I have some time this morning, and I thought it might be nice to have a look at the younger players entering their 2nd/3rd season, and trying to decide what a reasonable expectation for them would be next year. This is a very, very young team (did you realize Ales Hemsky will still only be 25 by next season? I mean, it feels like he's been around forever, but wow) and it seems like a good idea to get a handle on what the contributions from the youth should be next season. My eligible candidates look like this:
Forwards
Kyle Brodziak - 24, entering 2nd NHL season
Andrew Cogliano - 21, entering 2nd NHL season
Sam Gagner - 19, entering 2nd NHL season
Robert Nilsson - 23, entering 3rd NHL season
Marc Pouliot - 23, entering 2nd NHL season
Zack Stortini - 23, entering 2nd NHL season
Defensemen
Tom Gilbert - 25, entering 2nd NHL season
Denis Grebeshkov - 25, entering 2nd NHL season
Ladislav Smid - 22, entering 3rd NHL season
A couple of notes about the list:
1) Age is listed based on how old the player will be in October 2008; i.e. when the season starts.
2) An "NHL season" is defined by me as a year when the player spent more time in the NHL than in other leagues, thus a player like Pouliot, who has 3 partial seasons, is only credited for one.
3) I excluded players I expect to be in the minors (Brule), players without one full season (Schremp), players who have yet to play for the Oilers (Potulny) and anyone over the age of 25 (Penner), so the list is hardly exhaustive. I wanted players that everyone should be able to have a definite, informed opinion on and with legitimate upside.
Kyle Brodziak is often defined as a grinder, a defense-first player, a player who will eventually fit into the 3rd line centre mold. He has size (6'2", 209lbs) and he seems like the kind of smart player who excels in a defensive role. I have my doubts; not about Brodziak as a player, but about that characterization of him. Brodziak last season ranked 11th of 16 Oilers regulars in difficulty of competition, and 10th in quality of teammates. His defensive numbers were not pretty; 3.44 GAON/60 stands out in particular. There is, however, a silver lining. Brodziak scored 2.09 PTS/60; that's an excellent number, tied with Daniel Sedin and just a hair behind Erik Cole last season. It's the number of an offensive forward. His 2.76 GFON/60 is also the number of an offensive forward; even allowing that these numbers have been majorly impacted by the Glencross arrival and subsequent offensive ascendancy over every other 4th line in the NHL, they hint at something other than the mundane labours of a checking line forward.
Consider too Brodziak's track record at other levels. Yes, he was named hardest worker and unsung hero in Moose Jaw, but he also twice scored 30+ goals and as an overager finished 3rd in the WHL with 93 points. In 2006-07, his final AHL season, Brodziak was just a hair under a point/game pace (he led a low-scoring team with 56 points in only 62 games); in other words, at the same level that offensive prospect Rob Schremp was at this past season.
What am I saying, exactly? Lowetide has frequently referred to Brodziak as the "new Rem Murray", while others have pegged him as an eventual replacement for Fernando Pisani. To me, his track record to date somewhat resembles that of another mid/late-round overage draft pick: Shawn Horcoff. That is, of course, a wildly optimistic forecast, and even if Brodziak never moves beyond the "3rd liner with hands" role he'll be a very useful player.
For next season, I'd predict similar, or even slightly worse PTS/60 as Brodziak faces more difficult opposition and transitions into a slightly less high-event player. His shooting percentage (11.2%) was on the high side, but Brodziak does have a good shot and a track record of goal scoring, so I don't anticipate a major drop in that. If he can ramp up his physical play (only credited with 40 hits last season) and trim his GAON/60, he could win the plum 3rd line job between Cole and Pisani (given PRendergast's latest interview, I've come around to Lowetide's projected lines to some degree).
Reasonable expectation: Marginal/non-existent offensive gains, better goal differential by way of a drastically reduced GAON/60 against improved competition.
