I've decided to look at what is really happening with respect to player development under Claude Julien. I know this is subjective, but it's my attempt to actually quantify what I've been seeing. Posters often say "It's been repeatedly debunked that he doesn't develop younger players" but I've not seen it. So I figured that I would do my own assessment to find out if I agree that it has been debunked.
I want to say that for me merely playing a player or giving him ice time doesn't constitute development. Brad Stevens is getting high praise for taking players with known weaknesses and working on them to develop their strengths. For taking players with one dimensional skill sets and getting a result that is larger than the sum of the parts. BB and the Pats organization get credit for developing bottom of the roster talent and putting them in a position to succeed (like making a superbowl winning goal line interception when you are an undrafted free agent). So actual developmental progress is what I am looking for. Having said all that, I don't have a way to quantify all that I am seeing, so I know there is going to be operator error here.
I've sourced the rosters from hockey-reference.com, and done quite a bit of hand counting and tracking, so any mistakes are mine - not theirs.
----
During the 8 years that Claude Julien has been behind the Bruins bench as coach, 104 players have gotten ice time.
Reduction Criteria: I don't think a player that has joined the NHL roster after age 25 can be considered as having been developed by the NHL coach.
Removing the >25 year olds leaves 55 players. [In that number I've initially left one outlier: Kevin Miller who was a rookie at age 26 last year when he first got to Boston and who remains on the team]
Of those aged 25 years: Benoit Pouliot (5), Brandon Bochenski (2), Chuck Kobasew (4), Daniel Paille (4), Johnny Boychuk (1), Martin St. Pierre (3), Nathan Horton (6) all came to Claude with (n years) NHL experience. I've removed everyone except Boychuck viewing him as an outlier. This leaves 49 players.
Definite Credit:
I've given development credit to Julien for: Adam McQuaid, Brad Marchand, David Krejci, Dougie Hamilton, Johnny Boychuk, Milan Lucic, Tyler Seguin as they all have improved under him. (I almost think he should lose the credit for Lucic...). I don't give him credit for Bergeron (3 years in the league before Julien) as I think most of what has happened with Bergeron was him adapting to the system versus generalized development due to Julien. That is 8 players removed from the list leaving 41 names.
No Credit:
I give him no developmental credit for Pastrnak or Kessel. They were both polished offensive players on arrival, and I've not seen a whole lot of improvement beyond acclimation to the league/teammates. It's obviously early for Pastrnak though - I'd revisit him if he improves under Claude should that occur. That leaves 39 players.
Incomplete:
2014/2015 additions just get an incomplete: Alexander Khokhlachev, Brett Connolly, Brian Ferlin, Joseph Morrow, Seth Griffith, Craig Cunningham, Justin Florek, Matt Lindblad, Zach Trotman, David Warsofsky. This takes 10 more players off the list leaving 29 players.
Fails:
Ryan Spooner is a definite fail in my mind. If Krejci doesn't get hurt, we never see Spooner - and yet there were roster spots that he could have clearly upgraded. Reilly Smith hasn't been able to thrive, he certainly has regressed from what they thought they were getting. This leaves 27 players.
Push - No Credit, No Fail:
Kevin Miller remains what he was when he arrived, Matt Bartkowski is better than his initial Boston arrival, but that growth was in Providence, Torey Krug was everything he currently is on offense and defensively hasn't shown much improvement. Byron Bitz arrived and departed exactly the same way (80 GP). That leaves 23 players.
Don't Blink or you'll miss them:
Jeff Penner (2 GP), Mikko Lehtonen (2 GP - 53 & 50 pts in PRO those 2 years), Lane MacDermid (8 GP over 2 seasons), Max Sauve (1 GP), Andrew Bodnarchuk (5 GP), Carter Camper (3 GP - 48 & 47 pts in PRO), Martins Karsums (6 GP - 35, 63, 41 pts in PRO), Jamie Arniel (1 GP - 28, 50, 24 pts in PRO), Drew Larman (4 GP), Kaspars Daugavins (6 GP), Pascal Pelletier (6 GP - 6 games in Boston, 45, 79 total pts his last 2 years in Providence), Jamie Tardif (2 GP - 30, 45 pts in PRO) are 12 that didn't stick around long enough to have changed their own minds, let alone Claude Julien's. This leaves 11 players.
