GhostofPotvin29
New member
PG said:
24-26 is typically when a player peaks.
Phil Kessel
- Thread starter GhostofPotvin29
- Start date
24-26 is typically when a player peaks.
bustaheims
Active member
Potvin29 said:
Which means, if the Leafs go the strip down, bare bones rebuild route (which is a big if and probably unlikely, but, for the sake of discussion . . .), the likelihood is that the Leafs would be moving towards their peak as a team as Kessel is moving out of his prime years.
Sudafederov
New member
bustaheims said:
Even if they went the rebuild route, it would be highly unlikely they would publicly announce it. Media conglomerates want your eyeballs to consume their content across platforms, they want numbers. They wouldn't want a nasty word like rebuild to mess with their ratings (even in Toronto).
They also want stars, well spoken ones preferably to fit in with their content goals. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that a mandate has come down from ownership to do whatever it takes to get that star power near term, even at the expense of logical long term hockey decisions.
You could very well see a situation where Kessel wants to stay, but his overall image doesn't fit with the ownership group's mandate.
Speculation sure, but it's not unheard of for a media group to think along those lines.
PG said:
It could have been me. There is a chart somewhere that shows goal-scoring by age for the top 100 goalscorers in NHL history. If I recall, for that elite group, the average peek goalscoring year was 23, I believe, which of course sounds amazingly young. I believe they could sustain their high-end goalscoring pretty close to their peak for a while (I believe through their 20s -- it is not like they drop off at 24) Also, their peak overall scoring was later as they tended to keep increasing their assist rate (perhaps defenders tried to focus on preventing their goals, leaving more space for them to set up other guys or they just became better passers). Selanne was an amazing outlier on the chart as he sustained his goalscoring until late (having a 48 goal season when he was 36?).
princedpw said:
Here's one such attempt to study it:
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/1/21/1261318/nhl-points-per-game-peak-age
The peak age is just slightly more than 25. The peak age actually falls at approximately 25 for a wide range of NHL equivalencies for the minors. This is also roughly the same result as you get if you restrict your dataset solely to players with careers longer than 200 games and you look at the number of NHL games played at each age. Other methods don't give substantially divergent results - even the most or least restrictive datasets result in peaks between age 24 and 26.
So that's roughly the story on scoring peaks. I would caution that if some consideration was given for how the overall league was scoring, that might be a more precise way to look at it. For example, there was a big drop off in scoring in the early 90s so that could affect certain studies - including the one above.
The other thing is it takes time for these guys to become effective two way players. When they arrive, they tend to want to prove they belong by racking up big points. The good two way play tends to lag their peak scoring years and I suspect it's part of the reason for the drop off. And therefore, I could see an argument being made that although a player isn't putting up peak scoring numbers after 24-26, he reaches his peak effectiveness for a team sometime after that when he gets stronger and more committed defensively - he's scoring less but he's causing even fewer goals against with reckless scoring chances that he used to take to attain his peak scoring numbers for example.
Kin
New member
For what it's worth it's definitely a post of mine that PG is remembering because it was specifically about the peak years in terms of offensive production but specifically limited to guys who came into the league young. Obviously there's a degree of savvy that players pick up as they learn the ins and outs of the league but A) as cw alludes to I think that manifests itself more in two-way play than in scoring and B) I think it probably maxes out when a player's been in the league a few years.
That's just sort of the strange thing about the NHL which does sort of skew the numbers that cw posted. A 24 year old player can legitimately be a rookie or legitimately a 6 year veteran. Finding an average peak age, therefore, seems really hard to do.
That's just sort of the strange thing about the NHL which does sort of skew the numbers that cw posted. A 24 year old player can legitimately be a rookie or legitimately a 6 year veteran. Finding an average peak age, therefore, seems really hard to do.
The Leafs are stuck at mediocre. They are not bad enough to get an awesome draft pick or two and they are not good enough to compete.
People keep coming up with suggestions about how to take a step forward and compete. Some of the ideas are quite decent, but they all fail to take into account the most basic fact about the Leafs. They are not deep enough in talent to take a sustained step forward. I have seen this all too many times in the past few decades - a mediocre team sells off some of the future in an attempt to take a step forward only to fail and then have no depth of talent coming up to fall back on.
Trading Kessel is a decent idea. Allowing the young guys to thrash about for a few years and likely finish very poorly so as to get top prospects in the draft. Add to that whatever picks and prospects come in for Kessel and you have the start of a rebuild that will still take a several more years.
But I would much rather see them do it right then continue to patch work it.
People keep coming up with suggestions about how to take a step forward and compete. Some of the ideas are quite decent, but they all fail to take into account the most basic fact about the Leafs. They are not deep enough in talent to take a sustained step forward. I have seen this all too many times in the past few decades - a mediocre team sells off some of the future in an attempt to take a step forward only to fail and then have no depth of talent coming up to fall back on.
Trading Kessel is a decent idea. Allowing the young guys to thrash about for a few years and likely finish very poorly so as to get top prospects in the draft. Add to that whatever picks and prospects come in for Kessel and you have the start of a rebuild that will still take a several more years.
But I would much rather see them do it right then continue to patch work it.
Highlander
Active member
First of all we have to trade in known commodities and Phil Kessel is an elite player, I think most of us would agree on that. Also most of us agree no matter how much we love Kessel or dislike Kessel that we gave up a lot to get him, but that is water under the bridge. To trade Kessel right now is a major gamble unless you are getting a Lock-on future star for him. To trade for a first round pick is like trading for what is behind door number 1 or 2 or 3, you get the drift. How many number 1 draft picks or first round are playing in the league today.... they are never lock on guarantees, most go bust. I think to trade Kessel for picks is like buying lottery tickets with good money. Lets build a team around Phil with a decent centre and a good LW.
L
losveratos
Guest
Nik Pollock said:
I think finding a 1st line centre and keeping a healthy Lupul must be easier than trading both and hoping to then in turn draft all three of them.
Haven't you heard the whole one in the hand two in the bush?
Kin
New member
losveratos said:
Sure, but I've also heard "nothing ventured, nothing gained" so listening to these sorts of cliches leaves us all the way back at square one.
losveratos said:
I've been hearing for years now about all of the opportunities that exist for the Leafs to find a #1 centre outside of the draft and, sadly, have yet to see them bear fruit. The Brian Burke "Cross your fingers that a #1 centre will be available and want to sign in Toronto despite being offered considerably more lucrative contracts elsewhere" method proved pretty ineffective, as did JFJ's plan to draft them in the fourth round.
So no, I don't think it's easier to maintain the current course and somehow add a #1 centre.
Corn Flake
New member
There are 4-5 very good looking centres in this draft, starting with McKinnon. Barkov and Drouin are right behind and Sean Monahan and Elias Lindholm as well. edit: oh and *cough* Max Domi.
This is *probably* the year to get a 1st line, or at least a very good centre if the Leafs pick in the top 5-6. Top 3 would assure it.
This is *probably* the year to get a 1st line, or at least a very good centre if the Leafs pick in the top 5-6. Top 3 would assure it.
Corn Flake
New member
RedLeaf said:
Maybe.... probably.... but, Montreal finished 3rd last and Price had a great season. Same could happen here. This season is so crazy, who knows...
I think even drafting in the top 10 will get a good centre.. will just take longer for that player to arrive if the pick is lower.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik Pollock said:
Exactly. I mean, this summer is probably the team's last shot at being able to get a #1 centre that's of the right age and point in his development to play with Kessel without having to gut the system, and, even still, the word is that Getzlaf's preference is to stay with the Ducks. If the Leafs miss out there, it may very well be time to pull the pin and blow this thing up.