Is Horvat Ready?: A Case Study in Captaincy Comparables

Many fans and pundits have taken it upon themselves to debate whether or not the 23-year-old Bo Horvat is ready for the captaincy of the Vancouver Canucks, but the discussion has been speculative at best. The general fear is that—in naming Horvat captain too early—the team will stunt his development and hinder his ascension as an offensive producer. But nobody really knows what “too early” means. In truth, most supporters and media-types have no idea what goes on inside the Canucks’ dressing room and can only guess at the amount of off-ice leadership Horvat provides or his ability to handle pressure. The only people actually able to judge Bo’s readiness are his teammates and the coaching staff—but none of them write for CanucksArmy, so we’re going to do our best by looking at some comparables from around the league.

To complete this exercise, we’ll be taking a look at other players around the league that were awarded the “C” in their early- to mid-20s. We’ll track where each player was in their career at that point, and the impact the honour had on their production. In short, we’ll discover whether these young captains were really ready for their expanded leadership role, and that will give us important context about Horvat’s situation moving forward.

 

Context: Toews is probably the player on this list most directly comparable to Horvat—both centers were touted for their two-way play and leadership abilities long before their NHL careers began. Toews also represents a “best case scenario” for young captains in the NHL. Not only did Toews’ offensive numbers continue to climb for a few years after earning the “C”, he also won the Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe in his second season as captain—which goes a long way toward proving that he was ready for the responsibility. Canuck fans can only hope that the parallels between the two players continue to emerge.

 

Context: It’s hard to rain on Alex Ovechkin’s parade when he just led the Washington Capitals to Stanley Cup victory, but there’s an argument to be made that he wasn’t ready for the captaincy when he received it at age 24. That year, Ovechkin was putting the finishing touches on his third straight 100-point season—and his highest single-season points-per-game ever—but he hasn’t even approached those numbers since. As long as he has worn the “C”, Ovechkin has settled into a much more modest production pattern and—while some of that can be attributed to age, league changes, and greater defensive responsibilities—the extra pressure of the captaincy was probably part of what ended Ovi’s scoring prime earlier than expected.

Context: Landeskog temporarily became the youngest captain in NHL history in September 2012 at the age of 19 years and 286 days—a record that Connor McDavid would later beat by a mere 20 days. Coming off an impressive rookie season, Landeskog experienced a bit of a sophomore slump in a 2012/13 season that was shortened by both injury and the lockout. He made up for it during his first full year with the captaincy, however, racking up a career high 65 points and leading the resurgent Avalanche to the top of the Central Division. Since then, Landeskog has settled into his role as a steady—yet streaky—point producer.

Context: Giroux is probably the biggest cautionary tale on the list. He was named captain of the Flyers after the 2013 trade of Chris Pronger, and that marked the beginning of an offensive decline for Giroux. The year prior, Giroux put up 93 points, but he hovered around a point-per-game for his first season-and-a-half as captain. Giroux’s numbers continued to decline each season after that—until his resurgent, 102-point campaign last year. It’s impossible to know for sure, and other factors almost certainly played a role, but Giroux looks like he may have been weighed down by the captaincy during what should have been his prime offensive years.

Context: In terms of offensive production, Benn looks to be the player who benefitted the most from gaining the captaincy of his team. He put up solid numbers in his first four campaigns, but really broke out in his first season with the “C”—notching 79 points and leading the Stars back to the playoffs. In fact, Benn increased his scoring totals in each of his first three seasons as captain, and has continued to find individual success despite his team’s disappointing performance.

Context: Stamkos looks like another player who took a step back offensively after earning the captaincy, but there may be more to his story than raw numbers can reveal. Stamkos may not be putting up 90+ point seasons anymore, but he’s a much more well-rounded player—and success for the Tampa Bay Lightning has followed. His teammates have also drastically increased their scoring during that time period and that means that, as Stamkos has grown into his leadership role, his team has grown around him. The Stanley Cup, however, remains elusive.

Context: Barkov and Horvat were drafted in the same year, but Barkov has five seasons under his belt and is coming off a serious breakout campaign. There’s no telling how the newly-minted captain of the Florida Panthers will handle the pressure of the title, but he’s already handling the role of offensive centerpiece rather well. It’s fair to say that Barkov has accomplished more than Horvat at this point in their careers, but a fifth season breakout for Horvat would make for a strong comparison.

Conclusions: If anything is going to qualify or disqualify Horvat for the Canucks’ captaincy, it isn’t his age—and if he does earn the “C”, there’s no reason to fret about stunting his growth. Yes, some young captains have seen their production wilt after taking leadership of their squads, but others have thrived under the pressure and broken out offensively—and almost all of them improved their all-around game and increased their on-ice responsibilities. In other words, Horvat’s readiness for the captaincy isn’t going to be determined by his age, his point totals, or any other quantifiable factor—it’s all going to come down to those infamous intangibles, the bane of any would-be hockey analyst.