SUPERNOVA 3.0

Words and music by Supernova

The second team I looked at in the series was very interesting. Mainly to the fact that they won more in the minors and they also moved their coach up to the big club. Tampa Bay and Anaheim actually flip flopped minor league affiliations.

09-10 Norfolk Admirals

Player age GP Pts
Ryan Craig 27 73 45
Adam Hall 29 79 41
Brandon Bochenski 27 42 40
Mark Parrish 32 56 38
Juraj Simek 21 75 36

  • average age of top 5 highest scorers 27.2 w/o oldest 26
  • Oilers farm team top 5 26.4 w/o oldest 25

10-11 Norfolk Admirals Jon Cooper is HC & Steve Yzerman GM on May 25, 2010

Player age GP Pts
M.A Pouliot 25 69 72
Blair Jones 23 56 55
Johan Harju 24 63 52
Paul Szczechura 24 79 52
James Wright 20 80 47

  • Top 5 average age 23.2 w/o oldest 22.75
  • Oilers farm team top 5 25.8 w/o oldest 24.5

11-12 Norfolk Admirals Won Championship

Player age GP Pts
Cory Conacher 21 75 80
Trevor Smith 26 64 69
Tyler Johnson 21 75 68
Mark Barberio 21 74 61
Richard Panik 20 64 41

  • Top 5 average age 21.8 w/o oldest 20.75
  • Oilers farm team top 5 25 w/o oldest 23

12-13 Syracuse Crunch

Player age GP Pts
Johnson 22 62 65
Brett Connolly 20 71 63
Ondrej Palat 21 56 52
Barberio 22 73 42
Panik 21 51 41

  • Top 5 average age 21.2 w/o oldest 21
  • Oilers farm team top 5 22.2 w/o Ebs, Schultz, Hall 24.2

13-14 Syracuse Crunch

Player age GP Pts
Connolly 21 66 57
Namestnikov 20 56 48
Cedric Paquette 20 70 44
Mike Angelidis 28 75 33
Evan Rankin 27 62 30

8. Nikita Kucherov 20 17 24

  • Top 5 average age 23.2 w/o oldest 22
  • Oilers farm team top 5 24.4 w/o oldest 23.5

14-15 Syracuse Crunch

Player age GP Pts
Marshessault 23 68 67
Yanni Gourde 22 76 57
Angelidis 29 64 38
Tanner Richard 21 70 38
Namestnikov 21 34 35

  • Top 5 average age 23.2 w/o oldest 21.75
  • Oilers farm team top 5 28.6 w/o oldest 27.25

Here is a list of ten players through this system with acquisition cost and NHL GP

1. Johnson- UDFA 173 GP
2. Palat 208 Overall – 170 GP
3. Panik 52 Overall 151 GP
4. Conacher UDFA 141 GP
5. Connolly 6 overall 139 GP
6. Kucherov 58 Overall 134 GP
7. Barberio 152 Overall 103 GP
8. Paquette 101 Overall 66 GP
9. Namestnikov 27 overall 47 GP
10. Angelidis UDFA 10 GP

Deep (maybe shallow) Thoughts

There was a major change in organization philosophy when Yzerman was hired. I am not sure the absolute words but from studying the team, I can assume he told his player acquisition department “find players with skill, who can potentially become NHL players regardless of size and play them.” Quite clearly when Jon Cooper was on the farm team the coach was synchronized with player acquisition and they went for skill, maybe they hit lighting in a bottle but Tampa is an interesting look because of the regime change. The lightning also became a very competitive team at the same as re-jigging their farm team.
Similar to the Anaheim Ducks the Lightning play their young players in key roles. In these 6 years they did have some “veteran” influence but they put their young players in a position to play regardless of draft position, to me it looks like their evaluation of playing their players was by age and skill.
Tampa Bay had an above average performing farm team as far as record goes but to me it is clear their message is development first and winning second

Playing players in the AHL at 20 or 21 in key roles seems to be something the two organizations share, they don’t seem to flood their minor league teams with the veterans that will take these major development minutes away from prospects who might actually have a NHL career.

I am open to suggestions on the next team, I have completed a few other teams that I just need to update. have done Chicago and Detroit, as we know we are trying to learn the “Detroit Model”.

Also open to suggestions or thoughts

Supernova

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.
Related Posts

23 Responses to "SUPERNOVA 3.0"

  1. monsterbater4 says:

    Thanks for doing this work Supernova.

