Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[Ray_Cathode]

4 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

1) He was not -1 per game.

2) Projecting a tiny sample size to a full season is something only a person completely ignorant of statistics would think has significance, especially when,

3):

That tiny negative sample was largely produced during his first couple of weeks of adjusting to a new team in a new league (with a nagging knee injury), which no sentient person would believe accurately represents his playing ability.

 

4 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

1) He was not -1 per game.

2) Projecting a tiny sample size to a full season is something only a person completely ignorant of statistics would think has significance, especially when,

3):

That tiny negative sample was largely produced during his first couple of weeks of adjusting to a new team in a new league (with a nagging knee injury), which no sentient person would believe accurately represents his playing ability.

You did not read the comment I was addressing.  I didn't say Juolevi was minus 1 per game. The person I was responding to claimed that being minus 1 per game was not bad for a number one defenceman playing x many minutes per game against the top line.  I disputed that by demonstrating what that claim would mean over the course of a season - so no, neither am I ignorant of statistics - you maybe should go back to school and study reading.

No, Juolevi was not - one per game (again, something I never claimed), but he was minus 4 in his last four games. And again, in my post I included that he may have already been suffering a knee injury (though I have found no data that establishes that as a fact - it was only conjecture on my part).

"That tiny negative sample was largely produced during his first couple of weeks of adjusting to a new team in a new league (with a nagging knee injury), which no sentient person would believe accurately represents his playing ability." Since you seem to want to be picky, it was a month - and with the worst (-4 in his last four games) at the end - and since you didn't include any facts amongst your conjectures, I'll give you the data source here:
https://theahl.com/stats/player/7416/61/olli-juolevi

[Seannnp]

16 hours ago, Pete M said:

nothing against OJ... however, there were good players on the team that were "+" players ....they too played on this crappy team. OJ still has some development to do with his "D" game.

I'm going to try and explain what you've done here. You've pointed out positive +/- stats for players that have played 3 to 4 times more games than Juolevi. The Comets were a better team in the 2nd half of the season. Those players that played 35+ games had an opportunity to improve on their +/- stats unlike Juolevi. I would also point out the point totals. If Juolevi had played the entire season, not only would he likely have become a positive player due to the improvement in the team but I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up a ppg rookie defenseman in the AHL.

 

You cant pick and chose what to acknowledge just to make a point. All that does is make argumentative and without merit.

[higgyfan]

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

To be honest I haven't seen Chatfield or Briesbois but I had a good look at Sautner and frankly couldn't pick many deficiencies in his game. He handled a 3rd pairing role, some aggressiveness to his game and will be Cap friendly, and we're going to need that in a couple of years time in the EP & QH era. If Vcr lets him go ( RFA next year ) then I think some one else would pick him up pretty quickly. By the by where has Evan McEnemy gone to ?

The Canucks didn't re-sign him.  Like Sautner, he is 25yrs old now and I guess he is considered an AHL vet who is waiver eligible.  It doesn't seem that Utica is interested in signing him either. 

 

Sautner's contract is up at the end of this season, however, he's waiver eligible now and it would be a huge battle for him to make the team out of training camp.  If he's sent down to Utica, maybe he gets picked up by another team (and he has his chance in the NHL).

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Fred65 said:

To be honest I haven't seen Chatfield or Briesbois but I had a good look at Sautner and frankly couldn't pick many deficiencies in his game. He handled a 3rd pairing role, some aggressiveness to his game and will be Cap friendly, and we're going to need that in a couple of years time in the EP & QH era. If Vcr lets him go ( RFA next year ) then I think some one else would pick him up pretty quickly. By the by where has Evan McEnemy gone to ?

I like Sautner, but he's very replaceable. If he's lucky, he gets a Biega type of career.

 

In a couple years time, we might have Tryamkin back, Rathbone will be knocking at the door and Juolevi hopefully a regular NHLer. There won't be room here for him in the future unless he's happy being a regular call up or like I mentioned earlier being in a Biega role collecting a NHL paycheque and be a practice guy that is ready to step in at a moment's notice.

 

If another team gives him a better opportunity, then I wish him the best of luck.

[theo5789]

4 hours ago, Jester13 said:

+/-, 13 pts in 18 gms, yada yada yada. What I would like to know is why so many posters in this thread have such a hard time admitting that OJ still needs to work on the defensive side of his game, and why emotions are so touchy when someone mentions this? 

