Prospect Info: Tom Willander: 11th Overall 2023 Draft (Rogle BK J20) - Part 02

[RobertKron]

@RobertKron

I don't care what that article says, he finished high school at the normal age, i.e., the calendar year in which he turned 18. Fantilli, Power, Beniers, Kent Johnson, I could go on and on and on with guys who all played their pre-draft season in university at the same age that Hughes did. All guys who turned 18 after the Sept 15th cutoff. There might be areas where they start a year later if they are born late in the year but for many you start Grade 1 in the calendar year when you turn six and you finish in the year that you turn 18. It's no big deal for a late-birthday guy to start university before his 18th birthday.

Brady Tkachuk was taken three picks before Quinn Hughes. Same thing, born just after the Sept 15 cutoff, spent his pre-draft year in university. Charlie Stramel, Dylan Holloway, Jake Oettinger, Charlie McAvoy, Eichel, Tage Thompson, Jamie Oleksiak... those are just the other first-round guys in the past dozen years, there are more from the second and third rounds (including none other than Phil Di Giuseppe). It's not uncommon at all.

And there's a few guys like Celebrini, Wood, Hanifin and Werenski who started university in the calendar year in which they turned 17, which is rarer and even more difficult.

I said he was the youngest player in D1 and accelerated his studies to go to Michigan a year ahead of schedule, not that he was the youngest in history.

The original claim was that he did nothing to hint at his NHL future, and my point was that this was an undersized defenseman who accelerated his studies to move to the NCAA a year earlier than he was slated to arrive, and became an immediate impact player despite the significant step up in competition. That's obviously not conclusive, but is basically about the best indicator you can find that player will continue to excel going forward.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Wrong thread.

 

[VanJack]

Watched the entire Chechia-Sweden game today, and I know people are worried about Wilander's offense. But based on what I saw, I think he'll be just fine.

His wrister and snap-shot from the point are absolutely lethal. He rang one off the bar from distance, and he gets as much or more on those shots than a lot of d-men get with a full wind-up slapshot.

In the pros, his shot alone is going to allow him to get a ton of shots through to the net from point for tips and rebounds....because once it hits his stick, the puck is gone in a heartbeat. He consistently beats the guy coming out to block the shot.

Maybe Wilander and Lekkerimaki practiced the shots together back home in Sweden. Rarely have I seen two kids who possess such an array of shots. Glad they're both future Canucks.

 

[F A N]

Watched the entire Chechia-Sweden game today, and I know people are worried about Wilander's offense. But based on what I saw, I think he'll be just fine.

His wrister and snap-shot from the point are absolutely lethal. He rang one off the bar from distance, and he gets as much or more on those shots than a lot of d-men get with a full wind-up slapshot.

In the pros, his shot alone is going to allow him to get a ton of shots through to the net from point for tips and rebounds....because once it hits his stick, the puck is gone in a heartbeat. He consistently beats the guy coming out to block the shot.

Maybe Wilander and Lekkerimaki practiced the shots together back home in Sweden. Rarely have I seen two kids who possess such an array of shots. Glad they're both future Canucks.

I'm not worried about Willander's offence. He really just needs to have the skill to play in the NHL and I think he does.

Obviously there are comparisons to ASP which existed at the time of the draft. I don't think any credible posters here were arguing that Willander was better offensively so it should come at no surprise that ASP is better offensively. ASP was also ahead of the curve at the time of the draft. The two players were heavily debated prior to the draft.

We drafted the defenseman who is bigger and figures to be better defensively while ASP's size might prevent him from translating his game to the NHL. That's really all it is. ASP has been fantastic since he's been drafted. If his game translates to the NHL, he's likely going to be better than Willander because of the offense he brings. But very few are like Hughes and Makar. It's more likely that undersized offensive Dmen struggle at the NHL level but ASP is looking like a special player,

 

[Raistlin]

I'm not worried about Willander's offence. He really just needs to have the skill to play in the NHL and I think he does.

Obviously there are comparisons to ASP which existed at the time of the draft. I don't think any credible posters here were arguing that Willander was better offensively so it should come at no surprise that ASP is better offensively. ASP was also ahead of the curve at the time of the draft. The two players were heavily debated prior to the draft.

