How long until Bo Horvat makes the show?

Cam Charron
July 02 2013 11:27AM


Photo source: www.londonknights.com

Warning: this post is a "The Trade" discussion-free zone.

This post is about Bo Horvat, the player the Vancouver Canucks selected at 9th overall at Sunday's draft. I think the basics we already know about Horvat. He is a size-y two-way centreman for a very good hockey club. His scoring wasn't as good as some prospects', but his defensive and finishing games are well above average.

In short, he's the sort of exciting prospect the Canucks need that could rejuvenate the cabinet. One really good prospect makes them all look good, and Horvat is the highest-drafted Canuck since Henrik Sedin went 3rd overall in 1999. He will compete for a spot on Team Canada in December as an 18-year-old, a year behind most players on the team, and has been a key player on two OHL championship teams.

But that doesn't matter. How soon can he play in the NHL?

High picks are very valuable commodities in the NHL for a reason. If you look at recent Stanley Cup winners, only the Boston Bruins didn't have a lottery pick as either their top centreman, defenceman, or goaltender since the Detroit Red Wings won in 2008. The Chicago Blackhawks have a lot of good supporting pieces, but they're held together by Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane. The Pittsburgh Penguins can do no wrong as long as Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are in their primes. Two of the best defensive clubs in the Western Conference, St. Louis and Los Angeles, have their back ends fronted by high picks Alex Pietrangelo and Drew Doughty.

Horvat is not a lottery pick, but he is a high pick, and he is at the age where being an NHL player is not just a possibility, but a probability. I went through each draft since 2005 (I did not include 2013 or 2012) to see how many games were played, for instance, by a 9th overall pick relative to a 22nd overall pick.

The results weren't particularly surprising. My methods were to look at the total number of games played by players drafted at a certain slot, divided by the available number of games for that prospect (for instance, Jordan Schroeder, selected at 22 in 2009, has played 31 regular season games in the time that the Canucks have played 294. That's a percentage of 10.5.

I did this for each slot since 2005, then averaged out each pick to be accompanied by an average of 11 different picks, including the five above and the five below. In the case of Horvat, taken 9th, the figure includes the percentage of games played of available games of every pick taken from 4 through 14, just to smooth out our graph.

Oh, you didn't think there would be a graph? Think again?

What this shows is how valuable picks at the top of the draft are relative to the bottom. Once you get to the 85th pick or thereabouts, as you can see, any number of games played seems to be random. There's possibly a "best fit" line we could use, but it doesn't tell you how long it takes for a player to become a regular NHLer. Still, if you played about 30% of available games since your draft day in 2009, you've played 88 games, and are probably coming off your first full season, even if it's shortened.

The cut-off point appears to be about the 22nd or 23rd pick, but guys taken at the high end just play more. There are a variety of factors: selling tickets to a lottery club with a new star, the fact that teams that end up in spots where they're taking in the Top 10 have nothing else to fill their roster with, and also the junior hockey hype machine that buys in managers.

Once you look around those factors, the draft appears kind of random. 85 seems to be the cutoff point for total randomness, but a player taken at 35 isn't doing so hot either. If the average player taken at 35 was selected in 2009, he'd have played 25 games by now. He's barely the first option into the minors.

Drafting… is difficult it would appear. There aren't ways of objectively measuring a players contribution, and going through the list subjectively to separate good players from the bad seems like a grand old waste of time. Games played is a good indicator, because eventually, even high picks play themselves off rosters, if it's due to lack of effort or lack of good development.

The second thing I did was isolate forwards drafted between 4 and 14 from 2005 to 2009 to see when they first cracked an NHL roster. There were 34 names to parse through, ranging from the brilliant (Anze Kopitar, Phil Kessel) to the poor (Kyle Beach, Marek Zagrapan). Right in the middle you have Peter Mueller and Jiri Tlusty, who are productive if anything.

It takes an average of just over two years for a forward in this range to become a regular player (regular defined by 75% of games, in the first of two consecutive seasons). I held my sample to four years because you can't go earlier to 2004 because nobody knew what the cap looked like, and from later than 2009 because there are still some Fs in the 2010 draft who haven't been given enough chance to make it or break it.

Remember, that's the absolute average. You're not only including the Evander Kanes, Colin Wilsons and Brandon Sutters, but also the Scott Glennies, Zach Hammills and—dare I say—Cody Hodgsons (Zack Kassians?)