 

No one in this thread (from what I've seen over the past couple of years) is denying all of his positives - breakouts, passing, PP, etc. - but it just seems like his downfalls are taboo. Sure, maybe someone can say that some posters only speak about his downfalls, but maybe that's just because it's so off limits in here that they are trying to make the point that I am right now, which is that we should be able to talk about OJ and all of his game without posters jumping on the backs of others and crying that they are slamming our prospect. They simply are not. OJ's foot speed has been a problem for quite some time now. Granted, injuries have set him back a ton, and leniency should be given in this regard, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a large mountain that OJ needs to overcome sooner rather than later, as the team won't be able to wait forever, and other guys will take his spot if he's not ready, essentially making it even harder to crack the lineup.

 

I personally do not see OJ making the team this year (he may see some games, but I think it's more likely that he stays in Utica for the year). I just feel like his injuries, although fixable, are pretty significant, and we are not in a rush to bring him in. Let him incubate a little longer in the AHL and get his legs back and better/stronger/quicker than ever, while improving his foot speed and positional play in his own zone. As is, and I really don't think by Christmas either, I don't think he will be ready to make the jump to the NHL, as he will get blown by wide almost every time by the world's best. His point total last year in the short period does not say enough of his readiness. He is a defenceman first, which is currently where he needs the most work. 

I think people are generally jumping on the ones that simply use +/- as their reasoning for him being a poor player. I don't think many are suggesting that OJ is NHL ready now, so of course he's still got work to do. He's still learning the game at the professional level, but if he can get the puck out of the defensive zone and be a steady contributor on offense, then the defense will round itself out with experience.

 

Quinn Hughes' greatest weakness is likely his actual defensive play, but yet no one really gives him grief for that (maybe because there's no glaring +/- stat to point out).

 

+/- is generally indicative of the team moreso than the individual and that's why it's a generally meaningless point to bring up to justify their stance. Another poster mentioned areas that he needs to work on and it is completely valid and I don't think anyone thinks he doesn't have room to grow still.

[Noble 6]

22 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I think people are generally jumping on the ones that simply use +/- as their reasoning for him being a poor player. I don't think many are suggesting that OJ is NHL ready now, so of course he's still got work to do. He's still learning the game at the professional level, but if he can get the puck out of the defensive zone and be a steady contributor on offense, then the defense will round itself out with experience.

 

Quinn Hughes' greatest weakness is likely his actual defensive play, but yet no one really gives him grief for that (maybe because there's no glaring +/- stat to point out).

 

+/- is generally indicative of the team moreso than the individual and that's why it's a generally meaningless point to bring up to justify their stance. Another poster mentioned areas that he needs to work on and it is completely valid and I don't think anyone thinks he doesn't have room to grow still.

 

Quinn Hughes showed in his short stint that his defensive deficiencies are outweighed by his positive contributions, at the NHL level. In the final stretch of the season he had more than double the zone exits of the next closest defender on the team (32 with Edler at 15) and had an even +/- rating. Going by the eye test, it was clear that his skating, agility and quickness allow him to move the puck up ice quickly and prevent sustained pressure in the zone, which would be his biggest weakness.

 

Juolevi has shown similar strengths, but more significant weaknesses at a lesser level to date, his draft +3. Juolevi has not shown anything close to what Hughes (draft +1) has. They are not close. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Horvat is a Boss

[Jester13]

7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I think people are generally jumping on the ones that simply use +/- as their reasoning for him being a poor player. I don't think many are suggesting that OJ is NHL ready now, so of course he's still got work to do. He's still learning the game at the professional level, but if he can get the puck out of the defensive zone and be a steady contributor on offense, then the defense will round itself out with experience.

 

Quinn Hughes' greatest weakness is likely his actual defensive play, but yet no one really gives him grief for that (maybe because there's no glaring +/- stat to point out).

 

+/- is generally indicative of the team moreso than the individual and that's why it's a generally meaningless point to bring up to justify their stance. Another poster mentioned areas that he needs to work on and it is completely valid and I don't think anyone thinks he doesn't have room to grow still.