Andrew Cogliano is a guy I have frequently pegged to take a step back offensively because of his ridiculously high shooting percentage last season. I stand by that, although I think he'll make gains in other areas of his game, and eventually emerge as a legitimate 25-goal scorer (for those thinking Cogliano's numbers are sustainable, given his natural talent, I refer you to another young, talented forward who took a big step back in his second season, not because of the "sophomore slump", but largely because of shooting percentage). In any case, I don't expect a drastic step back, just down to 10-15 goals from 18 as his quantity of shots increases. I rather expect his point totals to be pretty much in the same 40-45 point range next season as well.
No, much like Brodziak, I expect Cogliano's real gains to be on the defensive side of the puck. His 2.28 PTS/60 was just fine (better than that, actually) and 2.92 GFON/60 is a very nice rate. What he needs to do is play better against slightly stiffer competition (ranked 12th of 16 regular forwards) while playing with similar teammates (5th/16). I also expect a big drop in GAON/60 (2.99, ranked 11th/16), as he uses his speed more effectively and continues to adapt to the NHL game.
The other big thing I expect to see is a prime role on the penalty kill. Cogliano has all the natural tools to excel in this department, and looked great in a cameo last season. Reasonable expectation: Marginal/non-existent offensive gains, better goal differential by way of a reduced GAON/60 against improved competition, prominent role penaltky-killing.
Sam Gagner is a very, very special hockey player, something pretty much every Oilers fan realizes (even if he isn't ready for 1st line centre duty). Craig MacTavish put him in a position to succeed last season, when he faced the 9th most difficult icetime while playing with the best teammates, statistically. He was also fed a bunch of powerplay time. The results?
Gagner got torched. His 3.19 GAON/60 is bad in and of itself, while his GFON/60 (2.33) EV PTS/60 (1.96) and PP PTS/60 (3.88) rates were good but not great. His basic stats (13G-36A-49PTS) were really nice, but largely because of the massive amount and quality of icetime he recieved. It seems clear looking back that (despite complaints to the contrary) MacTavish made Gagner's development a top priority for the 2007-08 team. I honestly believe that if the Oilers had any real confidence in the London Knights as a develoment team (forgive them, they have good reason to be leery), Gagner would have been sent back to junior.
Now, if I seem critical of Gagner's performance here, I'm sorry. I really am not- the great, big caveat for everything above is that Gagner was an 18-year old rookie, and even surviving, let alone showing nice flashes of ability, is a huge testament to what he'll turn into. I expect we'll see a substantial leap forward next year, in all areas of his game. His offensive production will climb. His defensive numbers will improve. HFBoards will chant his name with zeal. Reasonable expectation: Improved numbers across the board offensively, 60+ points in terms of counting numbers, and modest improvements in the defensive end (say a GAON/60 below 3.0).
Robert Nilsson had a really, really good season. Much like Lupul, Smid and Penner, Nilsson entered the season with big expectations, given what had been sacrificed to acquire him. Unlike Lupul, he lived up, even exceeded them, especially as the season wore on. Nilsson ranked 10th/16 in QualComp, and 7th/16 in QualTeam, so much like the other "name" rookies we've examined, his development was prioritzied by MacTavish.
Unlike the other members of the Kid Line, Nilsson produced in a difference-making way; his contributions all season long helped the team to win actual hockey games, which is probably a product of his age and professional experience. He scored 2.37 PTS/60 (that's a Hemskyian clip, if you were wondering), and posted a 2.98 GFON/60. He was shockingly low-event on defense, where his 2.29 GAON/60 trailed only Stortini and Glencross amongst the forward group. As a weak-opposition killer, Nilsson is already good enough to contribute to a contending team. And, in harmony with the scouting reports we'd been hearing, he isn't afraid to play in traffic.
With Nilsson playing so well already, where do we go from here? Well, there are a couple of things that Nilsson could work on, foremost among them being his powerplay production. Nilsson played limited minutes, but his scoring clip (2.66 PTS/60) was actually worse 5-on-4 than 5-on-5. Reasonable expectation: Continued high-level play, but against tougher opponents. Big statistical improvements 5-on-4.
Marc Pouliot is another player who I feel has been miscast, a nice comparable for Brodziak because he's at the other end of the scale in almost every area. He was a priority rather than an afterthought in the 2003 draft. He was an offensive player with defensive abilities, not a defensive player with some offense.
