Assessment of Claude Julien's Development Machine

Eddie Jurak · Apr 17, 2015

I think this kind of question is hard to answer in this way.

For one thing, there is no counterfactual. We don't know what any of these players would have done breaking in with a different coach or in a different system.

Second, all prospects are different. Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton were going to make it as NHL players no matter who was coaching them; Zach Hamill was going to be a bust no matter who coached him.

Third, the opportunity for prospects varies from team to team, and in the case of the Claude Julien Bruins, the opportunity for prospects was very different in 2007-08 (when CJ took over a bad team that had just missed the playoffs) than in 2011-12 when they were the definding champions.

Fourth, you can never know exactly where the coach is to blame versus the team (either bad player development or bad organizational philosophy).

Myt1 · Apr 17, 2015

Based on the general absence of evidence supporting the proposition.

Eddie Jurak · Apr 17, 2015

Myt1 said:
Based on the general absence of evidence supporting the proposition.

exhibit A: The heavy minutes to Seidenberg, Campbell, and Paille, despite alternatives who acquitted themselves well in their opportunities.

kenneycb · Apr 18, 2015

How much of that was Chia v. Clode? We'll never know.

Eddie Jurak · Apr 18, 2015

kenneycb said:
How much of that was Chia v. Clode? We'll never know.

I agree. It seems like Claude (Can we really envision Chia insisting Campbell and Paille be played over Claude's vociferous objection?) but that's a guess.

lexrageorge · Apr 18, 2015

Player development and distribution of ice time, while related, are two distinct issues. It's quite possible for a coach to be really good at developing young players, but not so good at tactically distributing the ice time during a game. In any event, some of the ice time objections have turned out to be urban legend.

The 2nd quibble is that Zach Hamill was the 8th pick in what was widely regarded to be a 7 player draft. Also, the fact that Hamill never did anything after he left Boston tells me that it was the player; I seem to recall that at the time he was drafted his upside was considered to be AHL caliber player. More than anything, Hamill was simply a blown draft pick.

Myt1 · Apr 18, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
exhibit A: The heavy minutes to Seidenberg, Campbell, and Paille, despite alternatives who acquitted themselves well in their opportunities.

You think that players acquitting themselves well after being subject to the development process by playing more minutes in games in the AHL is evidence that the development process isn't working?

RIFan · Apr 18, 2015

I know you qualified this as subjective, but considering Kessel and Pastrnak as polished offensive players at 19 and 18 YO seems more than self serving to support your narrative.

Spooner as a fail is also self serving. He did not perform in the early stint with the reason why clearly identified to him. Further, on his return Claude better deployed him in situations he could thrive. Does he not get credit for id'ing the issues so the player can work to improve? Call it a push, but you can't take away credit for a player who clearly improved.

There will never be a clear resolution to this question because as pointed out there is no counter factual.

Eddie Jurak · Apr 18, 2015

Myt1 said:
You think that players acquitting themselves well after being subject to the development process by playing more minutes in games in the AHL is evidence that the development process isn't working?

Absolutely. The alternative is to believe in coincidence. Spooner finally became ready for the NHL at the exact moment that Krejci got hurt. Trotman became ready when Hamilton went down, but he could not have helped while Dougie was in the lineup. A good organization gets its best players on to the ice, it doesn't bury them behind the corpse of Wade Redden.

j44thor · Apr 18, 2015

Claude's primary job is to win games. Practice and Providence is for player development and I'd like to think the assistant coaches have a lot more to do with player development than Claude does.

Also Zach Hamill should have no place in a player development discussion. He has failed in WAS, FL, VAN and the KHL. I don't think there is a coach/team on the planet that could have turned him into a productive NHL player.

veritas · Apr 18, 2015

One mediocre season and this board is all like,

RIFan · Apr 18, 2015

RetractableRoof said:
1) Are you denying they were polished offensive players the minute they stepped onto the Garden ice? You want to use a different label? Elite? Advanced? Mostly polished? I don't care what label, but in my book Claude doesn't get development credit for their offensive skills. Will they improve, or get more polished/refined? Sure... but I saw little offensive change in either of them that Claude should get credit for. Defensively Kessel left the same way he arrived, therefore no defensive improvement to give Claude credit for. Pastrnak was defensively aware the first couple of games I saw him on the ice - hard to give Claude credit for that then. Acclimating them to his system doesn't get development credit in my mind. Interesting that when I gave credit to Claude for Seguin developing the defensive awareness in his own end you didn't find that self serving. The top 5 offensively gifted players in recent memory in Boston are probably (in any order) Marchand, Krejci, Seguin, Kessel, and Pastrnak. I saw improvement in 3 of them and gave Claude credit. That isn't self-serving, that is subjective. You disagree, so be it - it's what leads to discussion.