So if Horvat continues along that path, he ought to be a regular NHLer midway through the 2015-2016 season. The average year it took that particular crop of players to make the NHL was 2.76 years, and 2.17 if you ignore those that didn't make it at all. 27 of the 34 players held a regular NHL spot last season, and 20 of the players, so slightly over 50%, I would consider key Top Six forwards.

Horvat is no lock, but he's the top prospect the Canucks have had in the Canadian major junior system in quite some time. Most of the key players taken in the draft are shoved into the top 20, and after that it's a bit of a crapshoot.

What kind of player does Horvat project as? I don't know. I've watched him play about a dozen times, like his game, but a lot of things change over two years. Craig Button and Pierre McGuire aren't doing Horvat any favours by likening his game to current two-way players in the NHL.

I'd peg it about two-thirds a chance at becoming a regular NHLer, and a little over half a chance of being a key player on roster in 2016, given the way that players selected in this part of the draft tend to develop. There are lots of real good young forwards, but a few busts that bring down the average. You just don't know how players will develop.

63811cbf517d2d685ea09e103488ea3a
Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.
Avatar
#1 Mantastic
July 02 2013, 11:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

you should look at Scott Cullens article at his percentages for each pick of turning into a regular NHLer, elite or bust. it's a very comprehensive list and put together very well.

Avatar
#2 Adam
July 02 2013, 12:43PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

Michael Frolík

Avatar
#3 Ted
July 02 2013, 12:47PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

I would hope the Canucks let him develop and give him at least the two years. If he dominates in the minors then maybe a bit sooner. No need to rush any of the players and ruin the future.

Avatar
#4 NM00
July 02 2013, 01:04PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
Ted wrote:

I would hope the Canucks let him develop and give him at least the two years. If he dominates in the minors then maybe a bit sooner. No need to rush any of the players and ruin the future.

There is a huge need to potentially rush either Horvat or Gaunce.

The Canucks 3LC next year will likely have to be someone in the organization. Or a free agent in the $1 million range.

The selection was very much about filling a need and filling it quickly.

Avatar
#6 AC
July 02 2013, 01:22PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

There is a huge need to potentially rush either Horvat or Gaunce.

The Canucks 3LC next year will likely have to be someone in the organization. Or a free agent in the $1 million range.

The selection was very much about filling a need and filling it quickly.

You have no proof that they made that pick to fill that particular hole.

Just because they chose a centre doesn't mean they did it to rush him into the line up quickly. You're making statements without any proof to back them up.

Not so fun when someone does it to you, eh?

Avatar
#7 NM
July 02 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
AC wrote:

You have no proof that they made that pick to fill that particular hole.

Just because they chose a centre doesn't mean they did it to rush him into the line up quickly. You're making statements without any proof to back them up.

Not so fun when someone does it to you, eh?

It's perfectly fun.

Gillis didn't change his Moneyball & risk aversion drafting MO with his 1st round picks.

Bo Horvat is Ricky Romero.

His greatest asset is that, in theory, he should be able to help fill out the middle-bottom of the roster quickly. Ideally on his ELC.

Which is born out of necessity. Not unlike trading assets for rental Roy and offering a 1st rounder for rental Clarkson before the Canucks cap situation came to a head.

But, hey, believe what you want to believe.

Avatar
#8 NM00
July 02 2013, 01:38PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
Cam Charron wrote:

From everything I've heard, Gaunce progressed pretty well this year. He can compete for a spot, but it's all about working it under the cap. The bonuses for Gaunce, either met or not met, all count against the cap.

He's probably better as a 3C than Horvat for the upcoming season.

I am not sure how it works with the new CBA.

But didn't there used to be a bonus cushion that could allow bonuses to be carried over to the following season's cap?

IIRC, the Hawks took full advantage of Kane & Toews' ELCs to help win their 2010 championship even though it forced them to take a step back the following season.

Avatar
#9 Beantown Canuck
July 02 2013, 04:29PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

I am not sure how it works with the new CBA.

But didn't there used to be a bonus cushion that could allow bonuses to be carried over to the following season's cap?

IIRC, the Hawks took full advantage of Kane & Toews' ELCs to help win their 2010 championship even though it forced them to take a step back the following season.