    It’s very, very interesting indeed. I think part of the issues the Oilers have still comes back to drafting, because they haven’t been drafting the skilled players, and have been chasing big bodied coke machines in the hopes of finding the next Lucic or Weber. That has left the minor ranks with insufficient skill forcing the team to go after more senior AHL regulars that put up points but are past their best before date when it comes to impacting the NHL team.

    We see that still now with the team, hence why i think Hunt was resigned. The team probably feels at worst Nurse is there for half a year. After that you have Davidson and a dogs breakfast of prospects from all over the map, with only Laleggia showing he has offensive upside, albeit at an expense of defensive awareness….. We need several good drafts, similar to 2013 in a row here to help us turn things around.

  2. russ99 says:

    This is awesome.

    Seems the last few years, the Barons rosters have been paying for Edmonton’s lax AHL plans (especially that crushing year without an affiliate) the last decade and Tambellini’s Lucic-hunt with too many coke machines with grindy veterans added.

    It’s been a long time since a skill forward came up from doing well at the AHL level in that age range and and went on to contribute to the Oilers.

    Let’s hope that changes.

  3. JD¡™ David O'Connor's Reel says:

    Champagne, Supernova!

  4. supernova says:

    monsterbater4:
    Thanks for doing this work Supernova.

    It’s very, very interesting indeed. I think part of the issues the Oilers have still comes back to drafting, because they haven’t been drafting the skilled players, and have been chasing big bodied coke machines in the hopes of finding the next Lucic or Weber. That has left the minor ranks with insufficient skill forcing the team to go after more senior AHL regulars that put up points but are past their best before date when it comes to impacting the NHL team.

    We see that still now with the team, hence why i think Hunt was resigned. The team probably feels at worst Nurse is there for half a year. After that you have Davidson and a dogs breakfast of prospects from all over the map, with only Laleggia showing he has offensive upside, albeit at an expense of defensive awareness….. We need several good drafts, similar to 2013 in a row here to help us turn things around.

    monsterbater4,

    Thank you,

    It was of interest to me Woodguy and Bruce McCurdy encouraged me to share what I seen.

    I actually think of development cycles when I look at the Oilers.

    The Oilers were so bent on finding players who worked well but were different types of players to play with Eberle, Hall and RNH they seemingly forgot about the draft plus a few years when they made their picks.

    If you make your draft picks and say that we will put THEM not the TEAM in the best position to succeed for the next 5 years and then work on your NHL roster without them in mind, you are likely helping your development.

    When you draft Moroz it shouldn’t be for what your team currently needs it should be for what you want in 2017. Draft plus 5.

    ——————–

    Personally I like the Defence on the Condors, they aren’t experienced but they are prospects. I wouldn’t have re-signed Hunt myself If I wanted the veteran D on the team I would have looked for the stable Defensive Defender and gave the plum starts and PP time to Laleggia or the other young D.

    The forward core needs some work in terms of actual prospects but the Barons last year played lots of grizzled veterans in key minutes. Hopefully they play Yak, Sleppy, Chase, Moroz, Platzer and others in the key minutes this year.

    I wouldn’t have Ford, or Hamilton on my minor league team. They don’t play Center and they take precious minutes away from the young players and they don’t have a realistic shot at being any more than a replacement level NHL forward.

  5. supernova says:

    russ99:
    This is awesome.

    Seems the last few years, the Barons rosters have been paying for Edmonton’s lax AHL plans (especially that crushing year without an affiliate) the last decade and Tambellini’s Lucic-hunt with too many coke machines with grindy veterans added.

    It’s been a long time since a skill forward came up from doing well at the AHL level in that age range and and went on to contribute to the Oilers.

    Let’s hope that changes.

    russ99,

    thanks,

    agree with you.

    If the Oilers are drafting just outside the playoffs in 16 we should be expecting to hear Best Player Available in terms of draft talk, but the lean will be for the BPA to be a forward.

    I like the model of draft plus 2 and then key minutes on the farm.

  6. Clay says:

    supernova: monsterbater4,

    ——————–

    Personally I like the Defence on the Condors, they aren’t experienced but they are prospects. I wouldn’t have re-signed Hunt myself If I wanted the veteran D on the team I would have looked for the stable Defensive Defender and gave the plum starts and PP time to Laleggia or the other young D.

    The forward core needs some work in terms of actual prospects but the Barons last year played lots of grizzled veterans in key minutes. Hopefully they play Yak, Sleppy, Chase, Moroz, Platzer and others in the key minutes this year.

