Putting Mark Jankowski's Performance In Context

Kent Wilson
June 25 2012 12:19PM

 

 

The single biggest issue with the Mark Jankowsi selection by the Calgary Flames is the challenge of correctly putting his performance at Stanstead college in proper context. Both qualitatively and quantitatively: when viewing a player, his abilities are naturally gauged against those he is competing against - there are many all-star AHLers who are entirely ordinary in the NHL. Many high scoring juniors don't make it as professionals in the AHL, etc. In short, the lesser the league, the easier it is to look like a star.

Quantitatively, because the better known feeder leagues like the OHL, the NCAA and pro leagues across the pond routinely send players to the NHL, it's easier to see to what degree players retain their offense at the highest level and therefore estiamte roughly how much scoring is "worth" relative to the NHL.

Jankowski's 93-points in 53-games for Stanstead college sounds impressive (1.61 point-per-game) but the Canadian HS prep league is obscure and the competition is minimal as compared to, say, major junior hockey or NCAA. In the Hockey New draft preview they ranked Jankowski 37th overall. One scout interviewed for the piece said "Could (Jankowski have played in major junior this year? Sure he could have...Would he been a star? Probably not."

Estimating NHL Equivalence

I decided to use this Prep school-to-CHL comparison to estimate Jankowski's NHL equivalency, which as discussed frequently before is a method developed by Gabriel Desjardins for translating offense in various leagues to the NHL which allows us to compare numbers from across disparate divisions such as the CHL, NCAA and SEL. Essentially, we multiply a players point-per-game pace (PPG) by an established translation factor and then use that to calculate the estimated output over an 82-game NHL schedule. 

We know the translation factor for the CHL (0.30), so I used a range of estimated ratios to determine the Canadian prep school quality. Here are the results: 

Qual rel CHL PPG % of CHL translation factor NHLE
At 90% 1.63 0.9 0.27 36
At 75% 1.63 0.75 0.225 30
At 60% 1.63 0.6 0.18 24
At 50% 1.63 0.5 0.15 20
At 40% 1.63 0.4 0.12 16
At 30% 1.63 0.3 0.09 12

 

As you can see, the news gets bad pretty quickly. Things are encouraging if Jankowski's HS league is about at least 60-75% as good as the CHL (which is a long shot). Anything below 50% and he falls to the high-to-mid teens. For context, Sven Baertschi's NHLE in his draft season was about 32.

This is a rather clumsy, shotgun method of doing things I admit. Luckily Gabe Desjardins has looked at how highschoolers in Minnesota translate their offense to college and by, extension, to the NHL.

Initially, I looked mostly at leagues that sent players directly to the NHL, the idea being that we wanted to be able to make single year projections of minor-league and junior players. However, because it is derived from the performance of a large number of players, a League Equivalency is also a measure of League Difficulty. We can compare two leagues to one another either by looking at how players fare when they jump from one league to another, or how players from two different leagues fare in a third. More importantly, we can extrapolate to an NHL Equivalency, even for a league that doesn't send anyone to the NHL.
...
Overall, Minnesota hockey translates to the NCAA (NHLE = 0.41) at approximately 0.18, giving an NHLE of 0.073. The translation to the USHL is 0.195; its translation to the NCAA is 0.65; the overall NHLE is 0.052. Via a similar process, the NHLE via the NAHL is also 0.052. This puts the difficulty level of Minnesota H.S. hockey somewhere between 5.2% and 7.3% - which is not very high: the leading scorer in Minnesota over the course of a decade might be good for 20 points as an 18-year-old rookie in the NHL.

 Emphasis added.

Minnesota HS is not precisely the same league, but it's close enough for our purposes. As you can see, the level of competition relative to college and hockey and the NHL is minimal - even at the high-end, the translation factor is just 7.3%, which is below the 30% range I estimated for HS-to-CHL above.

First Round Forwards Comparison

Now that we have a translation factor for Jankowski, we can use it to put his output in context of the other forwards who were picked in the first round this year. This comparison, I think, will illustrate the level of risk the Flames took in selecting a player out of a second tier HS league with their first round pick.