We drafted the defenseman who is bigger and figures to be better defensively while ASP's size might prevent him from translating his game to the NHL. That's really all it is. ASP has been fantastic since he's been drafted. If his game translates to the NHL, he's likely going to be better than Willander because of the offense he brings. But very few are like Hughes and Makar. It's more likely that undersized offensive Dmen struggle at the NHL level but ASP is looking like a special player,

The need is for an all situations right side Dman, since no one is going trade them without a king's ransom, we have to draft him. Whether it's with 11th or 17th pick matters not, but we got plenty of utility the past couple years with Hronek. Works out great for us finding that elusive top pair RHD for Hughes. Willander is also going to be a lot more cost effective to sign if he does become a Brodin or Andersson. Seeing him man the point over ASP is also very encouraging for me, while I am cautious to factor WJC performance into future success, his poise with and without the puck against his peers looks like a lock for top 4 next year.

 

[F A N]

The need is for an all situations right side Dman, since no one is going trade them without a king's ransom, we have to draft him. Whether it's with 11th or 17th pick matters not, but we got plenty of utility the past couple years with Hronek. Works out great for us finding that elusive top pair RHD for Hughes. Willander is also going to be a lot more cost effective to sign if he does become a Brodin or Andersson. Seeing him man the point over ASP is also very encouraging for me, while I am cautious to factor WJC performance into future success, his poise with and without the puck against his peers looks like a lock for top 4 next year.

I’m not sure what we are discussing here. I don’t disagree with the points you made but the same philosophy would have led us drafting Dobson over Hughes. And I say this thinking we would be happy with Dobson had we drafted him instead of Hughes.

The point is that a choice was made. We didn’t draft Willander thinking he would put up a ton of points.

 

[Raistlin]

I’m not sure what we are discussing here. I don’t disagree with the points you made but the same philosophy would have led us drafting Dobson over Hughes. And I say this thinking we would be happy with Dobson had we drafted him instead of Hughes.

The point is that a choice was made. We didn’t draft Willander thinking he would put up a ton of points.

Just expanding on your points, not picking an argument. Selecting Dobson over Hughes is not wrong per se, but we didn't because we do not already have the dynamic puckmover in our system already...for 50 years. So we can afford to pass on ASP in '23, having 2 puck transporting PPQB would be considered an excess nowadays. A core of QH/FH/WW at the back would be a very solid championship caliber unit if #5 delivers on his promise and anchors the second pair and gets us 30pts a season... or maybe Hronek can be that guy. Much more balanced than if we have QH and ASP together. Mynio/EP looks to fill out the bottom pair in a couple years.

 

[Regal]

I said he was the youngest player in D1 and accelerated his studies to go to Michigan a year ahead of schedule, not that he was the youngest in history.

The original claim was that he did nothing to hint at his NHL future, and my point was that this was an undersized defenseman who accelerated his studies to move to the NCAA a year earlier than he was slated to arrive, and became an immediate impact player despite the significant step up in competition. That's obviously not conclusive, but is basically about the best indicator you can find that player will continue to excel going forward.

But the poster’s point was that he didn’t do this, he was just a late birthday. I actually don’t know for sure whether Quinn started grade 1 in 2005, but usually if you’re born in October you’d graduate high school and start University at 17. But it’d be weird for an article to say he accelerated his studies unless that was the case, so maybe he didn’t start grade 1 until 2006, and then skipped a year later in high school.

 

[Siludin]

But the poster’s point was that he didn’t do this, he was just a late birthday. I actually don’t know for sure whether Quinn started grade 1 in 2005, but usually if you’re born in October you’d graduate high school and start University at 17. But it’d be weird for an article to say he accelerated his studies unless that was the case, so maybe he didn’t start grade 1 until 2006, and then skipped a year later in high school.

Yeah for some reason people seem to conflate someone's school year with their hockey year.

Your school age year is based on the year you were born. Your hockey age is based off the arbitrary ~September cutoff. Playing in university at his age, when he is a post-September birthday, is playing a "year ahead" of his hockey age respective to his level of play (though when you are a prodigy-level NHL-bound player, I don't really think about hockey age very much, because your exposure to, and study of the sport is going to go beyond the typical hockey season chronology).
It is consequently correct to say that he is going to school at the appropriate age.

 

[StreetHawk]

Yeah for some reason people seem to conflate someone's school year with their hockey year.

Your school age year is based on the year you were born. Your hockey age is based off the arbitrary ~September cutoff. Playing in university at his age, when he is a post-September birthday, is playing a "year ahead" of his hockey age respective to his level of play (though when you are a prodigy-level NHL-bound player, I don't really think about hockey age very much, because your exposure to, and study of the sport is going to go beyond the typical hockey season chronology).
It is consequently correct to say that he is going to school at the appropriate age.

