Rangers Analysis: Derek Stepan and the 'Sophomore Slump'
Derek Stepan's rookie season began with a bang, recording a hat trick against the Buffalo Sabres and instantly winning over the hearts and minds of Rangers' fans for the season. He finished his rookie campaign with 21 goals and 45 points, tied for the 15th best rookie season in Rangers' history, and 4th best for someone 20 and younger. To no surprise, expectations are running amok for Derek's future. That future begins with his second season in the league, and as anyone will tell you, that season is one ripe with risk.
The 'sophomore slump' is a popular narrative. A rookie comes in and sets the world on fire, and then can't replicate the results. As the story goes, teams adjust to the player, players don't work hard enough to improve, etc. What actually happens in most cases is one of two things. A young player may get added responsibilities that he doesn't handle well (Michael Del Zotto anyone?). Alternatively, and more commonly, the clock strikes twelve on a players' luck (I'm sorry to say, but Petr Prucha wasn't really a 23% shooter).
How at risk is Stepan to go through the sophomore slump? We'll look at that after the jump.
The first question to ask is, how did some comparables fair in their sophomore season? I defined a comparable as a 20 year old in the 'behindthenet' era (2007-08 through last season), who posted between 0.45 and 0.65 points per game (Step comes in at 0.55). Let's look at the group:
| Name | Season | Team | Pos | GP | G | A | P | SOG | SH% | TOI |
| Jordan Eberle | 2010-11 | EDM | C | 69 | 18 | 25 | 43 | 158 | 11.4 | 1220 |
| Patrik Berglund | 2008-09 | STL | C | 76 | 21 | 26 | 47 | 143 | 14.7 | 1119 |
| Michael Frolik | 2008-09 | FLA | C | 79 | 21 | 24 | 45 | 158 | 13.3 | 1170 |
| Derek Stepan | 2010-11 | NYR | C | 82 | 21 | 24 | 45 | 166 | 12.7 | 1348 |
| Andrew Cogliano | 2007-08 | EDM | C | 82 | 18 | 27 | 45 | 98 | 18.4 | 1120 |
| Sergei Kostitsyn | 2007-08 | MTL | LW | 52 | 9 | 18 | 27 | 49 | 18.4 | 746 |
| Jamie Benn | 2009-10 | DAL | LW | 82 | 22 | 19 | 41 | 182 | 12.1 | 1206 |
| James van Riemsdyk | 2009-10 | PHI | LW |
78 | 15 |
20 | 35 | 173 | 8.7 |
1011 |
| Martin Hanzal | 2007-08 | PHX | C | 72 | 8 |
27 | 35 | 111 | 7.2 | 1206 |
The group consists of some very good young players around the league, from the underrated Martin Hanzal of the Coyotes, to the talented Jordan Eberle for the Oilers. Just based on the names involved, it seems that Stepan fits right in. Let's look at these players 2nd seasons:
| Name | Season | Team | Pos | GP | G | A | P | SOG | SH% | TOI | Delta |
| Jordan Eberle | EDM | C | |||||||||
| Patrik Berglund | 2009-10 | STL | C | 71 | 13 | 13 | 26 | 129 | 10.1 | 959 | -21 |
| Michael Frolik | 2009-10 | FLA | C | 82 | 21 | 22 | 43 | 219 | 9.6 | 1433 | -2 |
| Derek Stepan | NYR | C | |||||||||
| Andrew Cogliano | 2008-09 | EDM | C | 82 | 18 | 20 | 38 | 116 | 15.5 | 1181 | -7 |
| Sergei Kostitsyn | 2008-09 | MTL | LW | 56 | 8 | 15 | 23 | 74 | 10.8 | 792 | -4 |
| Jamie Benn | 2010-11 | DAL | LW | 69 | 22 | 34 | 56 | 177 | 12.4 | 1243 | 15 |
| James van Riemsdyk | 2010-11 | PHI | LW | 75 | 21 | 19 | 40 | 173 | 12.1 | 1090 | 5 |
| Martin Hanzal | 2008-09 | PHX | C | 74 | 11 | 20 | 31 | 97 | 11.3 | 1210 | -4 |
Well, that's less promising than we would like. Most of the group 'slumped' to fewer points in their second season, driven for the most part by a reduction in shooting percentage. They also all saw a drop in their assist totals, despite increased ice time. So based on the comparables, the surface numbers do not favor Derek Stepan repeating his rookie performance. The underneath numbers don't really shine a better picture, but they do give a little more reason for optimism.