To further my point, I haven't read anyone simply using +/- alone to back up their opinion - which is a shared opinion of coaches and many others - but rather one statistic/point. I think everyone can agree that all statistical measures have their flaws, but as someone has mentioned with +/-, even coaches are saying there was a noticeable trend that the stat what showing with OJ and that they are working on that aspect especially of his game. This is a fair measure and point to make, yet there are many posters who continuously ignore it and simply brush is off to deflect any ostensible "criticism" of where OJ is at in his readiness to play in the NHL. Again, not every statistical measure is perfect, but when +/- for one player seems to be abnormally worse than others, well, this is when some flags go up that there might be a hole in said player's game - hence the coach's comments. 

 

I don't think we'll ever have the touchiness towards Hughes' deficiencies simply because there's no controversy behind the pick, which I believe is likely the root cause of the division between posters - there's a lot of justification towards the OJ pick, and it can sometimes get in the way of fair discussion around areas of OJs game. 

[Blömqvist]

5 hours ago, Jester13 said:

+/-, 13 pts in 18 gms, yada yada yada. What I would like to know is why so many posters in this thread have such a hard time admitting that OJ still needs to work on the defensive side of his game, and why emotions are so touchy when someone mentions this? 

 

No one in this thread (from what I've seen over the past couple of years) is denying all of his positives - breakouts, passing, PP, etc. - but it just seems like his downfalls are taboo. Sure, maybe someone can say that some posters only speak about his downfalls, but maybe that's just because it's so off limits in here that they are trying to make the point that I am right now, which is that we should be able to talk about OJ and all of his game without posters jumping on the backs of others and crying that they are slamming our prospect. They simply are not. OJ's foot speed has been a problem for quite some time now. Granted, injuries have set him back a ton, and leniency should be given in this regard, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a large mountain that OJ needs to overcome sooner rather than later, as the team won't be able to wait forever, and other guys will take his spot if he's not ready, essentially making it even harder to crack the lineup.

 

I personally do not see OJ making the team this year (he may see some games, but I think it's more likely that he stays in Utica for the year). I just feel like his injuries, although fixable, are pretty significant, and we are not in a rush to bring him in. Let him incubate a little longer in the AHL and get his legs back and better/stronger/quicker than ever, while improving his foot speed and positional play in his own zone. As is, and I really don't think by Christmas either, I don't think he will be ready to make the jump to the NHL, as he will get blown by wide almost every time by the world's best. His point total last year in the short period does not say enough of his readiness. He is a defenceman first, which is currently where he needs the most work. 

That's about as fair of a critique and assessment on Juolevi as I've ever seen. Cheers! 

[Kanukfanatic]

6 hours ago, Jester13 said:

+/-, 13 pts in 18 gms, yada yada yada. What I would like to know is why so many posters in this thread have such a hard time admitting that OJ still needs to work on the defensive side of his game, and why emotions are so touchy when someone mentions this? 

 

OJ is a prospect. He needs to work on all parts of his game.....cuz he is a prospect. Most here know that. Why you all worked up?

 

The posters here think it is pathetic when people take a tiny sample size to try and make some kind of analysis of how OJ is turning out....that is all.  Using +/- in a tiny sample and then making judgements based on that ridiculous sample size. That is what is stupid. 

[Jester13]

58 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

OJ is a prospect. He needs to work on all parts of his game.....cuz he is a prospect. Most here know that. Why you all worked up?

 

The posters here think it is pathetic when people take a tiny sample size to try and make some kind of analysis of how OJ is turning out....that is all.  Using +/- in a tiny sample and then making judgements based on that ridiculous sample size. That is what is stupid. 

So, again, here is a good example as to what I'm talking about. I'm not worked up at all, so if you're reading that from my posts, well, that's an error in your judgement of my post(s), and this is the kind of knee-jerk reaction/interpretation towards a poster that shows even the slightest hint of dissenting opinion from the vocal OJ supporters in talking about. 

 

But also, no one is taking a small sample size and +/- to make such judgment, but instead  are using it in addition to coaches comments, actual first-hand close watching of OJ, previous years assessment of play, etc., to make fair arguments for the specific area that OJ needs work: foot speed, defensive awareness, body positioning, etc. But these assessments are brushed off and posters are flamed for saying anything critical of OJ at all. Why is this so? Why not try to address posters' comments about how the coaching staff recognized the trend of OJ? Why is it not possible to admit that OJ has had ups in good play, but also downs and setbacks (moreso than ups, even)? 

 

Man, I remember when I commented once, many pages ago, about my concern for OJs seemingly lackadaisical play, and how I believe it's something he will need to work on - to play with more of a sense of urgency to help him with things like body position - to make the NHL, and people jumped on me loudly as if I was slamming him, when the reality was that I was merely trying to chat about that visible part of his game. 