    I wouldn’t have Ford, or Hamilton on my minor league team. They don’t play Center and they take precious minutes away from the young players and they don’t have a realistic shot at being any more than a replacement level NHL forward.

    I’m in total agreement with your philosophy, Supernova. Putting vets who have no realistic future in the NHL in key roles on the AHL team is akin to having your kids take online swimming lessons.

  7. Woodguy says:

    Clay: I’m in total agreement with your philosophy, Supernova.Putting vets who have no realistic future in the NHL in key roles on the AHL team is akin to having your kids take online swimming lessons.

    I like the analogy.

  8. oilswell says:

    The data are interesting but I don’t quite get how it supports shedding light on the question of nature versus nurture, nor appropriateness of development approaches to the player.

    The first question seems to require a way of assessing how well the development program unlocked potential (nature) or how much new capability it grew (nurture). How do you show young prospects that excelled in the AHL and made it (which would include Lander and Arcobello, right?) were not destined to make it? Surely pointing at draft pedigree begs the very question.

    On the second question the study here actually seems antagonistic to it, and seems to ask which alternative is better rather than which is better for whom. Perhaps Lander would have failed in a system without more vets? Perhaps there are a list of kids on the Admirals that never hit the 20 points and progressed because they were thrown into the deep end without the requisite shelter?

    I’s hard to analyze and think of next steps. Maybe look for patterns of success for players that succeeded but did NOT gave an easy path to ice time?

  9. Lowetide says:

    oilswell:
    The data are interesting but I don’t quite get how it supports shedding light on the question of nature versus nurture, nor appropriateness of development approaches to the player.

    The first question seems to require a way of assessing how well the development program unlocked potential (nature) or how much new capability it grew (nurture). How do you show young prospects that excelled in the AHL and made it (which would include Lander and Arcobello, right?) were not destined to make it? Surely pointing at draft pedigree begs the very question.

    On the second question the study here actually seems antagonistic to it, and seems to ask which alternative is better rather than which is better for whom. Perhaps Lander would have failed in a system without more vets? Perhaps there are a list of kids on the Admirals that never hit the 20 points and progressed because they were thrown into the deep end without the requisite shelter?

    I’s hard to analyze and think of next steps. Maybe look for patterns of success for players that succeeded but did NOT gave an easy path to ice time?

    For about the last five years or so, I’ve been staring at things with LUCK screaming in my brain. I absolutely believe drafting David Musil (with his skill set) in the second round is a dubious call, but lordy there’s a lot of this stuff that comes down to luck.

    I’m enjoying SN’s series immensely and have come to the conclusion that luck is enormous, but a team signing a Tyler Johnson every spring loads the dice for sure.

  10. PointGiven says:

    Josh Weissbrod did a bit of work on prospects succeeding from AHL. It’s a corollary to what you are writing about, organizations focusing on playing young players more in teh AHL.

    http://canucksarmy.com/2015/7/24/establishing-ahl-baseline-s-for-prospect-success

  11. oilswell says:

    Clay: I’m in total agreement with your philosophy, Supernova.Putting vets who have no realistic future in the NHL in key roles on the AHL team is akin to having your kids take online swimming lessons.

    That’s good but, of course, if one wants to go with swimming analogies, then not stocking an AHL team with vets to give shelter (where needed) is like teaching your kids to swim by throwing them in the middle of a pool without a shallow end.

  12. Lewis Grant says:

    Cory Conacher 21 75 80
    Tyler Johnson 21 75 68

    Johnson 22 62 65
    Brett Connolly 20 71 63
    Ondrej Palat 21 56 52

    So why do Johnson and Palat succeed wildly in the NHL, while Conacher and Connolly struggle?

    (Not that Tampa cares, as they turned Conacher into Bishop and Connolly into 2 2nds, but it’s still interesting from a development perspective).

  13. supernova says:

    Clay: I’m in total agreement with your philosophy, Supernova.Putting vets who have no realistic future in the NHL in key roles on the AHL team is akin to having your kids take online swimming lessons.

    Woodguy,

    Clay,

    Haha that’s a good one!

  14. supernova says:

    PointGiven:
    Josh Weissbrod did a bit of work on prospects succeeding from AHL. It’s a corollary to what you are writing about, organizations focusing on playing young players more in teh AHL.

    http://canucksarmy.com/2015/7/24/establishing-ahl-baseline-s-for-prospect-success

    PointGiven,

    Yes I have read his work. Very interesting.