| Corsi Rel QoC | Corsi QoT | G+A1/60 | P/60 | Team Sh% | ZoneStart% | Adj Corsi/60 | |||||||||
| Name | Season | 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd |
| Jordan Eberle | 2010-11 | 5 of 15 | 4 of 15 | 1.43 | 1.79 | 7.91 | 49.3 | -2.92 | |||||||
| Patrik Berglund | 2008-09 | 9 of 14 | 9 of 14 | 5 of 14 | 6 of 14 | 1.60 | 0.86 | 1.83 | 1.25 | 10.74 | 6.55 | 59.8 | 59.7 | -5.07 | 4.88 |
| Michael Frolik | 2008-09 | 7 of 14 | 5 of 13 | 6 of 14 | 4 of 13 | 1.69 | 0.95 | 1.94 | 1.58 | 9.44 | 7.82 | 43.7 | 45.0 | 1.97 | -0.75 |
| Derek Stepan | 2010-11 | 11 of 13 | 3 of 13 | 1.56 | 1.84 | 8.80 | 64.1 | -0.49 | |||||||
| Andrew Cogliano | 2007-08 | 12 of 14 | 7 of 13 | 9 of 14 | 11 of 14 | 1.56 | 1.17 | 2.28 | 1.69 | 11.42 | 8.63 | 52.8 | 53.2 | -15.60 | -6.03 |
| Sergei Kostitsyn | 2007-08 | 8 of 13 | 7 of 15 | 7 of 13 | 2 of 15 | 1.46 | 0.83 | 2.04 | 1.34 | 12.26 | 8.49 | 48.1 | 51.5 | -11.21 | -12.91 |
| Jamie Benn | 2009-10 | 3 of 15 | 6 of 13 | 2 of 15 | 6 of 13 | 1.48 | 1.60 | 2.01 | 2.42 | 8.61 | 10.39 | 57.1 | 59.0 | -1.46 | -5.05 |
| James van Riemsdyk | 2009-10 | 10 of 14 | 6 of 14 | 8 of 14 | 2 of 14 | 1.31 | 1.56 | 1.72 | 1.88 | 7.16 | 9.54 | 58.8 | 52.6 | 3.12 | -1.74 |
| Martin Hanzal | 2007-08 | 2 of 13 | 1 of 17 | 11 of 13 | 15 of 17 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.42 | 1.55 | 6.67 | 8.70 | 47.1 | 38.4 | 3.82 | 0.82 |
All data here is even strength, specifically 5v5, only. The quality of player metrics here are the ranks based on the number of team forwards who registered 30+ games played. For example, Martin Hanzal played the 2nd hardest competition for the Coyotes during his rookie year, with the 11st best teammates. G+A1/60 is the players point totals based on only goals and primary assists. Eric T. at Broad Street Hockey showed there is little correlation in a player's ability to record secondary assists, so G+A1/60 is a bit more reliable when looking at a player's ability from year to year.
While there is no definitive pattern with the quality of teammates among the rookies, there's a clear pattern with competition. In their second season, each of these young rookies were asked to take harder competition, and not surprisingly, saw a decrease in their results. The lone exception here was James Van Riemsdyk, who had the largest jump in his teammate level to help him. There was also no strong correlation with the players zone start, as most saw their deployment unchanged, or even more offensively oriented in their second season.
Perhaps the largest factor, as noted individually, was the team's shooting percentage with each player on the ice. The group was well above the league average of 8.1%, with a couple as high as 11%. As to be expected, the following season that number came back to earth, and those players saw a dramatic drop in their P/60. Those who were below average, saw that number come back up, and their production increased. That's not a surprising result, clearly the more shots that are going in, the more opportunity there is for points.
After all that, we come back to the only thing fans will care about, what does this mean for Derek Stepan? Well there are a couple of red flags here. He was heavily shielded in his rookie year, both in competition and defensive zone assignments (although the latter can be partially blamed on his anemic faceoff rate). In both cases, it is likely he'll see harder situations, which will have an impact on his bottom line. The other flag is his individual shooting percentage. At the University of Wisconsin, Derek shot 8.8% over his two years, then jumped to 12.7 in his first year as a professional. Yes, this could be an improvement in his game, however as we saw, these 20-goal rookie campaigns were also accompanied by high percentages, and came back down the following season. It is something to watch for, as his college shooting rate would've netted him just 15 goals, a far less exciting total than his actual 21.
On the other side of the coin, while his team shooting was above average, it was not nearly to the level as the others, and may be repeatable, which will help his keep his point totals where they are. He also had remarkably few second assists this season (just 0.28 per 60). This rate is actually on par with a few of the slumpers, but all of them saw much higher rates in their second season. That could very well mean that Stepan's assists can stay stable as well. Lastly, while not discussed here, power play time has a significant effect on results. Aside from Martin Hanzal however, this group did not see a significant shift in their power play minutes, and thus the even strength numbers played a much larger role in their boxscore numbers. With Brad Richards on board, this may actually hurt Stepan more than help him, but the total effect should be a relatively minimal.
All told, the odds are that Stepan takes a slight step back this year. That drop probably won't be Berglund-esque, but if he finishes with a 15-20-35 season, it's no cause for concern. Of course, he exceeded all expectations his rookie season, so will anyone really be surprised if he does it again? I know I won't be.
79 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
George
You are one of my favorite folks here but you know why I toss away stats as any kind of guide?
Because nobody has ever come up with a way to measure a person’s heart and nobody has ever come up with a way to a way to measure the fire inside their belly.
He was heavily shielded in his rookie year, both in competition and defensive zone assignments (although the latter can be partially blamed on his anemic faceoff rate). In both cases, it is likely he’ll see harder situations, which will have an impact on his bottom line.
But that is John Tortorella’s job to place his players into situations which get the most productivity while doing the max to hide his weaknesses.