 

So, yes, he's a prospect that needs quite a lot more development, which I think everyone knows, so I guess this is why I just can't understand why some posters get flamed so much for trying to talk about it? Is it just a continuation of some who wanted MT vs the rest? Maybe it's the tact of some of the critics? 

[Googlie]

6 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

 

You did not read the comment I was addressing.  I didn't say Juolevi was minus 1 per game. The person I was responding to claimed that being minus 1 per game was not bad for a number one defenceman playing x many minutes per game against the top line.  I disputed that by demonstrating what that claim would mean over the course of a season - so no, neither am I ignorant of statistics - you maybe should go back to school and study reading.

 

You need to take your own advice!!

Show me where I claimed that being - 1 per game was ok.  

I claimed that conceding 1 even strength goal per game while playing against the top line was acceptable - implicit in that was the expectation that he would be on the ice for an even strength goal for Utica in some 25% to 30% of these games (5 ES goals for and 15 against in those 18 games comprising the sample - as has been subsequently pointed out, he was on the ice for at least 2 shorties against, which form part of his -12 in the +/-  column)

 

And as has been said earlier, we all accept that OJ needs to work on his defensive awareness (look back in the Comets thread and you will see that I have been critical during those 18 games). But we are all united in our hope that he arrives at camp 100% healthy and competes for a roster spot with the big club - but won't be upset if he starts the season - and finishes it -  in the AHL.

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

Quinn Hughes showed in his short stint that his defensive deficiencies are outweighed by his positive contributions, at the NHL level. In the final stretch of the season he had more than double the zone exits of the next closest defender on the team (32 with Edler at 15) and had an even +/- rating. Going by the eye test, it was clear that his skating, agility and quickness allow him to move the puck up ice quickly and prevent sustained pressure in the zone, which would be his biggest weakness.

 

Juolevi has shown similar strengths, but more significant weaknesses at a lesser level to date, his draft +3. Juolevi has not shown anything close to what Hughes (draft +1) has. They are not close. 

5 NHL games only for Hughes and he was told to go have fun in the meaningless games. If zone exits are what will negate his defensive deficiencies, then fortunately getting the puck out of the defensive end is one of his stronger points. Hughes was partnered with a guy that was simply told to protect him and be a stay at home guy. We will see how Hughes handles a full season.

 

Hughes is simply more flashy/"sexy" than Juolevi because of the different style of play. Juolevi is more like Edler and Edler has not received a whole lot of praise either (except when he breaks records), yet he's been our de facto #1 dman for nearly a decade. 

 

To be clear, I'm not knocking Hughes. Just that people are very critical of Juolevi's defensive play over the +/- stat when Hughes' will have his defensive struggles yet he won't get the same grief.

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Jester13 said:

To further my point, I haven't read anyone simply using +/- alone to back up their opinion - which is a shared opinion of coaches and many others - but rather one statistic/point. I think everyone can agree that all statistical measures have their flaws, but as someone has mentioned with +/-, even coaches are saying there was a noticeable trend that the stat what showing with OJ and that they are working on that aspect especially of his game. This is a fair measure and point to make, yet there are many posters who continuously ignore it and simply brush is off to deflect any ostensible "criticism" of where OJ is at in his readiness to play in the NHL. Again, not every statistical measure is perfect, but when +/- for one player seems to be abnormally worse than others, well, this is when some flags go up that there might be a hole in said player's game - hence the coach's comments. 

 

I don't think we'll ever have the touchiness towards Hughes' deficiencies simply because there's no controversy behind the pick, which I believe is likely the root cause of the division between posters - there's a lot of justification towards the OJ pick, and it can sometimes get in the way of fair discussion around areas of OJs game. 

Did the coach bring it up as a concern or was he simply answering a question that he was asked? There have been plenty of examples of players having atrocious +/-, but it's not a clear indicator of that individual (eg Bo's -30 being worst on the team that year and yet no one seems to be concerned for his defensive play especially now). No one wants to be a minus player, but you have to look at how a player is deployed and the team situation beyond the individual for the +/- stat.

 

Because Juolevi was a supposed controversial pick, that's why many want to point out his deficiencies because they want to be right. If Juolevi impresses, then they are wrong. So you're right that Hughes doesn't get the grief because many were actually happy with that pick. It doesn't make Hughes' defensive deficiencies any less though, but the controversy seems to make Juolevi's be overblown.