In most of the USA states, I believe for school purposes they use like Aug 31 or Sept 1 as the cutoff to enroll their kids in school. Unlike in BC and Canada which uses calendar year. So it’s like Sept 1, 2020 to Aug 31, 2021 are your classmates versus Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2000 for example.

Both Dmen Hughes would be 5 after Sept 1, but must have gone to school district that didn’t have the age 5 by Sept 1 rule. As they attended UM in the year they turned 18.

 

[Diversification]

In most of the USA states, I believe for school purposes they use like Aug 31 or Sept 1 as the cutoff to enroll their kids in school. Unlike in BC and Canada which uses calendar year. So it’s like Sept 1 to Aug 31 are your classmates versus Jan 1 to Dec 31.

It's calendar year where I am (my kids were in NYC, now in Westchester). That said, there's gamesmanship that happens here where parents will intentionally 'redshirt' their child if their birth falls in the latter half of the year and hold them back to start kindergarten at 6. The thinking is that their child will enjoy a ~6 month developmental advantage on their peers, which will funnel forward into better academic outcomes heading into college. New Yorkers are competitive that way.

 

[StreetHawk]

It's calendar year where I am (my kids were in NYC, now in Westchester). That said, there's gamesmanship that happens here where parents will intentionally 'redshirt' their child if their birth falls in the latter half of the year and hold them back to start kindergarten at 6. The thinking is that their child will enjoy a ~6 month developmental advantage on their peers, which will funnel forward into better academic outcomes heading into college. New Yorkers are competitive that way.

I believe that there are studies which show most leaders in business are born in the earlier part of the year. In early school they are more developed physically and mentally than those later in the year so they get picked for team captains and other things. That seems to continue on later in life. Which does support what you are saying about parents opting to delay kids born later in the year.

Flip side is that delaying means another year of child care costs.

 

[Diversification]

I believe that there are studies which show most leaders in business are born in the earlier part of the year. In early school they are more developed physically and mentally than those later in the year so they get picked for team captains and other things. That seems to continue on later in life. Which does support what you are saying about parents opting to delay kids born later in the year.

Flip side is that delaying means another year of child care costs.

I hear you. My older one was born in the back half of the year and I'll be damned if I was going to pay for an extra year of preschool!

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's calendar year where I am (my kids were in NYC, now in Westchester). That said, there's gamesmanship that happens here where parents will intentionally 'redshirt' their child if their birth falls in the latter half of the year and hold them back to start kindergarten at 6. The thinking is that their child will enjoy a ~6 month developmental advantage on their peers, which will funnel forward into better academic outcomes heading into college. New Yorkers are competitive that way.

from what i hear, if you ever go to a school in a wealthy suburb in most parts of the US, almost half the kids are a year behind their real cohort for this reason. everybody wants their kid to have an “advantage.” i’ve heard about people holding back kids born in may and june for very flimsy, made-up reasons.

but afaik, this is not allowed in canada right? you could be born december 31 and you just have to live with being the youngest.

 

[iceburg]

Gladwell does a nice job of summarizing the age effect as it relates to hockey in his book Outliers. A very brief summary of his conclusion is that, because hockey players are grouped by birth year, if a child is born in Jan-March they will be bigger and stronger than others born later in the year. As a result the likelihood of playing on rep teams, getting better coaching and more ice time at an early age is greater. He backs this up with the stats on the comparatively much greater percentage of junior/NHL players with first quarter birth months.

 

[Regal]

from what i hear, if you ever go to a school in a wealthy suburb in most parts of the US, almost half the kids are a year behind their real cohort for this reason. everybody wants their kid to have an “advantage.” i’ve heard about people holding back kids born in may and june for very flimsy, made-up reasons.

but afaik, this is not allowed in canada right? you could be born december 31 and you just have to live with being the youngest.

I think it can depend a bit on how ready the child seems at the time. My friend’s son turned 5 in early December, but they decided to hold him back because he was a bit delayed from an issue in his brain that needed surgery a couple years ago. But he said he tried to enrol for next year and it would t let him use his son’s birth year and he had to meet with the school and the school board and explain the situation and that it was recommended by their doctor.

 

[Regal]

Gladwell does a nice job of summarizing the age effect as it relates to hockey in his book Outliers. A very brief summary of his conclusion is that, because hockey players are grouped by birth year, if a child is born in Jan-March they will be bigger and stronger than others born later in the year. As a result the likelihood of playing on rep teams, getting better coaching and more ice time at an early age is greater. He backs this up with the stats on the comparatively much greater percentage of junior/NHL players with first quarter birth months.