Stepan has always been bad at faceoffs and doubt that will change until his body finishes maturing and he has added muscle to his upper frame but until that point you put him on the left side of Brad Richards and let Richards take the faceoffs.
You take Stepan and put him on the left side board right above the top of the hashmarks and let him do what he does best which is be a playmaker.
I call the 21 goals more of a fluke that was 2-3 years ahead of where he should be, I can live with Stepan scoring 15 goals a season if he brings his assist totals up to the 35-40 range.
Considering his age and that he currently does not have a defined role on the team then he could repeat what he did last season and that would be acceptable for a 21 year old
?
Because nobody has ever come up with a way to measure a person’s heart and nobody has ever come up with a way to a way to measure the fire inside their belly.
No. This is completely irrelevant. Read this: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2011/07/31/common-misconceptions-about-statisitical-analysis/
I agree with you that it is Tortorella’s job to put a player in their best position to succeed, this is where the problem begins. Stepan played well in his role last year, but if Torts attempts to give him a bigger role (aka less sheltered minutes) odds are he will take a step back in production as a result. His amount of “heart” – measured or not – has nothing to do with this.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
? right back at ya
Heart is irrelevant? And I guess psychology is as well for you? Athletes are people, not automatons—and just because heart and head can’t be quantified in a neat little formula doesn’t mean they don’t play a role in the success of individuals at this level.
Or to put it thusly: skills + no heart = Alexandre Daigle
skills + heart = Adam Graves
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 3, 2011 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Elaborate
First off, I guess I should have included a bigger quote then:
You are one of my favorite folks here but you know why I toss away stats as any kind of guide?
Because nobody has ever come up with a way to measure a person’s heart and nobody has ever come up with a way to a way to measure the fire inside their belly.
To say stats can’t be used as a guide because no one can quantify heart is an irrelevant and erroneous reason to do so. Heart and Psychology do have a factor, you’re right, but unless you’re a psychologist that is lucky enough to examine a player, we really have nothing to work with then. These numbers, that are available for everyone to understand and form their own opinions on the other hand, can provide us another lens of context when it comes to the game.
Many factors will determine if Stepan falls (or fails to fall) into a sophomore slump, but the role Torts chooses to use the young man in will be the predominant one. And on your little heart comparison there, consider the following. Daigle was rushed into the NHL on a team that went 10-70 in the previous season, while Graves was introduced gradually through the combination of a DET/EDM development program on two very, very good teams during his early career. I’m not gonna say Daigle had or did not have heart, but the odds of him succeeding with little time to adapt/develop his overall game were harder for him than Graves, who walked into two teams full of veterans and winning experience. Heart may have had a factor, but theres plenty of the picture you’re not looking at.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
Your original argument was specious, Rob—you offered a rebuttal in the form of a link to an article written by someone who thinks like you, which did not really address Jess’ point about the individual character of a player being something that is unquantifiable. You merely declared Jess’ statement to be irrelevant without offering much evidence as to why Jess’ opinion was irrelevant.
As far as a Daigle vs. Graves comparison goes, their character was what made each athlete who they were as an NHL player. Raw data would have indicated that it would nearly be impossible for Graves to surpass Daigle as an NHL player, but Graves did it….all because he was a mature, hard-working driven player, while Daigle was not willing to put in the same level of effort. The difference between each man was their heart.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 3, 2011 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions
While I won’t argue the general argument , I’ll point out Graves, while a 2nd rounder technically, was the 22nd overall pick in his draft class. It’s not like he was a no-talent kid who scratched and clawed his way to the hearts of Rangers’ fans. He made the NHL (for a cup of coffee) at 19, and by 23 was the guy the Rangers came to know and love.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I am aware of Graves’ draft and pre-Ranger history; he is one of my three favorite Rangers of all time. He is the classic story of a player who exceeded expectations. Nobody had Graves pegged for the level of offensive production that he reached as a Ranger….his first full year with the Rangers was diametrically opposed to the statistical trends he had established with his first two full seasons in the NHL….otherwise two organizations would not have let Graves get away.
His individual character and will turned him into an all-time franchise great. He’s also an example of a guy whose drive to succeed allowed him to come back from nasty back problems and surgery to re-establish himself as a good player in the league. And to me at least that is the measure of a great hockey player; the game is brutal, players get hurt—and the great ones are the ones who find a way to make it back to their established level without complaint.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 4, 2011 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Read the link
The link analyzes an article written in the form of Jess’ comment – that stats can’t be worth anything because its more about what a player is “made of” – I call bullshit. As George has written himself, “Numbers don’t lie, they just don’t agree with you.” Sorry I didn’t have time to quote certain parts of the link while I was working.
Raw data would have indicated that it would nearly be impossible for Graves to surpass Daigle as an NHL player…
Yes, odds were not in Graves’ favor on draft day.
…but Graves did it….all because he was a mature, hard-working driven player, while Daigle was not willing to put in the same level of effort. The difference between each man was their heart.
Sure, heart had a factor, I’ll admit that. But to completely ignore the roles each player were assigned in their development years in the NHL would be specious, as well.