 

Just look at the last couple of pages of people singlehandedly bringing up the +/- stat.

[Ray_Cathode]

19 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ray.....come on

 

Biega was down for 3 games and was -5

 

Does that make him a minus 135 player in the AHL?  Which prorated to the NHL is about minus 190ish.

 

I think not.

 

I think you have to wait and see what he has when he gets here and has been in the league for a year or 2

 

Then you might be right?

 

But I think you might be surprised (in a good way)...………..I am hoping!

You did not read the specific context of what I was responding to.  I was responding to a post that claimed that -1 per game was not a bad +/- for a first line defenceman. It is bad, it is terrible. The post I responded to was generic, not specific to Juolevi.  

I have no problem waiting to see how Juolevi turns out.  But I am unwilling to pronounce that his initial showing was wonderful as many have claimed - it wasn't. He was strong gong forward, good on the PP, but awful when defending. I had seen him play in the World Juniors and some of his games in Finland and read reports of those games - what I was watching in Utica was an entirely different player than I had seen in those other venues. My speculation was that he was perhaps hurt because he was repeatedly being walked on his left side and seemed to labor on his pivots - that had not happened in the OHL junior, the Finnish league, nor at the world junior.

Look, I want Olli to turn out, but I'm not willing to fool myself with regard to his AHL performance to date.  Read that? TO DATE.

[Jester13]

36 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Did the coach bring it up as a concern or was he simply answering a question that he was asked? There have been plenty of examples of players having atrocious +/-, but it's not a clear indicator of that individual (eg Bo's -30 being worst on the team that year and yet no one seems to be concerned for his defensive play especially now). No one wants to be a minus player, but you have to look at how a player is deployed and the team situation beyond the individual for the +/- stat.

 

Because Juolevi was a supposed controversial pick, that's why many want to point out his deficiencies because they want to be right. If Juolevi impresses, then they are wrong. So you're right that Hughes doesn't get the grief because many were actually happy with that pick. It doesn't make Hughes' defensive deficiencies any less though, but the controversy seems to make Juolevi's be overblown.

 

Just look at the last couple of pages of people singlehandedly bringing up the +/- stat.

First bolded part: does it matter how it was prompted?

 

Second long bolded part: I'm not sure why you keep arguing against +/- as if anyone is going off that alone to talk about his dificiencies, which I stated in my post that you quoted no one is doing. I also said that pretty well every single statistical measure for hockey has its flaws and doesn't tell the whole story. +/- has its flaws, as we all know, but it's merely one measure out of many that posters are using to make a point, and no one should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater as a measure of performance simply because it has some flaws, as it still can be an indication of poor defensive play, either as a team or as a single player. Yet, for some reason, it keeps getting ignored and brushed off, or posters (sorry, but you're included in this next comment) keep going back to claiming that posters are using it alone, which they're not. 

 

[theo5789]

16 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

First bolded part: does it matter how it was prompted?

 

Second long bolded part: I'm not sure why you keep arguing against +/- as if anyone is going off that alone to talk about his dificiencies, which I stated in my post that you quoted no one is doing. I also said that pretty well every single statistical measure for hockey has its flaws and doesn't tell the whole story. +/- has its flaws, as we all know, but it's merely one measure out of many that posters are using to make a point, and no one should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater as a measure of performance simply because it has some flaws, as it still can be an indication of poor defensive play, either as a team or as a single player. Yet, for some reason, it keeps getting ignored and brushed off, or posters (sorry, but you're included in this next comment) keep going back to claiming that posters are using it alone, which they're not. 

 

It does matter how it's prompted because if the coach brought it up himself, then he sees it as a glaring problem, whereas if he's asked about it, he's simply making a comment in regards to it but may not necessarily see it as a major concern. I think it's more of the latter with the way it was answered because while no one wants to be a minus player, he suggested that it's not all his doing.

 

Looking back at a couple of pages, it appears that only a couple of posters continue to stick to the +/- argument, but I remember back even before he was injured that it was a talking point (it was as annoying then as it is now). Perhaps it was the same few posters though. Unless someone can tabulate how many minuses were a direct result of a poor defensive play made by Juolevi, it's a difficult metric to use to determine how he is defensively. He was partnered with Chatfield for most of his 18 games and Chatfield himself was a -13 with only 6 points to his name. Could it be perhaps that he simply wasn't in a good partnership? There are so many factors why he could have had the -12 and we don't know if he could've improved on that if he was able to play out the year. But we do know that Benning had noted that had Juolevi not been injured that he likely would've seen some games at the NHL level last season, so management (at the NHL level) must've liked what they had seen during that time.