Initial Totals:
7 Developed
2 Fail to develop
Touch Choices (I could have my mind changed on any of these):
I'm torn on grading the remainder in the list below. My gut says that Vladimir Sobotka was a Fail - his scoring numbers in STL went up dramatically when he left Boston. Zach Hamill had good offensive numbers in Providence, I decided that the organization Failed him (not Claude). Part of being a good coach is getting young players over the initial hump. That said, it is ultimately up to the player. Jordan Caron is in the same boat for me. Though he got a ton of ice time - so I'd probably make him a Push. Matt Fraser needs more time, but initially to me he is a Fail. His wrist shot alone could have stolen a point or two in overtime had Julien chosen to use him that way. He'd be a pretty nice piece to have next year as well if the league goes to 3v3 in overtime. The Fail is on Julien though - as he couldn't have valued Fraser lower than Gagne - and I doubt PC would have let Fraser go over Julien's objections.
Steven Kampfer, Petteri Nokelainen, Matt Lashoff, are all probably pushes to me. I think the team could have gotten more out of them, but maybe they just were what they were. Matt Hunwick, Dennis Wideman were tough to call but I went with pushes as I remember frustration late in their time with the Bruins that seemed to me that they were making mistakes I had believed they should be beyond.
Blake Wheeler, Mark Stuart I decided on Credit for development - even though I think both had high end talent that needed more polishing than development. In Stuart's case, he also had parts of 2 years in the NHL before Claude but I still gave Claude credit for his development.
Final Totals:
9 Developed
5 Fail to develop [Removed Hamill]
4 Fail to develop
This in 8 years as a coach. During those 8 years, 3 were championship quality and breaking in someone under those conditions is exceedingly difficult. However, in my opinion winning the presidents trophy is less valuable than developing talent when you are struggling with the salary cap. And in a year when there are tons of injuries, not using/developing high end talent (like Spooner) or getting solid use of a someone like Fraser (who may be one dimensional - but developing him is the idea, right?) is what a great coach does.
I don't know is what other teams manage to get done developmentally per year, but 1.125 players per year (my assessment obviously) when getting crushed by the cap isn't good enough, especially when losing players like Iginlia and Boychuck is the cost. There is also the opportunity cost of failing to utilize/develop Spooner/Fraser when you need them.
What I haven't done is chase into the Providence rosters of the pat 8 years to see what available talent was overlooked by Claude in training camp that might have been not developed as well.
ETA2: Moved Hamill off of the Claude Fail list.
ETA: Would love someone to post the link for how to straighten out this table... sucks to leave it like this for people to read.
I want to say that for me merely playing a player or giving him ice time doesn't constitute development. Brad Stevens is getting high praise for taking players with known weaknesses and working on them to develop their strengths. For taking players with one dimensional skill sets and getting a result that is larger than the sum of the parts. BB and the Pats organization get credit for developing bottom of the roster talent and putting them in a position to succeed (like making a superbowl winning goal line interception when you are an undrafted free agent). So actual developmental progress is what I am looking for. Having said all that, I don't have a way to quantify all that I am seeing, so I know there is going to be operator error here.
I've sourced the rosters from hockey-reference.com, and done quite a bit of hand counting and tracking, so any mistakes are mine - not theirs.
----
During the 8 years that Claude Julien has been behind the Bruins bench as coach, 104 players have gotten ice time.
Reduction Criteria: I don't think a player that has joined the NHL roster after age 25 can be considered as having been developed by the NHL coach.
Removing the >25 year olds leaves 55 players. [In that number I've initially left one outlier: Kevin Miller who was a rookie at age 26 last year when he first got to Boston and who remains on the team]
Of those aged 25 years: Benoit Pouliot (5), Brandon Bochenski (2), Chuck Kobasew (4), Daniel Paille (4), Johnny Boychuk (1), Martin St. Pierre (3), Nathan Horton (6) all came to Claude with (n years) NHL experience. I've removed everyone except Boychuck viewing him as an outlier. This leaves 49 players.
Definite Credit:
I've given development credit to Julien for: Adam McQuaid, Brad Marchand, David Krejci, Dougie Hamilton, Johnny Boychuk, Milan Lucic, Tyler Seguin as they all have improved under him. (I almost think he should lose the credit for Lucic...). I don't give him credit for Bergeron (3 years in the league before Julien) as I think most of what has happened with Bergeron was him adapting to the system versus generalized development due to Julien. That is 8 players removed from the list leaving 41 names.
No Credit:
I give him no developmental credit for Pastrnak or Kessel. They were both polished offensive players on arrival, and I've not seen a whole lot of improvement beyond acclimation to the league/teammates. It's obviously early for Pastrnak though - I'd revisit him if he improves under Claude should that occur. That leaves 39 players.