    I started doing this last year just out of interests sake for myself.
    Really it came down to continually hearing a couple of things.

    “You shouldn’t gift players minutes”
    “Players need to earn their ice time”
    “The veteran in the AHL is key to the team”

    I wasn’t looking to prove or disprove anything I just wanted to take a “glimpse” at what other organizations did or do.

    To be frank I grew quite weary of seeing Oilers draft a player and then see him stall in the AHL and then see another teams players succeed. My main question was why?

  15. supernova says:

    oilswell:
    The data are interesting but I don’t quite get how it supports shedding light on the question of nature versus nurture, nor appropriateness of development approaches to the player.

    The first question seems to require a way of assessing how well the development program unlocked potential (nature) or how much new capability it grew (nurture). How do you show young prospects that excelled in the AHL and made it (which would include Lander and Arcobello, right?) were not destined to make it? Surely pointing at draft pedigree begs the very question.

    On the second question the study here actually seems antagonistic to it, and seems to ask which alternative is better rather than which is better for whom. Perhaps Lander would have failed in a system without more vets? Perhaps there are a list of kids on the Admirals that never hit the 20 points and progressed because they were thrown into the deep end without the requisite shelter?

    I’s hard to analyze and think of next steps. Maybe look for patterns of success for players that succeeded but did NOT gave an easy path to ice time?

    oilswell,

    I am not looking to prove or disprove anything.

    I also wouldn’t call it a study. As I stated right from the start I wanted to get a glimpse or idea of what other organizations did in terms of development. As with most questions, you tend to produce more questions than answers and I am fine with that. I wasn’t looking to actually stand on a soapbox and proclaim anything.

    But with all things that you look at you start to formulate an opinion. I believe I state my opinion quite clearly in the comments and thoughts section, but I wouldn’t call this a study.

    My question for you is

    For what purpose does a development team have in signing a Ford or a Hamilton when they know they have a very reasonable idea of their peak Value? Why wouldn’t you use those minutes on someone who you haven’t established that with?

  16. supernova says:

    Lowetide: For about the last five years or so, I’ve been staring at things with LUCK screaming in my brain. I absolutely believe drafting David Musil (with his skill set) in the second round is a dubious call, but lordy there’s a lot of this stuff that comes down to luck.

    I’m enjoying SN’s series immensely and have come to the conclusion that luck is enormous, but a team signing a Tyler Johnson every spring loads the dice for sure.

    “luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity” Seneca (Roman Philospher)

  17. supernova says:

    Lewis Grant:
    Cory Conacher 21 75 80
    Tyler Johnson 21 75 68


    Johnson 22 62 65
    Brett Connolly 20 71 63
    Ondrej Palat 21 56 52

    So why do Johnson and Palat succeed wildly in the NHL, while Conacher and Connolly struggle?

    (Not that Tampa cares, as they turned Conacher into Bishop and Connolly into 2 2nds, but it’s still interesting from a development perspective).

    Lewis Grant,

    Excellent question.

    Not that we ever will know the answer but my first thought is

    What would Conacher be if he wasn’t Traded?
    He played quite well with Tampa before being traded for Bishop.

    Lighting in a bottle?

    Connolly, hmm

    My fist thought was Cooper was a Heckuva coach in the AHL and has done very well in the NHL but it looks like he really favourites “his people”

    Was Connolly one of his People?

    What the heck is going on with Drouin ?
    An immense amount of talent barely playing, why wasn’t he farmed out ?

  18. monsterbater4 says:

    supernova: Lewis Grant,

    Excellent question.

    Not that we ever will know the answer but my first thought is

    What would Conacher be if he wasn’t Traded?
    He played quite well with Tampa before being traded for Bishop.

    Lighting in a bottle?

    Connolly, hmm

    My fist thought was Cooper was a Heckuva coach in the AHL and has done very well in the NHL but it looks like he really favourites “his people”

    Was Connolly one of his People?

    What the heck is going on with Drouin ?
    An immense amount of talent barely playing, why wasn’t he farmed out ?

    My thought is that the Tampa system was proving well with developing younger players to have success in the AHL. Not every player that’s a monster in the AHL is going to do well in the NHL, but by breeding these types of players you are stacking the deck for yourself. so what if only 2 out of 4 make it. isn’t that much higher than the typical rate of success for most prospects?