[Noble 6]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

5 NHL games only for Hughes and he was told to go have fun in the meaningless games. If zone exits are what will negate his defensive deficiencies, then fortunately getting the puck out of the defensive end is one of his stronger points. Hughes was partnered with a guy that was simply told to protect him and be a stay at home guy. We will see how Hughes handles a full season.

 

Hughes is simply more flashy/"sexy" than Juolevi because of the different style of play. Juolevi is more like Edler and Edler has not received a whole lot of praise either (except when he breaks records), yet he's been our de facto #1 dman for nearly a decade. 

 

To be clear, I'm not knocking Hughes. Just that people are very critical of Juolevi's defensive play over the +/- stat when Hughes' will have his defensive struggles yet he won't get the same grief.

 

I'm not saying that we can say for sure how Hughes will end up, but he has more of an NHL sample than Juolevi right now. 

 

Hughes has his weaknesses (mainly physical weakness against bigger players), but he has shown that he has the tools to overcome those weaknesses. Maybe not in every single situation, but he can still impact the team positively. Perhaps more importantly, he's shown that he has effective tools (zone exits and skating) to guard against his weakness and that they can work. That's why Hughes is better at defending than Juolevi right now; he doesn't defend. And again, this was a short stint, but he proved it at the NHL level in his draft +1 year. That's a far cry from Juolevi. 

 

The main things that are plaguing Juolevi's game right now are the same things that they were a year or two ago. Lack of NHL footspeed, agility, intensity, etc. He hasn't shown enough improvement in his weaknesses or the ability to minimize them (like Hughes). If Juolevi was an average defender at the NHL level, don't you think there would be less smoke coming from his defensive play and there would be less talk about it? Again, there isn't much discussion about Hughes' defensive play because he's actually shown that there doesn't need to be. 

 

I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that Hughes is a clear tier or two ahead of Juolevi as a prospect and they shouldn't really be compared. Hughes showed that he could be our best offensive defenseman and fit into the NHL game and not look out of place in his draft +1 year. Juolevi has been working on the same things for 3 years since being drafted and still hasn't shown that he's ready. Injuries have played a role in that and he could reasonably earn a shot relatively soon (sometime this year), but nothing as of right now. 

[Jester13]

14 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

It does matter how it's prompted because if the coach brought it up himself, then he sees it as a glaring problem, whereas if he's asked about it, he's simply making a comment in regards to it but may not necessarily see it as a major concern. I think it's more of the latter with the way it was answered because while no one wants to be a minus player, he suggested that it's not all his doing.

 

Looking back at a couple of pages, it appears that only a couple of posters continue to stick to the +/- argument, but I remember back even before he was injured that it was a talking point (it was as annoying then as it is now). Perhaps it was the same few posters though. Unless someone can tabulate how many minuses were a direct result of a poor defensive play made by Juolevi, it's a difficult metric to use to determine how he is defensively. He was partnered with Chatfield for most of his 18 games and Chatfield himself was a -13 with only 6 points to his name. Could it be perhaps that he simply wasn't in a good partnership? There are so many factors why he could have had the -12 and we don't know if he could've improved on that if he was able to play out the year. But we do know that Benning had noted that had Juolevi not been injured that he likely would've seen some games at the NHL level last season, so management (at the NHL level) must've liked what they had seen during that time.

I don't see it the same way. A coach isn't going to call a player out unpromted unless it's a situation in dire straights. The coach was asked and he answered in a way that shows it's something they know OJ needs to work on, and that's ok. 

 

I haven't read anyone using +/- alone, as everyone knows it has its flaws, so if any poster has been doing so and thinks it's without flaws, well, they're wrong in doing so. Everything I've read, however, has been in addition to other metrics - mostly the eye test, which imho is the best metric - or in response to some posters using his point total as a main argument for claiming OJs ostensibly outstanding play. (Similar to +/-, point totals do not tell the whole story.)

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

I'm not saying that we can say for sure how Hughes will end up, but he has more of an NHL sample than Juolevi right now. 