To use simple counting numbers, Daigle scored over .50 PPG for his 600+ game NHL career, including 28 points in his last 46 (0.61). Sure, he was a bust as a first overall pick, but in the end he was also a victim of expectations – which doesn’t necessarily make him a bad hockey player.
In my mind, Graves was given a realistic opportunity, while Daigle (and all first overall picks, I guess) had more of an ultimatum to live up to. To blame it all on heart isn’t fair, to me. I’m sure Daigle would love another shot, to say the least.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
Agreed.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
Daigle didn’t get a realistic opportunity? I disagree heartily with that, most teams actually want the #1 overall choice in a draft class to succeed, not to fail, And according to you numbers determine value and outweigh everything else, so how can Daigle be anything but a bad hockey player using your system of analyisis?
Lastly, belief in statistics does not make it an infallible science when it comes to analyzing hockey. Like everything else expressed on this site, belief in the worth of statistical analysis is an opinion. The fact that this opinion is held by the majority of the readers here doesn’t make it unshakeable truth.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 4, 2011 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Perspective
Daigle didn’t get a realistic opportunity?
Re-read above. I’ll say it another way, though.
You graduate valedictorian of our university (Daigle), while I graduate in the thick of above-average/good (Graves). You’re expected to do great, big things (President/CEO of a company aka MVP), while I’m expected to do just fine to good (Regional director or something). Wouldn’t you say there is a little more pressure on you? And hence your track record, more tasks and assignments will be expected of you to complete and succeed. You’re thrown right into the thick of things (aka first-line competition), while I’m brought along in a training program more slowly. Do you see the difference yet?
…so how can Daigle be anything but a bad hockey player using your system of analyisis?
Because most NHL players (in the broadest sense of the term) don’t score over 300 points for their career in only 600 games. He’s probably still pretty good today. In general, when put in perspective, Daigle still was a decent hockey player in the end.
Lastly, belief in statistics does not make it an infallible science when it comes to analyzing hockey.
Very true, check out my response below to Jess.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
You say to Jess that you can’t throw out stats while evaluating players, and then offer a strained analogy in response. Graves and Daigle were hockey players, not corporate drones; the levels of expectation for a guy like Daigle are part of the game, not a separate thing that only Daigle dealt with…..
Graves dealt with pressure pretty well in his career, winning two Stanley Cups by the age of 25. Or when he broke Vic Hadfield’s team goal-scoring record down the stretch of the 93-94 season. Here (like everywhere else) Graves was superior to Daigle. I think the pressure of winning a Cup with the Rangers in 1994 surpassed anything that Daigle ever faced as a #1 overall pick.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 4, 2011 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions
I give up
You say to Jess that you can’t throw out stats while evaluating players, and then offer a strained analogy in response.
How is it strained? Quote a part of my text, find or do some research, and prove me wrong. If anything, this whole conversation proves the limits of observation amongst you two.
Here (like everywhere else) Graves was superior to Daigle. I think the pressure of winning a Cup with the Rangers in 1994 surpassed anything that Daigle ever faced as a #1 overall pick.
I never said Graves wasn’t superior to Daigle. And I’m talking about the pressure they faced during their development, not five+ years into their careers? You took your logic out of context.
I’ll throw up the white flag, heart "wins."
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
Not asking for a win here at all, Rob—merely trying to keep to the original point here, which is that some people swear by stats and numbers, and some do not. Each opinion is valid, and worthy of respect rather than dismissal.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 4, 2011 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions
To dismiss
But to dismiss the stats is specious, if you will. I don’t dismiss what my eyes see, but I return to the numbers to form a more contextual opinion. To each his own in the end, though.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
That’s exactly the point. Opinions ain’t that special, we all have them in excess.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 4, 2011 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Apples to Oranges
Graves dealt with pressure pretty well in his career, winning two Stanley Cups by the age of 25. Or when he broke Vic Hadfield’s team goal-scoring record down the stretch of the 93-94 season. Here (like everywhere else) Graves was superior to Daigle. I think the pressure of winning a Cup with the Rangers in 1994 surpassed anything that Daigle ever faced as a #1 overall pick.
Go look at Daigle’s teammates those first 4 years of his career. Please do it. Here’s the link. http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/d/daiglal02.html
Those teams were HORRIBLE. Daigle wasn’t playing wing on Messier’s line where scoring goals meant tip-ins in front of the net. To completely ignore the context of each player (which is basically what you’re doing) renders just about everything you say moot. The same goes for stats, they need to be used in context (which both Rob and George have said multiple times). So, no, not all opinions are valid.
by NTB on Aug 4, 2011 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So only players that are exactly alike can be compared, according to your logic? I cited Graves’ example because the guy was ALL ABOUT HEART as a player. That’s what made him a fan favorite, the fact that Gravy busted it every night.
It’s not like I compared Daigle to Ken Baumgartner here….both Graves and Daigle were expected to be solid pro players. One fulfilled expectations and one did not. And I believe it had everything to do with the character of the men involved.
Prole art threat.
by greifi griffie on Aug 4, 2011 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
You missed the "I"
Rob
No offense but please read what I wrote. Why I do not as I have a lot of respect for George.
