty often if he doesn't have a clear lane to shoot. He definitely doesn't shoot a bunch of 4% shots like Ovechkin does.

 

[Plural]

If someone manages to pull something (normally considered to be) extraordinary for the whole length of the 82 game season, it can hardly be called a statistical abnormality anymore but rather that person's normal performance level, at least at that particular time of his career.

It basically just comes down to semantics and wording. Some can call it career year, some can call it a statistical anomaly and some call it whatever.

But in general, I agree with you. You don't "wipe out" the accomplishes of one player because he produced on a level that the said player never reached before or after. It's still 82 or so games and to perform at a certain level for that long takes more than just luck.

 

[QnebO]

Then explain how the best sniper in regards to shooting percentage tended to be Stamkos, while the high-shot generator tended to be Ovi? Ovi led the league in shots by a wide-margin in his rookie year (and the next 3 players happened to be European). The other issue with this though is you are looking at very small sample sizes of prospects to create a tier to even find commonalities. Who else can we really compare Laine as a rookie to? Then we have to limit it to Euro's, your basically left with Kovalchuk and Ovechkin in the last 16 years. There are obvious NA guys who I'd call gunners who just take an insane amount of shots with no regard (see Evander Kane), but there are also a bunch of NA guys who basically will try to pass the puck into the net like 1970's Russians (see Alex Tanguay and his consistently high shooting %). I don't think this style of play really sticks or is shown to be prevalent in one-style over the other once they've started in the NHL.

In the end, Laine could be capable of generating 4 to 4.25 shots a game while shooting between 12% and 16% which would put him between 42 and 60 goals most years.

The one thing I would point out is that if there is anything that is going to affect shooting percentage it is more the situations the player is generating shots in. For example, if Laine is getting more than an average amount of shots on PP or 3v3 compared to 5v5 his shooting percentage will be higher.

Maybe I should change "european" to "Finnish", as there really is that difference in Finnish hockey stereotypically. There was talk about this on one brother puckers episode with ex pro players, but I haven't time to find out about that now. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7iKUcP0fMTMcLgsYTr70hQ/videos

Anyway I regonize that trend in Finnish hockey compared to NHL game to not to shoot as much. Might have something to do with rink size too.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

Maybe I should change "european" to "Finnish", as there really is that difference in Finnish hockey stereotypically. There was talk about this on one brother puckers episode with ex pro players, but I haven't time to find out about that now. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7iKUcP0fMTMcLgsYTr70hQ/videos

Anyway I regonize that trend in Finnish hockey compared to NHL game to not to shoot as much. Might have something to do with rink size too.

Yea during that one stretch Finland's development program used to only benefit the smallish playmakers like Toni Rajala and Mikael Granlund, with no patience for the bigger or more egotistical players.

It seems to have turned around now? the average Finnish prospect is like 6'3-6'4 and can score to an extent (especially if you're named Laine, Puljujärvi, Vesalainen or Tolvanen)

 

[Man Bear Pig]

This "realistic" mantra is becoming very tired. It's as if everyone predicting a poor performance is realistic and everyone predicting a good performance is unrealistic. You can miss the mark both ways - Underrating a player doesn't make you any more realistic than someone overrating him.

A poor performance isn't realistic though. Not for a 2nd overall pick anyways. I couldn't care less if you're tired of the term, call it realistic, call it projection, call it prediction, call it whatever you want. This is a site about hockey prospects, this is what we do. And of course there's unrealistic predictions, give me a break. If some comes in and says he's gonna contend with Solange then yes, that's pretty unrealistic. Realistic is the safe, conservative bet. Unrealistic is the extreme opinion whether it's far below or above consensus.

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

Yea during that one stretch Finland's development program used to only benefit the smallish playmakers like Toni Rajala and Mikael Granlund, with no patience for the bigger or more egotistical players.

It seems to have turned around now? the average Finnish prospect is like 6'3-6'4 and can score to an extent (especially if you're named Laine, Puljujärvi, Vesalainen or Tolvanen)

Work in progress. But it's not about the rejection of overall working concept and the system - the main reason Team Finland has made disproportionally well compared to available player pool size -, it's more like an "early warning system" that gauge special cases out from the river of incoming juniors for more intensive personal training for strenghts instead that it would just continue force people to the same traditional model and appearance. That is what's was changed in the system and the fruits of that change have been lately seen marching to the front lines.

(In Finnish army context similar concept is called "Syväjohtaminen".)

In Laine's case only that isn't simply enough to explain his level of performance, tho. IMO.

 

[Lempo]

It basically just comes down to semantics and wording. Some can call it career year, some can call it a statistical anomaly and some call it whatever.

But in general, I agree with you. You don't "wipe out" the accomplishes of one player because he produced on a level that the said player never reached before or after. It's still 82 or so games and to perform at a certain level for that long takes more than just luck.

Oh yes, it was meant as an explicitly semantic notion, specifically to counter the strawman notion of "he seems to be somewhat successfully prolonging his fluke" by a detractor of any player who would have been somewhat consistent in his anomalousness for the length of a whole season.

 

[CaptainChef]

no-one were talking about several seasons.. Just this one, and how it's possible Laine ending with >20%

In the long run, i think Laine will be around 15%

I think 15% sounds reasonable for Laine. But the thing is, he'll keep getting more comfortable with the NHL game and with his linemates & getting more time on the PP, his chances will go up accordingly. No way he keeps the current goal-scoring pace he's on going, but for sure my original projection of 25 goals will be easily eclipsed.

So at his current pace & playing 82 games, he'd have 64 goals. If he stays healthy, I'll give him 40 as a revised projection (and really 50 is certainly not impossible)

 

[TheFinnishTrap]

I'm still expecting him to slump at some point, but with the amount of goals he has scored already, he seems to be headed for around 30 goals at least, pretty comfortably surpassing my expectations. Nice to have it this way.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

On Laine's shooting %. I'd rather look at actual scoring chances than generating shots. Laine is not going to shoot 25% the entire year, this would mean he is going to score 64 goals this year. It would be stupid to suggest this will be the case.

I also don't think Laine is a player that shoots from all angles that are low % shots just so his shot generation totals go up. He's more intelligent than this. A less smart player may do this, but not Laine. Elite Goal scorers also finish better.

A high shot generator, low production player to me is not a sniper or a gifted goal scorer. Some chalk this up to bad puck luck. This is too simplistic a philosophy. Some players are simply less adept with their finish, in the case with Laine. I would suspect most would be.

Further anyone that has seen Laine's 11 goals this year, will not chalk it up to luck. They are the result of an elite shot (already one of the best in the NHL) some skilled deflections, and an ability to capitalize in scoring chance areas.

This is what potentially elite goal scorers have in common.

 

[RonEllisFan]

He's a stud, best is yet to come