Player PPG Translation NHLE
Nail Yakupov 1.64 0.3 40
Alex Galchenyuk* 1.22 0.3 30
Filip Forsberg** 0.4 0.39 13
Mikhail Grigorenko 1.44 0.3 35
Redek Faksa 1.06 0.3 26
Zemgus Girgensons 1.12 0.27 25
Tomas Hertl 0.66 0.61 33
Teuvo Tervainen 0.4 0.54 18
Thomas Wilson 0.55 0.3 14
Scott Lawton 0.82 0.3 20
Mark Jankowski 1.63 0.073 10
Brendan Gaunce 1 0.3 25
Henrik samuelsson 0.82 0.3 20
Stefan Matteau 0.69 0.3 17
Tanner Pearson*** 0.64 0.3 16

*Galchenyik was hurt all year, so I used his prior season to calculate his NHL

** As far as I know, there's no NHLE for the SWE-2 league that Forsberg played. I estimated the translation factor based on the SEL's ratio.

***Tanner Pearson was drafted as an over-ager this season, so I used his prior season in interest of a more apples-to-apples comparison.

The list is presented in the order they were picked.

Jankowski's NHLE is the lowest of the first round forwards this year, even if we take the "best case" translation factor from Desjardin's study. A couple of guys are within range - Stefan Matteau, Teuvo Tervainen, Thomas Wilson and Filip Forsberg. The caveat here is that with this sort of broad-brush method we're essentially blind to things like ice time and role. Teens playing in mens leagues like Forsberg and Teravainen, for example, will typically have lesser ice time and roles than guys in the CHL or HS hockey and, as result, will get less opportunity to put up numbers. 

Limitations

NHLE only describes a prospect's current level of output and what it means relative to the NHL. What it obviously doesn't tell us is how much better a kid is going to get. Some guys peak as teens while others guys (like Baertschi this past season) take giant leaps forward. A large portion of the scouting game isn't merely describing a kid's current skill level, but projecting it out 3-5 years down the line and beyond. 

The Flames must be at least dimly aware of the risks associated with scouting and picking a kid out of lower tier league. What they seem to be banking on is Jankowski's youth (youngest player drafted in the first round) and steep improvement over the last year or so to continue apace as he moves up to higher leagues.

Weisbrod and Feaster not only raved about Jankowski's raw skills at the draft this weekend, but also his hockey sense, intelligence and character. We can therefore assume it's those factors they believe will allow him to adapt and excel in more difficult circumstances - like how a kid with a high IQ can be expected to maintain high grades as he works his way through school, rather than an average kid who aced one test because it was simply too easy for him.

It remains tobe seen which it is for Jankowski.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#51 Canucks Suck
June 25 2012, 06:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Are we kind of SOL in finding out how many of his points were at ES?

Also whatever happened to Todd? Did you ban him Kent, or did he just kind of screw off? I want his opinion on the Flames selection hahaha.

Avatar
#53 Olsy
June 25 2012, 07:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Here is the detailed stat summary from Stanstead

http://www.stansteadcollege.com/athletic_programs.php?S=5&C=5&I=Stats

Good for 23.7% (22 PP vs.93 total)of scoring on the PP

Avatar
#54 RKD
June 25 2012, 07:36PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

It is a huge gamble, but I did find out Jeremy Roenick was drafted out of high school.

Jankowski put up better numbers than Roenick in HS. Jankowski put up 73 and 94 points respectively. Roenick had totals of 65 and 84.

I believe David Backes is another, again Jankowski had higher point totals than Backes.

It is an uncommon route, but the scouts must believe he has a lot of upside.

Avatar
#55 Colin
June 25 2012, 07:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jankowski gp57 g53 a40 p93 +51 ppg7 ppa15 ppp22 gwg8 shg8 fo%69 pim34

That is a ****ing fantastic stat line, if he can translate that to future leagues that is one hell of a #1 center.

So he dominates the circle, plays the PP and PK and gets the majority of his points at 5v5. The only other stat I would like would be SH%.

Avatar
#56 ashasx
June 25 2012, 08:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

His FO% can't possibly be 69%?

Are we finally going to win a faceoff in Calgary?