But I think it is unfair to try to predict whether a player is going to have a good or bad season based on stats. It is like the guy who looks at a combat situation and says “well sir I expect using your plan we will have at least 10% in causalities”
And no you do not have to be a psychologist as I will never come close to being one. But you are right I do get to “examine” these prospects as they come through the system.
I do get to talk to these prospects but really I bet Rob if we switched places and you got to talk to these prospects you would say the same thing.
We put way too much into numbers these days and we forget that the person being measured is in fact a human being.
Dubinsky made it because the only thing he ever wanted to be was a Ranger.
Callahan made it because people kept telling him he was too skinny to be in the NHL
Stepan made it because from the moment he put on skates he knew what he wanted to be and spent every chance he got working for that dream.
And I will also be the first to admit that sometimes the heart can not make up for the lack of talent.
The Daigle/Graves comparison is actually a good one but for different reasons. Daigle was the victim of expectations like you said as you know the human part.
Daigle from day one was told he was a bust and every day until he finally left for Europe heard how he was a bust. We are human and if I told you 1 million times that you were a bust; odds are eventually you will begin to doubt yourself.
Not psychology Rob self esteem and human nature
by theprospectpark on Aug 4, 2011 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well
It is like the guy who looks at a combat situation and says "well sir I expect using your plan we will have at least 10% in causalities"
I’m going to ignore the unfair part, but not this. Why do you think they have these statisticians who can produce numbers like this? Because it can be a reliable source of data, when put in context, that can aid in decision making. This is very similar to the stats we all have at our disposal when it comes to predicting a season. I had never met Colin Wilson, Jamie Benn, Clarke MacArthur, or Tyler Ennis before last season, yet I predicted them to have decent years before the season even began because of advanced hockey statistics.
Look, in the end I’m not arguing against heart or determination or self esteem/human nature, I’m just arguing for the respect of these statistics because they have underrated value in the hockey world (hence this disagreement). I think George said it best again in the comments below – if Stepan takes a step back due to an increased role, we’re going to read a 100 “WHATS WRONG WITH DEREK?!?!?” articles, when if we just taper expectations and put everything in perspective, its not as big of an issue as some will make it out to be – just a bump in the development road.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
No one denies (or should deny) that Dubinsky, Callahan, Stepan, Graves, etc…worked very hard and are/were as successful as they have been because of their work ethic and dedication to the sport. In my opinion, ‘heart’ is certainly one of the factors that helps determine who ‘busts’ and who doesn’t.
However, there’s no amount of heart, or dedication, or xyz that will turn any of the 3 of them into a Sidney Crosby level talent. Put another way, if I came up with a statistical analysis that said Prust will score 120 points next season, I’d be laughed off the internet, even if he’s dripping with intangibles.
There’s a limit to the amount of points a player can produce, influenced by many factors, some tangible, some not. It’s pretty much impossible to capture the intangible, but the statistical community is doing alot of really good work to help develop trends and models for the tangible. It is by no means unfair to use those trends and models to make an estimate, no matter how much we might like a player.
That’s what this is. It’s my attempt at capturing the tangible, the realistic limits of what one can expect for Stepan’s bottomline. I had no preconceived notions here when I ran the data. If the comparables and underlying data all said it’s a good bet that Stepan would jump to 60 points, I’d have written that article too. But it didn’t.
Can he still outwork, outhustle, or outdevelop the negative factors? Absolutely he can, and I even suggest as much at the end, though not specifically mentioning ‘heart’ as a reason. But could he be crapped on by the ‘hockey gods’ or just follow the general pattern of 20 year olds who had very good seasons boosted by percentages? Absolutely he can as well.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 4, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Take baseball pre-Billy Bean and all of the wonderful work that the SABR community has done. Nobody looked at anything other than surface stats and “gut instincts”. It has taken more than a generation to go by before it has ratios like OBP and OPS have become more important than RBI, as a measure of talent. It takes time to demonstrate the value of stats. And even in baseball where the situations are much easier to identify individual contributions, most models are at about 65% accuracy. That still leaves 35% error, and people love to point out the 35% as reasons why statistics are flawed. If given the choice I would always play the bet with 65% accuracy and accept the potential failures.
Heart and intangibles are obviously important contributing factors, and even though we can not quantify them that does not completely demean statistics. That is another facet to player evaluation, but not the only one. Just like statistics are not the only method for evaluation. The most complete way to evaluate players is with BOTH statistical analysis, raw numbers, and a pyschological profile. Look at the NFL combine, lots of raw physical analysis of athletic ability and pyschological exams to identify how stable/strong a person’s charachter is.
I toss away stats as any kind of guide
To make sure we’re talking about the same thing, “The Prospect Park” is the site that offers “insight” into prospects by stretching out their stat line into a 3 sentence narrative, right? Yeah. I can see how you toss those stats right out.
by BuckarooClub on Aug 4, 2011 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Prospect Park on the web is where I file a daily report on how the prospect have done. Of course I post the stats of what they did for that day that is why it is called a daily report.
The Prospect Park in the Blueshirt Bulletin is where I profile the prospects as well as conduct interview s It is there where I profile project and examine the potential of the Ranger prospects.