2) Spooner was playing tight. He wasn't playing with confidence his first couple of visits to Boston. Typical rookie transition stuff. I personally believe that Claude is old school and figures rookies need to show up ready to go if they want an opportunity. Not all players are built that way - some need a confidence boost - or that little bit extra. To me, it doesn't look like that is Claude's style or forte.

Claude deployed him in positions to be successful in his return? Are you suggesting he deployed him poorly the first couple of go rounds? I would argue that he came back with Krejci injured and a desperate Claude gave him ice time and situational opportunities he never would have gotten otherwise. I don't give credit for that. I've listened to Brickley compliment Spooner for the development he managed in the AHL. I'm also not going to hand out credit to Claude for simply telling a player what to work on in Providence. It certainly helps - but if that is all it takes to improve a player, do you think Claude chose NOT to do that for Hamill? Because it sounds like you think simply telling a player to fix something is enough.

To me Spooner is the most clear cut fail on Claude's docket. In need of his skills, he played under performing veterans until injuries forced his hand. He either didn't see the skill in Spooner, or didn't believe he was ready, or as others have sarcastically offered - it's an amazing coincidence that his developmental maturity happened at the exact moment of Krejci's injury. That isn't self serving, that's my assessment.

FWIW: I have no agenda here. I happen to think keeping Claude is the best option for this team for the next year and possibly longer. I do think that the GM has to Claude proof the team to some degree and make sure that the younger talent gets a chance to play onto the roster and push the (relatively) expensive veterans from below. It's good cap management, it keeps the team from getting stale, etc. Coaches will often reach for the known quantity over the unknown sometimes to their detriment.

This assessment just gave me a chance to see what the numbers really looked like. I was relatively surprised that 104 different players stepped on the ice in 8 years - a lot less than I thought was happening. Just the idea that of that group roughly 50% were in the "possible development" category at all was a surprise. I do stand by my belief that he needs to get more out of the players that aren't no brainers.

To answer your friends first question, YES they were not polished offensive players the moment they stepped on the ice. Your confirmation bias is off the charts. You are completely blind to rational thought on this subject.

RIFan · Apr 18, 2015

RetractableRoof said:
Best in the league? No. Without flaws? No. Never seen before in Boston? No. Needing no refinement? No.
Polished? Yes.
http://nesn.com/2015/01/bruins-rookie-david-pastrnak-scores-highlight-reel-goal-vs-lightning-video/
David Pastrnak’s elite offensive skill has Boston Bruins fans excited about his future. His game-winning goal in overtime of the Czech Republic’s preliminary round matchup against Denmark at the 2015 World Junior Championship on Monday was a good example of why fans feel that way. Pastrnak used his speed to create a breakaway, and he capitalized on the scoring chance with a beautiful deke to beat the Danish goaltender.
Read more at: http://nesn.com/2014/12/bruins-david-pastrnak-scores-awesome-ot-goal-for-czech-republic-video/

Every player that entrs the NHL possesses elite skills. That is what allowed them to ascend to that level. You just can't give no credit because they were already good, but say the other guy wasn't that good and didn't improve enough so it shows a development issue. David Pastrnak has elite level skills, but he is no where near a polished player. To say otherwise is quite frankly asinine and ignorant of the both his potential to improve his offensive ability and to gain an acceptable level of competence in the other aspects of the game.

Your searching for ways to confirm your deeply held opinion and are not doing a good job of it.

RIFan · Apr 18, 2015

RetractableRoof said:
For what its worth:
1) I DID identify the post as subjective.
2) I took the time to research 104 players and the minor league performance for many of them.
3) I have no issue with being corrected or educated - part of the reason I like this part of the interwebs.
4) I offered my agreement with the first response to this post which indicated that this assessment wasn't to be effective means to answer the question.

That said, you've made a post in which you called my effort self serving becaused you disagreed with me. I demonstrated that it wasn't intentional, rather I had tried to be balanced.