I wonder if there’s any data on pinpointing how much specific things might be an advantage or not. Like if later birthdays aren’t smaller is there no advantage anymore or is there more to it than that? I’m a late September birth, but I was always the biggest kid every year, even entering kindergarten at 4 and I know quite a few late birthdays who were always big too.

 

[Jyrki21]

Unlike in BC and Canada which uses calendar year.

Quebec actually uses mid-September as its schoolyear cutoff.

but afaik, this is not allowed in canada right? you could be born december 31 and you just have to live with being the youngest.

Well rules like this aren't federal, so it would vary by schoolboard let alone province. But no, parents do this kind of thing plenty across Canada too.

 

[mriswith]

I wonder if there’s any data on pinpointing how much specific things might be an advantage or not. Like if later birthdays aren’t smaller is there no advantage anymore or is there more to it than that? I’m a late September birth, but I was always the biggest kid every year, even entering kindergarten at 4 and I know quite a few late birthdays who were always big too.

There's some data showing that children born in fall tend to become bigger and stronger, probably because mom got more prenatal sunlight.

The idea of having your kid born early in the calendar year to "get a head start" on other areas of life sounds good in theory but it can easily backfire. There's a slew of literature about the dangers of what happens when kids develop an early identity around having been ahead of their peers early on and then can't handle having to exert effort, try or appear less than perfect for the rest of their lives.

This is wandering into the weeds a bit but I figure I'll mention it in case anyone is deciding to make it a life plan for their kids, every season has pros and cons and unless you have a specific goal to make your kid a hockey pro it's probably not worth planning around. Early in the calendar year gets the obvious head start advantage, fall babies grow up bigger and stronger, and late in the calendar year kids can develop the reverse effect of early in the year kids where they get used to attacking challenges at a faster pace of learning/moving/competing and growing in order to keep up with their older but same year peers and that serves them very well in life.

 

[VanJack]

There's some data showing that children born in fall tend to become bigger and stronger, probably because mom got more prenatal sunlight.

The idea of having your kid born early in the calendar year to "get a head start" on other areas of life sounds good in theory but it can easily backfire. There's a slew of literature about the dangers of what happens when kids develop an early identity around having been ahead of their peers early on and then can't handle having to exert effort, try or appear less than perfect for the rest of their lives.

This is wandering into the weeds a bit but I figure I'll mention it in case anyone is deciding to make it a life plan for their kids, every season has pros and cons and unless you have a specific goal to make your kid a hockey pro it's probably not worth planning around. Early in the calendar year gets the obvious head start advantage, fall babies grow up bigger and stronger, and late in the calendar year kids can develop the reverse effect of early in the year kids where they get used to attacking challenges at a faster pace of learning/moving/competing and growing in order to keep up with their older but same year peers and that serves them very well in life.

Well for context, Shaquille O'Neal was born on March 6, 1972, after what was surely a long, hard winter.

 

[mriswith]

Well for context, Shaquille O'Neal was born on March 6, 1972, after what was surely a long, hard winter.

I mean these are trends, not certainties.

 

[Peen]

There's a slew of literature about the dangers of what happens when kids develop an early identity around having been ahead of their peers early on and then can't handle having to exert effort

I am a real life example of this

 

[F A N]

Just expanding on your points, not picking an argument. Selecting Dobson over Hughes is not wrong per se, but we didn't because we do not already have the dynamic puckmover in our system already...for 50 years. So we can afford to pass on ASP in '23, having 2 puck transporting PPQB would be considered an excess nowadays. A core of QH/FH/WW at the back would be a very solid championship caliber unit if #5 delivers on his promise and anchors the second pair and gets us 30pts a season... or maybe Hronek can be that guy. Much more balanced than if we have QH and ASP together. Mynio/EP looks to fill out the bottom pair in a couple years.

I see what you mean there and I don't disagree. We could, however, get into the weeds about drafting for need vs BPA vs BAA.

We also don't know the reasoning behind the decisions. For example, the Canucks might have ultimately chosen Willander ahead of ASP due to concerns about ASP's game not translating. If ASP is closer to Makar than he is to Sandin then that's potentially franchise altering. Considering that ASP was mostly ranked ahead of Willander that's going to be a point of discussion for decades if ASP develops into a Norris contender. But we're not there yet and I'm still fine with our choice of Dmen.