Since I doubt you actually read either then you would not know.
by theprospectpark on Aug 4, 2011 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a great situation for Stepan.
Unlike others in that group, in his 2nd year he’s going to see less ice time (due to Richards) and it will be more skewed towards favorable match ups (on a percentage basis). There were many situations last year when he was on the ice at important segments at the end of games to generate offense in tied or one goal games. That will be diminished this year with BR. I’ll gladly take a 15 goal 20-25 assist season. He can focus on face-offs and not feel pressured to produce. Not sure how he’ll get as many offensive starts with BR in the fold. I’m still expecting to see him paired with Boyle on the wing by end of camp.
My only concerns with Stepan are match-ups and face-offs. If Anisimov doesn’t lock down the #2 center position and Stepan is forced into (facing tougher matchups higher % of the time) the drop off could be more considerable. He’s not Patrick Kane, he’s more like Craig Janney and there’s nothing wrong with saying it.
I know some of you are going to start with the “move him to wing” comments. That shouldn’t be on the table at this point. Give him another year to improve in the circles. There is ample evidence that guys improve over time (not everyone is Cogliano). Plus, if you make him a top six wing your only adding to the match-up issue.
With that said, Stepan is a guy who raises his game in the biggest spots and has done it at every level. In my opinion he could just as easily put up 20 goals and 30 assists this year with less ice time.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Aug 3, 2011 7:28 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
You put him on the wing because you have 4 other better centers than him at face offs. Why force a square peg into a round hole right now? I am all for putting him with BR and Gaby to help with the board work on that line. I eventually see Stepan as a center but that would appear to put more pressure on him at a time when you have 4 others that can play the center position not to mention Stepan’s young age. If there were a need for Stepan to play center then that would be different. Having BR and Gaby as linemates would greatly reduce the risk of a sophomore slump, IMO.
Using Stepan for board work is definition of round peg square whole.
What part of Stepan’s play (other than the cheap shot on Green) makes you think he’s a retrieval guy for Gabby and BR. Candidates for that job are Dubi/Wolski/Boyle/Avery/Fedetenko IMO.
I’d argue there is only one all-around better center on the Rangers (BR). Stepan is more of a natural center than Anisimov. Face offs are just one part of being a center.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Aug 3, 2011 8:59 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
hands down
Stepan is a center. And there’s no wa we should move him. His skills just plain fit there. If he can’t improve on faceoffs we could always have someone else take the draws and let stepan shift back to the middle after the puck drops. Isn’t that what they did somtimes during the nylander era? Crazier things have been done but this kid cannot be forced to wing because of badd faceoffs.
by nhl21 on Aug 3, 2011 1:05 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You missed it
I put him on the side boards which from there Stepan can run the offense. You have 2 guys who are good goal scorers in Richards and Gaborik with a player who is more playmaker than he is scorer.
Go back through Stepan’s career whether it is Wisconsin, Shattuck or Team USA you will see that Stepan is nobody’s retrieval guy. He is the most cerebral that the Rangers have.
Allowing him to use the side boards to step up the offense protects him from blindsided hits from behind.
by theprospectpark on Aug 4, 2011 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Putting him with BR and Gabby
Would have him face the toughest defense from the opposition on a nightly basis.
by MyFavBaseballSquadron on Aug 3, 2011 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
you gotta give the kid a chance to improve.
#12 Carl Hagelin
by The Blue Seats on Aug 3, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Because
I put Stepan on the wing there in part because he has always been weak on faceoffs but mainly because I also think of what is on the Ranger roster from Wolski to Avery that Stepan is the best option for Richards and Gabby.
Putting Stepan there also allows you to keep together the 2 lines with already proven chemistry which is Dubi/AA/Cally and Fedotenko/Boyle/Prust.
To me it is all about chemistry and while I think Richard is a very good player, asking him to fix both Wolski and Gaborik is not fair to Richards.
If you go back to Stepan’s time at Wisconsin, Coach Eaves would in critical situations put Blake Geoffrion and Stepan with Geoffrion to take the face offs.
I
by theprospectpark on Aug 4, 2011 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m sorry George, I do not see where the HMS (Hot Mom and Sister) metric is worked in. Surely just an oversight.
I’d like to see the two of them rubbing each other down with hot oil..poured out of the Stanley Cup.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Aug 3, 2011 9:02 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
mm… careful, then you spend the rest of the night in the burn ward… long story
by startsnstopsny on Aug 3, 2011 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Richards good for Stepan
Okay yeah i know we might not see him on the wing but personally i see Derek becoming a “Richards” type or player just a little more physicality in his play. Looking maybe 3 to 5 years down the road with help from the coaches and Richards himself, i can see Stepan taking the 1st line center role and being as good if not better than Richards. I can see Stepan doing better this in almost like Anisimov did this past year as well. But that’s just me.
I could get more love from a Cactus then you..........
Role
If Torts uses him more often in important roles, I’d venture his points only drop slightly. The only stats that worry me are ones George covered above (playing competition and zone starts). On the plus side, he drove the play (Corsi Rel QoT) and had a flat PDO. If Stepan is used in the same role as last season (2nd line wing/3rd line center) I wouldn’t expect a slump in the end.