  19. supernova says:

    monsterbater4: My thought is that the Tampa system was proving well with developing younger players to have success in the AHL. Not every player that’s a monster in the AHL is going to do well in the NHL, but by breeding these types of players you are stacking the deck for yourself. so what if only 2 out of 4 make it. isn’t that much higher than the typical rate of success for most prospects?

    monsterbater4,

    I agree with this completely.

    You need to prime your system. In my opinion the more 20 year olds playing key minutes the more success from prospects would be expected. Even at that 2 in 4 seems high for expactation.

  20. Jordan says:

    supernova,

    Hi Supernova,

    Thanks so much for doing all this research and sharing it with us. Very interesting and your insights paint a very clear picture. Kudos.

    With all of the young talent coming forwards in Calgary, I’d like to see if the pattern we’ve seen in TB and ANA continues with their organization.

    In my mind, there seems to be 3 schools of thought on development:
    1 – Give the kids a lot of time and let them develop with a couple vets to show them how
    2 – Hire some great vets and let the prospects fight for time with them, and make them earn it
    3 – Ignore the development system and see who manages to find their way on their own.

    There were some years with the Oilers were doing each of these models, with the most recent being #2.

    The challenge with using models 1 & 3 is there is the risk of developing that losing culture that’s been a part of the narrative for a long time in Edmonton, either at the AHL or NHL level.

    With model 2, the risk of doing really poorly is mitigated by the added depth of vet AHLers en-masse. So, I guess my question is simple – based on what you’re seeing, is the risk of losing at the AHL level a bigger concern than not giving the younger prospects more time in feature roles?

    If you can answer that coherantly and decisively, I think you win a job working in hickey ops.

  21. Lewis Grant says:

    monsterbater4:

    My thought is that the Tampa system was proving well with developing younger players to have success in the AHL. Not every player that’s a monster in the AHL is going to do well in the NHL, but by breeding these types of players you are stacking the deck for yourself. so what if only 2 out of 4 make it. isn’t that much higher than the typical rate of success for most prospects?

    Yeah, from an overall perspective, you’re right. I’d be happy if we had Tampa’s output. But presumably the NHLEs were pretty similar for all 4 players, which suggests a pretty wide variance in NHLE. That’s a change from NHLEs for elite junior players, which seem to have a lot less variation. Moreover, you’d think that as a player gets older, their NHLE would become a better predictor. One would think it’s easier to project a 23-year-old than a 17-year-old.

  22. supernova says:

    Jordan:
    supernova,

    Hi Supernova,

    Thanks so much for doing all this research and sharing it with us.Very interesting and your insights paint a very clear picture.Kudos.

    With all of the young talent coming forwards in Calgary, I’d like to see if the pattern we’ve seen in TB and ANA continues with their organization.

    In my mind, there seems to be 3 schools of thought on development:
    1 – Give the kids a lot of time and let them develop with a couple vets to show them how
    2 – Hire some great vets and let the prospects fight for time with them, and make them earn it
    3 – Ignore the development system and see who manages to find their way on their own.

    There were some years with the Oilers were doing each of these models, with the most recent being #2.

    The challenge with using models 1 & 3 is there is the risk of developing that losing culture that’s been a part of the narrative for a long time in Edmonton, either at the AHL or NHL level.

    With model 2, the risk of doing really poorly is mitigated by the added depth of vet AHLers en-masse.So, I guess my question is simple – based on what you’re seeing, is the risk of losing at the AHL level a bigger concern than not giving the younger prospects more time in feature roles?

    If you can answer that coherantly and decisively, I think you win a job working in hickey ops.

    Jordan,

    In my mind, there seems to be 3 schools of thought on development:
    1 – Give the kids a lot of time and let them develop with a couple vets to show them how
    2 – Hire some great vets and let the prospects fight for time with them, and make them earn it
    3 – Ignore the development system and see who manages to find their way on their own.

    if i am in charge of Player Acquistion my choice is option 1.

    I am not concerned about losing in the farm organization, not to say this doesn’t affect players but with Development we should expect to see them win more naturally as they mature.

    I don’t really expect a 20 year old Moroz to beat out a well paid veteran like 28 year old Ryan Hamilton. If I was Hamilton i would make the young player earn every inch of ice because he would be stealing my livelihood and dream. Also from a physical and emotional standpoint we know a 20 year old is no where near as mature as well.

    What i would want is Moroz competing for ice time with Slepshyev, Holmberg, Jones, and other similar age propects perhaps a range of 19-23 year olds.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!
© Copyright - Lowetide.ca