You then told me I "was blind to rational thought on this subject", because I used a subjective description of two athletes - "polished". This was AFTER I changed my original post after reading the thoughts of others - and acknowledged their thinking was more accurate than my own on the player.

Then you decided to call my posting asinine and ignorant - when I've made no effort to disparage you or your posting. Again this is over the definition of the word "polished".

So disagree with me if you like, show me where I'm wrong if you like. But don't be a dick about it.

I apologize if I came across as a dick, that is not my intent. I did not, however, call your post self serving because I disagreed with you. I get that you're coloring it as subjective, but you chose to color things primarily to support your narrative ( ie self serving) My definition of polished mirrors the ones I looked up which are variables of "a highly refined or accomplished state".

You are way more emotionally invested in this, so I'll bow out of this thread.

Eddie Jurak · Apr 18, 2015

1. I would draw a distinction between "skilled" and "polished". Pastrnak is certainly the former (and has been since before they drafted him) but "polished" is kind of a subjective term. Whether he is or isn't depends on what exactly is meant by the term.

2. If there is a more idiotic defense of ignoring player development than "Coach is paid to win games, not develop players" I haven't heard it. Last time I checked, players are the ones who win games, and better players win more games. Player development matters because the alternative is to try to win with bad players (see the 2014-15 versions of Paille and Campbell. And, no, it doesn't all happen in the minors. Even a guy like Bergeron, who was as NHL-ready as a draft-year rookie will ever be, was a shadow of his current self back then. And the vast majority of NHL rookies, even those with pro experience, have a lot more to learn than he did. There's a tradeoff between the benefits of talent and the benefits of experience, and a coach who will give 1600 minutes to Paille and Campbell is not helping his team win games.

j44thor · Apr 18, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
1. I would draw a distinction between "skilled" and "polished". Pastrnak is certainly the former (and has been since before they drafted him) but "polished" is kind of a subjective term. Whether he is or isn't depends on what exactly is meant by the term.

2. If there is a more idiotic defense of ignoring player development than "Coach is paid to win games, not develop players" I haven't heard it. Last time I checked, players are the ones who win games, and better players win more games. Player development matters because the alternative is to try to win with bad players (see the 2014-15 versions of Paille and Campbell. And, no, it doesn't all happen in the minors. Even a guy like Bergeron, who was as NHL-ready as a draft-year rookie will ever be, was a shadow of his current self back then. And the vast majority of NHL rookies, even those with pro experience, have a lot more to learn than he did. There's a tradeoff between the benefits of talent and the benefits of experience, and a coach who will give 1600 minutes to Paille and Campbell is not helping his team win games.

Putting all of the onus on Claude and solely on Claude for player development is one of the most idiotic things I've heard.

Claude has more to worry about than how one or two particular rookies are developing.
Organizations develop players not head coaches. Hell the strength and conditioning coach can have as big an impact on a young player as the hc and the minor league hc will likely have a bigger impact or do you think players simply flip a switch when they are sent down and then come back up improved?

Eddie Jurak · Apr 18, 2015

j44thor said:
Putting all of the onus on Claude and solely on Claude for player development is one of the most idiotic things I've heard.

Claude has more to worry about than how one or two particular rookies are developing.
Organizations develop players not head coaches. Hell the strength and conditioning coach can have as big an impact on a young player as the hc and the minor league hc will likely have a bigger impact or do you think players simply flip a switch when they are sent down and then come back up improved?

I'm not putting the onus solely on Claude for player development, but 1) he (and any coach in any sport) does have a role to play and 2) viewed as a whole, Bruins drafting and player development has been god-awful for a good 5 years now. (I don't give them much credit for Sequin/Hamilton, and there's not much else to speak of since Marchand.)

Myt1 · Apr 19, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
Absolutely. The alternative is to believe in coincidence. Spooner finally became ready for the NHL at the exact moment that Krejci got hurt. Trotman became ready when Hamilton went down, but he could not have helped while Dougie was in the lineup. A good organization gets its best players on to the ice, it doesn't bury them behind the corpse of Wade Redden.

The other alternative is to have a completely unrealistic view that it's possible to always be perfectly correct when it comes to determining whether a player is ready. When you're damning a team for getting a young player ready to the point where he can help when he needs to due to an injury or age-related ineffectiveness on the pro roster that had multiple seasons of sustained success, you're reaching.

lexrageorge · Apr 19, 2015

Calling Spooner a "failure" is ridiculous. He wasn't ready at the start of the season; he did nothing the first few games in October. By the time he came back up, he was ready, and was given playing time. It's not Julien's job to take a guy who's clearly not ready for the NHL and make him ready; that's the job of the AHL.