 

Hughes has his weaknesses (mainly physical weakness against bigger players), but he has shown that he has the tools to overcome those weaknesses. Maybe not in every single situation, but he can still impact the team positively. Perhaps more importantly, he's shown that he has effective tools (zone exits and skating) to guard against his weakness and that they can work. That's why Hughes is better at defending than Juolevi right now; he doesn't defend. And again, this was a short stint, but he proved it at the NHL level in his draft +1 year. That's a far cry from Juolevi. 

 

The main things that are plaguing Juolevi's game right now are the same things that they were a year or two ago. Lack of NHL footspeed, agility, intensity, etc. He hasn't shown enough improvement in his weaknesses or the ability to minimize them (like Hughes). If Juolevi was an average defender at the NHL level, don't you think there would be less smoke coming from his defensive play and there would be less talk about it? Again, there isn't much discussion about Hughes' defensive play because he's actually shown that there doesn't need to be. 

 

I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that Hughes is a clear tier or two ahead of Juolevi as a prospect and they shouldn't really be compared. Hughes showed that he could be our best offensive defenseman and fit into the NHL game and not look out of place in his draft +1 year. Juolevi has been working on the same things for 3 years since being drafted and still hasn't shown that he's ready. Injuries have played a role in that and he could reasonably earn a shot relatively soon (sometime this year), but nothing as of right now. 

Hughes is a dman, he will need to "defend" at some point. If he's caught on a longer shift, he can't simply rely on his skating to break out. He's going to have to find a way to seperate the puck carrier from the puck. If controlled zone exits are good for defenders then Juolevi is actually very good at doing so. He simply isn't as flashy as a Hughes would be in doing so.

 

I'm not that concerned about the D+ whatever years. There's plenty of players that have looked good entering the NHL and levelling off (not that I hope Hughes falls in this category), but there's also plenty of examples of very good NHLers that have had a later start. At the end of the day, both Hughes and Juolevi have their defensive deficiencies and both will improve over time. I suspect in the long run that Juolevi will be called upon for the tougher defensive assignments simply because he will be more of a two way defender whereas Hughes will be an excellent offensive dman that will need a steady partner to cover for him.

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I don't see it the same way. A coach isn't going to call a player out unpromted unless it's a situation in dire straights. The coach was asked and he answered in a way that shows it's something they know OJ needs to work on, and that's ok. 

 

I haven't read anyone using +/- alone, as everyone knows it has its flaws, so if any poster has been doing so and thinks it's without flaws, well, they're wrong in doing so. Everything I've read, however, has been in addition to other metrics - mostly the eye test, which imho is the best metric - or in response to some posters using his point total as a main argument for claiming OJs ostensibly outstanding play. (Similar to +/-, point totals do not tell the whole story.)

It was simply said that there may be a trend. They know that he needs to work on his defensive game (as many agree), but it was also acknowledged that not all of the minuses were his fault. Therefore a team struggling out of the gate (with a D partner that also didn't have a great +/- even after Juolevi went down) could certainly inflate (deflate?) that stat. I think it would be different if he was asked where OJ needs to improve and he specifically mentioned +/- or if simply asked about OJ's progress and talked about how he would like to see him improve on his +/-.

 

Perhaps the posts that I've been referring to have used other metrics and not solely +/-, but may have emphasized the +/- as their definitive point. Eye test is generally good, but it depends on who's looking. Some look at players with a different mindset like specifically looking out for the errors and thus sees those errors and more glaring when other players could be in the same boat but just not looked at with the same mindset. This is why I put more value into someone like Benning who suggested that OJ likely would've seen some games this past season had he not been injured because I trust that he will be seeing his team with a more impartial view. This doesn't mean he thinks he's NHL ready, but he's not as far off as some make it seem.

 

Points don't tell the whole story either, but Utica didn't have a lot of firepower and he was putting up numbers. He had to have touched the puck at least for a secondary assist unlike a minus where another player could cough up the puck and there's a goal against where Juolevi is not part of the play at all. You also get minuses for shorthanded goals against, but not pluses for PP points. 

 

So in the end, Juolevi needs to improve on the battles in the corners and just generally playing the body (he's never really played this type of game before, but I see him progressing here like Edler did), but he's particularly strong a controlled zone exits and has decent offensive instincts. A couple of injuries set him back maybe a year or year and a half, but assuming he can get past these issues, then I see no reason for him not improve on the defensive side as he gains more experience at the pro level.