Blueshirt Banter - Muddling in Mediocrity - Fantasy Hockey Scouts
US Soccer/Red Sox Supporter
All things considered, Berglund had the worst second season out of everyone going down 21 points. The rest only dropped 4-7 points I think and Benn jumped up 15 pts. If that means Stepan who had 45 pts, goes down 7 pts to 38 pts with a few less goals and/or assists, than I’m fine with that. By no means is that a “sophmore slump” nor is that a bad season for a second year player. If he drops down to like 20 pts on the season, than it’s a slump. Interesting comparison George, like the use of the charts, but this is something really difficult to compare and contrast on. I guess it depends on the player and his determination.
but this is something really difficult to compare and contrast on
It’s by no means a perfect science, nor would I ever claim it to be. My goal here is not to say “he’s going to fail” but to point out that there some fairly obvious signs that he could fall short of 21 goals or 45 points again.
I personally would take 25-30 points out of Stepan if he flipped the script and suddenly became a tough minutes center, but there would be fifty “what’s wrong with Stepan” articles out there if it happened. It’s pretty easy for fans/media to get caught up in the regular stats, because that’s what has always been accepted. It bears reminding that they often need context as much as any of the ‘advanced’ stats.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 9:00 AM EDT up reply actions
It will certianly be interesting to see how things work out
I think a lot of it will depend on who he plays with and where.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
"Tortorelli sounds like a kind of pasta… an unforgiving, stubborn, chewy, flavorless pasta that demands ‘jam’ from other pastas." - Dig Deep
by Joe Fortunato on Aug 3, 2011 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions
It would be great
If they had another Anisimov situation on their hands. Gets more minutes, tougher minutes and production goes up at the same time.
by MyFavBaseballSquadron on Aug 3, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
AA is a beast, and the most underrated player on the Rangers.
IMO.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
He might have been last season
Hopefully he starts potting 30 goals a year and that all changes.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
"Tortorelli sounds like a kind of pasta… an unforgiving, stubborn, chewy, flavorless pasta that demands ‘jam’ from other pastas." - Dig Deep
by Joe Fortunato on Aug 3, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
+1 to all statements about AA. If this kid puts it all together, watch out.
PRUSTOSTERONE!!!
by nathansfamous on Aug 4, 2011 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
The short answer to the question: We signed Brad Richards.
The long answer:
He was basically used in every offensive situation possible last year. Only the Sedin line and Kane/Sharp had a higher offensive zone start than Stepan (and Zuccarello, who was even higher than Step). Richards’s arrival will take a large bite out of that.
For whatever reason, Tortorella switched away from power v power last year, and switched Gaborik from the heaviest competition to the weakest. (my hypothesis – he uses Dubi for the heavy hitters, and since they were split, Gaborik got away from them). Anyway, given that Richards wasn’t used power v power either, the combination of BR-Gaborik will likely take weaker competition. That means by default, Stepan’s going to have a heavier workload. It might only be marginally so, but it should be heavier.
Of course, as a couple people are saying, if he plays LW1 with Richards, then it probably won’t change, and that will be a big help to keeping him in the 45 point range.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Because last year he was considered to be the best playmaker on the team
this year that role is held by Brad Richards, so Stepan might slide down a bit finding himself in a more comfortable roster spot.
Blueshirt Banter: Covering the New York Rangers the only NHL team with three home arenas.
"We can trade Lisin for a gun, then hold it to Drury’s head and make him waive the no-movement clause" - XLII
"Tortorelli sounds like a kind of pasta… an unforgiving, stubborn, chewy, flavorless pasta that demands ‘jam’ from other pastas." - Dig Deep
by Joe Fortunato on Aug 3, 2011 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree
I think with brich coming in, we can continue to shelter him and bring him along slowly. Maybe roll 4 lines and put him on the third line with MZA and Wolski to create an offensive line that allows him to use his playmaking against lesser competition. This can develope the offesnive skills of all three guys while sheltering them.
Stepan's Long Term Success
Will be determined by finding him consistent line mates and a consistent role. Many of us (including myself) assume that Richards will be our top line center and Anisimov will be our second line center. Richards can play with forwards like Gaborik and (insert left winger, MZA, Wolski, Avery?) and Anisimov will presumably play with Dubinsky and Callahan.
Stepan’s role is interesting. Many have speculated his poor performance in the faceoff circle might eventually put him on the wing. If Stepan is the great player we are all expecting him to be, this move could help him find more ice time. Who knows, maybe Torts puts him on a line with Richards and Gaborik and Stepan instantly finds a role for years to come.
But if Stepan stays on the third line, things become much more interesting. Maybe Stepan’s future is sandwiched between Thomas and Kreider, MZA, or Haeglin. But if Stepan continues to center the third line, and continues to excel in that role, his job becomes invaluable. Stepan would instantly provide great depth at scoring, something any hockey fan would tell you is essential to the success of a team.
But I think Stepan will have an even better sophomore year. And the reason is simple: Brad Richards. Not only will Richards tutelage allow Stepan to grow on and off the ice, the attention Richards will draw from opposing teams, from the media, and from the fans will take all of that pressure off of Stepan. I think he is in a great situation to excel and put up big numbers. My only hope is that he finds a way to improve in the faceoff dock and stay a center. Because if there’s one thing I noticed about Stepan’s game last year, it was his ice vision.