Incomplete:
2014/2015 additions just get an incomplete: Alexander Khokhlachev, Brett Connolly, Brian Ferlin, Joseph Morrow, Seth Griffith, Craig Cunningham, Justin Florek, Matt Lindblad, Zach Trotman, David Warsofsky. This takes 10 more players off the list leaving 29 players.
Fails:
Ryan Spooner is a definite fail in my mind. If Krejci doesn't get hurt, we never see Spooner - and yet there were roster spots that he could have clearly upgraded. Reilly Smith hasn't been able to thrive, he certainly has regressed from what they thought they were getting. This leaves 27 players.
Push - No Credit, No Fail:
Kevin Miller remains what he was when he arrived, Matt Bartkowski is better than his initial Boston arrival, but that growth was in Providence, Torey Krug was everything he currently is on offense and defensively hasn't shown much improvement. Byron Bitz arrived and departed exactly the same way (80 GP). That leaves 23 players.
Don't Blink or you'll miss them:
Jeff Penner (2 GP), Mikko Lehtonen (2 GP - 53 & 50 pts in PRO those 2 years), Lane MacDermid (8 GP over 2 seasons), Max Sauve (1 GP), Andrew Bodnarchuk (5 GP), Carter Camper (3 GP - 48 & 47 pts in PRO), Martins Karsums (6 GP - 35, 63, 41 pts in PRO), Jamie Arniel (1 GP - 28, 50, 24 pts in PRO), Drew Larman (4 GP), Kaspars Daugavins (6 GP), Pascal Pelletier (6 GP - 6 games in Boston, 45, 79 total pts his last 2 years in Providence), Jamie Tardif (2 GP - 30, 45 pts in PRO) are 12 that didn't stick around long enough to have changed their own minds, let alone Claude Julien's. This leaves 11 players.
Initial Totals:
7 Developed
2 Fail to develop
Touch Choices (I could have my mind changed on any of these):
I'm torn on grading the remainder in the list below. My gut says that Vladimir Sobotka was a Fail - his scoring numbers in STL went up dramatically when he left Boston. Zach Hamill had good offensive numbers in Providence, I decided that the organization Failed him (not Claude). Part of being a good coach is getting young players over the initial hump. That said, it is ultimately up to the player. Jordan Caron is in the same boat for me. Though he got a ton of ice time - so I'd probably make him a Push. Matt Fraser needs more time, but initially to me he is a Fail. His wrist shot alone could have stolen a point or two in overtime had Julien chosen to use him that way. He'd be a pretty nice piece to have next year as well if the league goes to 3v3 in overtime. The Fail is on Julien though - as he couldn't have valued Fraser lower than Gagne - and I doubt PC would have let Fraser go over Julien's objections.
Steven Kampfer, Petteri Nokelainen, Matt Lashoff, are all probably pushes to me. I think the team could have gotten more out of them, but maybe they just were what they were. Matt Hunwick, Dennis Wideman were tough to call but I went with pushes as I remember frustration late in their time with the Bruins that seemed to me that they were making mistakes I had believed they should be beyond.
Blake Wheeler, Mark Stuart I decided on Credit for development - even though I think both had high end talent that needed more polishing than development. In Stuart's case, he also had parts of 2 years in the NHL before Claude but I still gave Claude credit for his development.
Final Totals:
9 Developed
4 Fail to develop
This in 8 years as a coach. During those 8 years, 3 were championship quality and breaking in someone under those conditions is exceedingly difficult. However, in my opinion winning the presidents trophy is less valuable than developing talent when you are struggling with the salary cap. And in a year when there are tons of injuries, not using/developing high end talent (like Spooner) or getting solid use of a someone like Fraser (who may be one dimensional - but developing him is the idea, right?) is what a great coach does.
I don't know is what other teams manage to get done developmentally per year, but 1.125 players per year (my assessment obviously) when getting crushed by the cap isn't good enough, especially when losing players like Iginlia and Boychuck is the cost. There is also the opportunity cost of failing to utilize/develop Spooner/Fraser when you need them.
What I haven't done is chase into the Providence rosters of the pat 8 years to see what available talent was overlooked by Claude in training camp that might have been not developed as well.
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 |
ETA2: Moved Hamill off of the Claude Fail list.
ETA: Would love someone to post the link for how to straighten out this table... sucks to leave it like this for people to read.