I can certainly understand some folks here quibbling about the timing of his callup, or his playing time after he arrived to stay. If anything, you could rate Spooner as an incomplete; 29 games, although promising, is still 29 games.

Eddie Jurak · Apr 19, 2015

OK, let's come at this from a different angle.

I think most of us can agree that coaches play a role in player development. They aren't the whole of player development, obviously, but they have their part to play in it.

I think we can further agree that some coaches are better at player development than others. From a wider perspective, I think we can agree that some organizations are better than others at player development.

So what would a "good" player development coach (or organization) look like versus a bad one?

FL4WL3SS · Apr 19, 2015

RetractableRoof said:
However the counter to that statement is that wearing rose colored glasses when looking at the state of the roster isn't always the best method either.

Defense:
I'm no expert but I would say that Chara's hands haven't been the same since he was slashed in the playoffs by Montreal. He was a step (small step?) slower before his knee injury. People have been saying Seidenberg has been a full step and maybe two steps slower before the injury (but that his positional strengths/veteran IQ made up for it). Post injury he is often off his feet - either because his legs still weren't under him or because he has to go down to block shots because he can't get to a solid position in time. You've traded the 3rd best defenseman on the team. McQuaid was never known as a speedster or as highly skilled in transition. Most of that should have been known, or should have been observed in the early moments of the season, or post injury return. In that context, Bartkowski and Trotman couldn't get more of a look this season or couldn't have gotten developmental ice time they wouldn't have gotten while the team was "enjoying sustained success"? I don't think that is too much of a reach.

Offense:
People were also talking about Paille having lost a step last season. One of his main assets was the speed he used to be a tenacious forechecker. The cup season was long ago, but a ferocious checking line was a huge energy boost that playoff run. Paille, Campbell were no longer consistently delivering that every night or even often. Kelly wasn't his normal self in my mind. It wasn't long in the season before we realized that Lucic, Reilly, Erickson at a minimum were not getting it done at their previous (or hoped for) levels. In that context, I think it was a failure of sorts to not try to get energy and/or more development time than usual for some AHL body - in this case it's pretty obvious that given the right opportunities Spooner was capable of delivering some of that. Further, given the cap situation there should have been organizational pressure to get cheaper labor onto the roster somewhere.

And I say again, I'm not trying to run Julien out of town. I understand that he is (and his assistants are) doing more in managing the team than we (at least I) know about. Injuries that don't hit the papers. Individual player matchup problems, system matchup problems. Balancing ice time, injuries. Motivating players who are pissed off about a trade. Later in the season he was trying to make sure he made the playoffs at all. Balancing the return of injured players and letting them work through their recoveries and/or rust. And then adding in the development time of players that may or may not be ready - and risking additional losses to find out.

Given all that - I just think he missed on the player development this year in the context of all that. It isn't a fireable offense in my mind - but I don't see why pointing out the emperors clothes is a criminal offense around here. We can point out that Francona seemed to have lost his team. We can point out that BB wasn't drafting real well for a period. Why is it heresy to point out that organizationally and with Claude specifically development of young players over this year (and in my mind the last 8 years) has been a weak point?

You've written a lot of words in this thread, but have said very little. It's quite impressive actually.

j44thor · Apr 19, 2015

Eddie Jurak said:
OK, let's come at this from a different angle.

I think most of us can agree that coaches play a role in player development. They aren't the whole of player development, obviously, but they have their part to play in it.

I think we can further agree that some coaches are better at player development than others. From a wider perspective, I think we can agree that some organizations are better than others at player development.

So what would a "good" player development coach (or organization) look like versus a bad one?

I think you need good drafting to allow for good player development. It is worth noting that in 2012 subban was the first draft pick and 2013 they didn't pick anyone until #60.

That is two years without an impact skater being selected. Tough to keep a player development machine rolling when you are relying on second and third round picks to sustain it.

Eddie Jurak · Apr 20, 2015

j44thor said:
I think you need good drafting to allow for good player development. It is worth noting that in 2012 subban was the first draft pick and 2013 they didn't pick anyone until #60.