Sorry, never get tired of it.
PRUSTOSTERONE!!!
by nathansfamous on Aug 4, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
i can narrate the play by play for that friggin game at this point
@joereiter
"You can be a lion maybe once in your life. If you don't make this deal, you're a
mouse forever….Wouldn't you rather be a lion for one day than a mouse for life?" - Lord General Sather
"Nobody knows anything" - William Goldman
I’m not giving up on Stepan in the faceoff circle. He knows that has to improve, and other players (Crosby) have entered the NHL with poor faceoff percentage and improved through hard work.
And regarding “heart,” something I notice even more about Step is his maturity – and his confidence. The only other young athlete in recent years I’ve seen that has those two qualities in such abundance is Jeter when he came up. It’s been noticeable from Day 1.
I’m glad I read this post, because it tempers expectations slightly for this season, but I’m not worried about Step, not at all.
"To everybody else we're underdogs, but we go in thinking we can handle any team in the NHL."
Brandon Prust, #8, New York Rangers
I’m not giving up on Stepan in the faceoff circle. He knows that has to improve, and other players (Crosby) have entered the NHL with poor faceoff percentage and improved through hard work.
He’ll improve. On average, everyone improves with age. The question is how much.
Crosby came into the league at 45.5%. Not good, but not terrible for a rookie. Stepan has the single lowest qualifying percentage of any forward in the last 13 years (which is as far back as NHL.com goes). That’s a significant difference in starting points. Malkin’s also ~39-40% bad, and still is that bad, same with Cogliano, which are the closest comparables to Stepan’s 38.5% on the dot.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn’t realize how bad Step’s % was. Yikes.
"To everybody else we're underdogs, but we go in thinking we can handle any team in the NHL."
Brandon Prust, #8, New York Rangers
by Joe1969 on Aug 3, 2011 2:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I assume
That’s probably why there was chatter of moving Malkin to wing and bumping Staal up to 2C last year.
by MyFavBaseballSquadron on Aug 3, 2011 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
It was certainly part of the argument, yes. Oilers’ fans have been screaming to move Cogliano to wing for a couple years now also. It will be interesting to see if Anaheim will.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
How many of the Oilers fans were also hoping that the Cogliano for Dubinsky rumors were true?
by MyFavBaseballSquadron on Aug 3, 2011 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Heh, probably all of them. Who wouldn’t?
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno. Maybe they have fans that hold grudges if a guy holds out for 8 days.
by MyFavBaseballSquadron on Aug 3, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah, only a crazy fanbase would do that.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
is he holding out this year?
@joereiter
"You can be a lion maybe once in your life. If you don't make this deal, you're a
mouse forever….Wouldn't you rather be a lion for one day than a mouse for life?" - Lord General Sather
"Nobody knows anything" - William Goldman
Off topic - there goes an "elite winger"
Sharp signed 5 year extension with Chicago.
"To everybody else we're underdogs, but we go in thinking we can handle any team in the NHL."
Brandon Prust, #8, New York Rangers
The offloading
Of Campbell and Brouwer all but assured this.
by MyFavBaseballSquadron on Aug 3, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
5.9 mil a year.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
LET'S GO RANGERS!!!
One thing about Stepan has been his improvement rate
I don’t know if that correlates with “heart.” it probably doesn’t. But Step has shown excellent improvement each year since he was drafted in the 2nd round. By comparison, Van Remsdyk is on Step’s 20 year old comparable list, but was the 2nd pick of the draft. At some point, the improvement has to slow down, but if this study controlled for improvement trajectory somehow, Step’s prospects for next year might look better. For example, keeping up his recent propensity to improve may well more than offset the factors that may produce a sophomore slump, if that improvement does grind to a halt.
There’s absolutely some level of improvement expected for Stepan, but it’s true of all of the players on the list. I don’t think anyone now or at the time would’ve looked at these players and said “well, this is the best we can expect.”
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 3, 2011 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
With other guys you might see the slump...
but not Stepan, IMO.
One, Step generated the majority of his points last season as a third liner. He was spotted with Dubinsky and Gaborik at times on the first line, but he was asked to be the setup man for Gaborik more often than not in those situations.
Two, he’s got a great shot, offensive awareness and good size. Going back to opening night in Buffalo, he outworked that D on the first goal, and was in great position for Avery’s passes to put the final two home. In a game against the Devils, off a face-off won by Drury, just moving a small stride forward lead to a goal. Step is instinctive; and along with speed, you don’t teach that. You harness it. And Torts didn’t overuse him or lessen his playing value. He will be a great scorer in this league; and that’s another reason I think he should be with Gabby and Richards on their left wing. Step can learn face-offs; but with his playing ability and instincts, he’s exactly what would manufacture points and make defenses go nuts.
"The winner of the Steven McDonald Extra Effort Award is Number Eight, Brandon Prust!"--Ofc. Colin McDonald, NYPD, April 7, 2011

by 




