Avatar
#57 Colin
June 25 2012, 08:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Sad thing is that he wasn't even the best faceoff man on the team, again though, FO% is a bit limited in that we don't know how many faceoffs he took, similar to Goals, if his SH% was something stupid like 25-30%, that is unsustainable (unless you are Glenncross), a little more info is needed, but damn if that stat line still gives me a little more hope that this pick may actually not be a complete **** up.

Avatar
#58 clyde
June 25 2012, 08:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

Most of the comments are made based on quantitive research. Data is a great tool but only a part of the story. Also, consider the number of variables that are left out in any quantitative study. For example, what if we were told that Jankowski only played with 2 4rth line grinders all year in order to maintain team balance as their coach believed in rolling 4 lines equally? That would certainly skew things as just one example. But, this pick was based more on qualitative factors. More than one scout saw a great deal in this kid. A great deal of skill, growth and many more other things. It will be interesting to see how he turns out. As for BOB MACKENZIE crticizing, I remember him saying that Edmonton had an absolute steal one year based on the fact that this amazing future superstar had played with his son. The player is Andrew Cogliano. So, I think I will put a little faith in the guys that got us Sven and Gaudreau rather than Mackenzie.

Avatar
#59 I'm Just Sayin'
June 25 2012, 08:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
everton fc wrote:

Pretty gutsy move, picking Jankowski at 21... But Feaster's statement, "He'll be the best pick in this draft 10 years from now"...

Not prudent.

This could, indeed, go down as the worst pick in Flames history, in Round 1. He'll have to become a #1 centre producing 60-70 points a season, to make this a success, based on the talent passed over.

And that wouldn't make him the best pick in this draft, Mr Feaster. Not by a longshot.

What a wreckless statement to make to an already-upset and pessimistic fanbase....

The worst? I'll see your Mark Jankowski and raise you a Niklas Sundblad, the "Swedish Wendel Clark".

Avatar
#60 Austin
June 25 2012, 08:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Kent, if you had to rank Jankowski in the flames prospects system, would he be in the top 5?

Avatar
#61 Baalzamon
June 25 2012, 09:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Olsy

only 23.7% of scoring on the PP? That's a very good number. Almost 77% at even strength/SH. Team leader in points by 30!! The number that really jumps out at me is the fact that he actually scored more SH goals than PP goals.

Avatar
#62 Sincity1976
June 25 2012, 10:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

You captured it in your limitations, but I would go as far to say an NHLE is worthless in evaluating Jankowski.

One, he is clearly a project with years of development ahead of him before joining the NHL.

Two, because of the conversion rate used for the league in question Jankowski would have to register completely unrealistic numbers to even make a blip in NHL production. In short it is impossible for him to show good transition numbers due to the league he is playing in.

Avatar
#63 Hellfire
June 26 2012, 10:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I like this pick. Sure we are not getting something we can use right away but that was never the intention when selecting Mark in the first round. I truly believe Mark will be a great player in the NHL and his rate of development is going to surprize a few. It was a good thing I asked for a draft review of Mark as this is the player I really felt Calgary would go for.

Avatar
#64 Justin Azevedo
June 26 2012, 10:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@Sincity1976

although, maybe the reason he scores so many points in the league is because the league sucks and not because of his individual talent?

there's a lot about this pick that I just can't like.

Avatar
#65 Baalzamon
June 26 2012, 12:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

even if Jankowski is a bust, he will be far from the only one in the 1st round. honestly, people make it sound like the Flames are the only team that picks 1st round busts. Even 2003, characterized as the best draft ever, featured a few outright busts in the 1st round, and several other players who kind of Chuck Kobasewed their way through the league (or had one good season, then disappeared).

in 2007, there were several downright embarassing picks, none of which were done by the Flames. The Kings took Thomas Hickey 4th--and he has yet to play an NHL game. The Bruins took Zach Hamil 8th. the Pens took Angelo Esposito 20th, and that was considered a surprising slide at the time. The Ducks made perhaps the worst draft selection of all time in taking Logan MacMillan 19th overall.

at least Janko's got skill.

Avatar
#66 Sincity1976
June 26 2012, 06:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Justin Azevedo

Could be. I am just saying NHLE doesn't work here.

Comments are closed for this article.