That is two years without an impact skater being selected. Tough to keep a player development machine rolling when you are relying on second and third round picks to sustain it.

I agree that drafting/player acquisition is critical. Whatever role player development does play, it's not going to turn an Alex Fallstrom into an Alex Ovechkin.

Can player development make or break a player's career? One would think only for fringe players. Is it completely irrelevant? I don't think so.

Myt1 · Apr 21, 2015

FL4WL3SS said:
You've written a lot of words in this thread, but have said very little. It's quite impressive actually.

To be a bit more charitable, I think he's doing a very good job gathering data and subjective impressions (and my use of the word "subjective" isn't intended as a pejorative). I just don't think that information builds a case that is contrary to anything I've written.

EJ, with whom I often disagree, but who always makes me think, has me trapped in some sort of self-fulfilling logic möbius strip on this one, though.

The player development was bad because the players were eventually ready to contribute. Had they not been, what would have been the conclusion?

Eddie Jurak · Apr 21, 2015

My argument is that an organization that is bad at player development is more likely to delay a player's development than to stop it completely. An NHL caliber player is probably not going to have his career ruined by his organization, but he might reach the NHL later and struggle more with the transition.

You can't say player development is good because David Krejci, or player development sucks because Maxime Sauve. Unless you can make an argument that Krejci would have failed elsewhere or that Sauve would have been successful elsewhere.

Myt1 · Apr 21, 2015

Dude, you're the one who offered an Exhibit A. My response to the question of the thread is that we have no idea and that anyone who says differently is selling something.

Eddie Jurak · Apr 21, 2015

Was just trying to answer your question ("Had they not been, what would have been the conclusion?"). No need to get snippy.

Myt1 · Apr 21, 2015

It wasn't intended to be snippy, Princess Buttercup.

TFP · Jun 1, 2015

Interesting and well researched article by DJ Bean on Spooner's path to where he is today. Certainly makes me think of this as a success of the development machine, to which Spooner seems to agree.

Link

Player	First Year w CJ	First Age with CJ	Experience	Grade	Comment
Blake Wheeler	2009	22	R	Credit	2.5 years with Boston before being traded. Inconsistent at times, no marked development 19:40 ATOI with WPG
Dennis Wideman	2008	24	2	Push	236 GP, 116 pts, 23:15 ATOI under Julien - traded with Boyes for Horton & Campbell
Jordan Caron	2011	20	R	Push	Parts of 5 years in Boston, couldn't get over the hump?
Mark Stuart	2008	23	2	Credit	3.5 seasons under Julien, still getting 19:13 ATOI for WPG
Matt Fraser	2014	23	2	Fail	2014: 14 games (9:39 ATOI), 2015: 24 games (10:31 ATOI), last 2 years AHL: 55, 46 pts
Matt Hunwick	2008	22	R	Push	Parts of 4 seasons in Boston, Traded to Colorado for Colby Cohen
Matt Lashoff	2008	21	1	Push	46 GP in Boston, but only 34 under Julien (37, 36, 21 pts in PRO as a defenseman)
Petteri Nokelainen	2008	22	1	Push	90 games over 2008/2009 seasons, remains what he was when brought up
Steven Kampfer	2011	22	R	Push	48 games played over 2 seasons - between 17.5 and 10.5 ATOI; Traded to Minnesota by Boston for Greg Zanon, February 27, 2012.
Vladimir Sobotka	2008	20	R	Fail	3 years in Boston: 22 pts in 134 games. 4 years in STL: 101 pts in 247 games,
Zach Hamill	2010	21	R	Fail	Over 3 seasons: 20 games in Boston (between 10.5-12:00 minutes on ice) 87 pts in last 2 full PRO seasons

Assessment of Claude Julien's Development Machine

tolerates intolerance

canderson-lite

tolerates intolerance

educated, civility-loving ass

canderson-lite

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play

canderson-lite

Member

educated, civility-loving ass

Member

canderson-lite

Member

tolerates intolerance

tolerates intolerance

Member

Member

tolerates intolerance

Member

tolerates intolerance

Member

canderson-lite

tolerates intolerance

tolerates intolerance

Member

canderson-lite

educated, civility-loving ass

tolerates intolerance

Member

canderson-lite

Member

Member

canderson-lite

educated, civility-loving ass

canderson-lite

educated, civility-loving ass

canderson-lite

educated, civility-loving ass

Moderator