Top picks that are late bloomers

[SnowblindNYR]

Late bloomers are something I think of a lot about with Lafreniere and Kakko not panning out early like expected. People are unforgiving for top picks not becoming stars right away, but are top picks any less likely to be late bloomers if they don't succeed right away?

The way I think of it if we split the scenarios into three scenarios for top picks:

1) Progresses as expected: Star player in his rookie or sophomore year.

2) Late bloomer: Star player later on in his career.

3) Disappointment/bust: Never becomes a star player.

What I believe is happening is that fans see fewer late bloomers from top picks, not because they're more likely to become busts but because they're more likely to become stars early. But they confuse the low % of top players being late bloomers as them becoming busts. I would be curious to see what the probability a player is a late bloomer given they didn't break out early as expected vs. a bust. My hypothesis is that top players are either as likely as not top players to become late bloomers in this situation or MORE likely to become late bloomers rather than busts because they're more likely to succeed in general.

Thoughts on this?

BTW, a perfectly reasonable argument is that a top pick's value is viewed as his value over his career. Therefore being a late bloomer rather than a star at 19 is a disappointment in itself. But they're still not busts like top picks are called if they don't break out right way.

Click to read more...

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think you’re probably right. Early picks generally come with more hockey ability. Having more hockey ability will make you more likely to succeed.

With later picks, the expectations and pressure is a lot lower. But ability is the majority of the battle. McDavid is as good as he is mostly due to his hockey ability, not his mentality.

So that prerequisite of pure ability does give early picks a greater chance to bloom late.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

Late bloomers are something I think of a lot about with Lafreniere and Kakko not panning out early like expected. People are unforgiving for top picks not becoming stars right away, but are top picks any less likely to be late bloomers if they don't succeed right away?

The way I think of it if we split the scenarios into three scenarios for top picks:

1) Progresses as expected: Star player in his rookie or sophomore year.

2) Late bloomer: Star player later on in his career.

3) Disappointment/bust: Never becomes a star player.

What I believe is happening is that fans see fewer late bloomers from top picks, not because they're more likely to become busts but because they're more likely to become stars early. But they confuse the low % of top players being late bloomers as them becoming busts. I would be curious to see what the probability a player is a late bloomer given they didn't break out early as expected vs. a bust. My hypothesis is that top players are either as likely as not top players to become late bloomers in this situation or MORE likely to become late bloomers rather than busts because they're more likely to succeed in general.

Thoughts on this?

BTW, a perfectly reasonable argument is that a top pick's value is viewed as his value over his career. Therefore being a late bloomer rather than a star at 19 is a disappointment in itself. But they're still not busts like top picks are called if they don't break out right way.

I’m a be honest I read this like 3 times and still had a hard time following it

 

[OysterForever]

Pekka Rinne was #258 overall and 37 when he scored his first NHL goal. What a stud.

 

[ijuka]

It hurts the player's development if they're made to play in NHL right away. I think that this is universal. I think even McDavid would be a better player today if he had played in AHL a couple years before playing in NHL.

Early picks are rushed into NHL. Either they're immediate stars, or they get passed by players who were developed more appropriately.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I’m a be honest I read this like 3 times and still had a hard time following it

I might be making this more complicated but this is kind of a concept in finance so maybe it's easier for me wrap my head around. But let me give you an example.

Let's say there are 10 players who were #1 picks overall and then 10 that are #20 picks overall. My theory is this.

1) #1 picks:

5 became stars in the first or second year

3 became stars later (or a late bloomer)

2 became busts

2) #20 picks

1 became a star in his first or second year

5 became stars after (late bloomers)

4 became busts

People look at this composition of players and see that only 3 top picks became "late bloomers" and 5 #20 picks became late bloomers and they automatically assume it's unlikely a top pick will become a late bloomer. They think if they haven't set the world on first in the first two seasons and so few top picks become late bloomers they must be busts. But the biggest reason there are so few late bloomers that were top picks was not because they became busts but because so many of them were stars right away. So of the top picks that didn't become stars right away 3/5 or 60% became late bloomers and of the top 20 picks that didn't become stars right away 5/9 or 56% became late bloomers. But because the raw numbers show 5 late bloomers for the top 20 picks people just assume it's more common with later picks.

 

[NVious]

David Ayres would regularly get drafted in the 80-100 slot in his annual beer league draft before deciding to play in the NHL and holding the greatest project goaltending record in history.

 

[fahad203]

Dylan Strome right now. Not a late pick but took a while to get his game going

Carter Verhaege. Took 6 years to make it to make it to big leagues

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Wow, I just realized I messed up this thread. At least it's only like 8 posts in. Late picks was supposed to be top picks. No wonder people were confused!!!

 

[Manc Cat]

Top picks get drafted into trash teams and thrown to the wolves with crazy expectations and a poor supporting cast to mentor them. Only the very best can thrive and perform in this scenario.

Better teams actually have the luxury of developing their prospects in lower leagues or shletering them in the lineup. This scenario is probably way better for the vast majority of prospects who have what it takes to make the big league.

 

[therocket9]

Mackinnon and Blake Wheeler.

 

[surixon]

Reinhart

 

[MS]

There are plenty of examples of high draft picks who made the NHL early, spent 4 or 5 years as ‘average’ players, and then broke out. Sedins are the classic example, Reinhart and Lafreniere are recent ones.

However, there are virtually zero examples of guys who were 1st round picks, couldn’t make the NHL, were still in the AHL in their draft+5 when waiver eligibility hit … and then turned into good players.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

There are plenty of examples of high draft picks who made the NHL early, spent 4 or 5 years as ‘average’ players, and then broke out. Sedins are the classic example, Reinhart and Lafreniere are recent ones.

However, there are virtually zero examples of guys who were 1st round picks, couldn’t make the NHL, were still in the AHL in their draft+5 when waiver eligibility hit … and then turned into good players.

Well I guess it depends on your definition of late bloomers. I wasn't really thinking of guys in the AHL.