No time to check right now, but I'm pretty sure the bonus cushion (with future penalty in event of overage) was removed. All potential bonuses now count towards the cap is my understanding.

Avatar
#10 van
July 02 2013, 05:43PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

So Schroeder and Gaunce for 3rd and 4 line centre next year? Unless we trade Edler (and the Flyers did just sign another centre).

Avatar
#11 Lemming
July 02 2013, 11:04PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

I really hope Gaunce will be ready for this season, but I'm not really expecting it. At the very least, Jensen should get a good long look, though his AHL troubles are worrisome.

What the Canucks really need is for Torts to light a bit of a fire under Kassian's rear, cause Kassian can only tease so much before he's ultimately demoted.

Avatar
#12 RJ
July 03 2013, 01:29AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

Torts has a reputation for being very hard on rookies. So why would they rush in Horvat, regardless of how sound he was in the OHL? This seems like a situation where Horvat & Gaunce would be brought along slowly (despite cap pressures that would suggest they maybe should be brought along quickly).

Avatar
#13 John
July 03 2013, 01:36AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Mantastic

Got a link to that article?

Avatar
#14 Gillis USuck
July 03 2013, 02:07AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

WHO CARES? The Canucks are going to most likely trade him anyways. The Canucks job is to supply the other teams with their talent.

Avatar
#15 NM00
July 03 2013, 11:36AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Lemming

"What the Canucks really need is for Torts to light a bit of a fire under Kassian's rear".

How do you know Kassian isn't trying as hard as he can? Maybe what we have seen is the best he can do at this juncture in his career.

Professional athletes have plenty of incentives to be self-motivated. That's how they get to be pro athletes in the first place.

Espescially someone like Kassian who has, relatively speaking, not made a whole lot of money in his career.

Avatar
#16 Fred-65
July 03 2013, 11:40AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@Mantastic

Can you give me the link...I can't find it

Avatar
#17 BrudnySeaby
July 03 2013, 12:30PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

Horvat and Gaunce benefit the most from playing lots of minutes in the AHL. And so do the Canucks. Don't rush them for a spot now. We need them in 2-3 years down the road when the Sedins and Kesler have really aged.

For the upcoming season, resign Lapierre for 4C (one less position having to fill with an unknown UFA).

Schroeder can then be our 3C and when he plays with Higgins and Hansen for a full season (and thus have some veteran help) he should be fine. Schroeder is positionally & defensively sound, but could use some more offence. But in that spot his D-side of the game counts more so give him a shot.

If Schroeder is not fit to come to camp or to start the season (after his surgery) give Gaunce a shot (or someone else who impresses).

Avatar
#18 JCDavies
July 03 2013, 03:01PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@John, @Fred-65

I think Mantastic may have been referring to this:

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/scott_cullen/?id=398986

Avatar
#19 Lemming
July 03 2013, 05:38PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@NM00

Yes, no top draft pick has ever dogged it on the ice before. Nowhere in any scouting report on a prospect ever has their commitment been questioned. EVER!

I agree that he has plenty of reasons to be self-motivated, but that doesn't mean that he is as motivated as he could be. It's a well known criticism of Kassian that he goes hot and cold, it could very well be focus/motivation related. Or maybe aliens? Let's go with aliens.

And you're right, this could be his ceiling. I'm moving more and more towards this being a boneheaded trade by Gillis every game he plays. Right now I'm leaning to the boneheaded side, but still on the fence.

Avatar
#20 NM00
July 03 2013, 06:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Lemming

"Yes, no top draft pick has ever dogged it on the ice before. Nowhere in any scouting report on a prospect ever has their commitment been questioned. EVER!"

Strawman.

"And you're right, this could be his ceiling."

I didn't say that, either. What I mean is that what he showed last year could be him "giving 110%" or some other such nonsense.

You have no idea how hard he was trying from your couch regardless of how much you think you can.

He's certainly young enough where improvement won't be a shock. But it likely will have little to do with Tortorella.

Just like the Sedins declining in the next couple of years won't have much to do with Torts as well.

Avatar
#21 Austin Wallace
July 04 2013, 01:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Lemming So.... Because Kassian is struggling NOW, you change your opinion of Gillis's trade from BEFORE... Hmmm...

Comments are closed for this article.