Last season was a bad one for Pouliot, despite making the team out of camp. Dennis has made a bunch of comments about Pouliot that have caused me to reexamine my perceptions of the player; the biggest being that hs awful start to the season (9gp, 0 points, -7) has polluted his numbers on the year (he only played 24 total games, after all). Because of this, I've looked back at his 2005-06 statistics.
In 2005-06, he played with poor teammates agianst middling opposition, and was an extremely low-event player. 1.71 GFON/60. 1.96 GAON/60. He has the size (6'2", 200lbs) to be a durable checking-line forward, and he has shown flashes of having the ability to contain offensive threats. It's the role he needs to wrap his head around filling, at least in the short term- third line forward with offensive ability. The consolation is two-fold and non-trivial: a) regular NHL employment and b) knowledge that MacTavish doesn't mind giving defensive players offensive opportunities.
Pouliot has offensive skill. Right now, though, he's much better served by being a low-event, defense-first player. Reasonable expectation: A steady NHL job, at the 4th line to begin with, and filling in at third line when injuries strike. Decent offensive numbers, but the really telling statistic will be GAON/60, which should reflect a low-event player.
Zack Stortini, whose father's name must be Bruce, is a consistently underrated player (except, of course, by Bruce, who is to Stortini what BBO of HFBoards is to Schremp). Bruce convinced me to jump on the Stortini bandwagon midway through the season, and I haven't jumped off yet, despite his agent's apparent inability to look at Curtis Glencross and think. I really think that there's a case to be made that "Huggy Bear" is a more effective enforcer (not fighter!) than a guy like Laraque because he fights everybody, even guys who aren't card-carrying members of the NHL Heavyweights Club.
Stortini played butter-soft minutes last year with nobodies in a true 4th-line enforcer's matchup; his Desjardins numbers look good though. 1.24 PTS/60 and 2.38 GFON/60 are very reasonable rates for a fighter, while the nicest number is his GAON/60, at a Pahlssonesque 2.04. If he can be a low-event, 4th-line forward for now, he may even someday evolve into a low-event 3rd-line forward, a breed of player that while consistently underrated by fans can really help a team win.
Reasonable expectation: Some growth in fighting ability. Aside from
Turning to the back-end, Tom Gilbert is really a key player for this team to make a step forward. Gord Miller of TSN raved about Gilbert's play every time I watched him talk about the Oilers, and it was absolutely proper for him to do so. Gilbert played the toughest opposition among Oilers defensemen (tied with Staios and Souray), while playing with decent teammates (3rd/7 regular defenders). His GFON/60 was great (2.89) while his GAON/60 was respectable given the opponents he faced (2.98).
This must continue. Like many college players, Gilbert looked winded in the second-half, and while it might also have been a function of increased responsibilities, he was gaffe-prone and it must not happen this year. The Oilers seem likely to take a defense-by-committee approach again this season, and Gilbert is, in my opinion, the best option against opponent's top lines coming out of the gate.
Gilbert is not yet a complete defenseman, but he's getting there. He is already a bonafide offensive option, leading the Oilers defense corps in both EV PTS/60 (0.98) and PP PTS/60 (3.01). I rather expect his counting stats to drop off a bit, given that both Souray and Visnovsky are likely preffered options on the powerplay's right point. Reasonable expectation: Break even against high-end opponents at even strength. Increased role on the penalty-kill, given his excellent performance in a limited viewing this season and his likely reduction in powerplay time.
Denis Grebeshkov is another young defenseman who is going to be counted on in a key role this season. He is, to date, the best option on left defense (Grebeshkov, Souray, Smid) against tough opposition, and his familiarity with Gilbert should also propel him into that role.
Grebeshkov (behind Matt Greene, naturally) was one of a few players put into a position to succeed by Craig MacTavish. He played the 6th toughest minutes (although it's worth noting that the gab between 6th and 1st is smaller than that between 6th and 7th) among Oilers defensemen with the best teammates, but to be fair, he performed well.
He is a puck-moving defenseman who posted good offensive numbers at even strength (0.84 PTS/60, 2.90 GFON/60), and surprisingly poor numbers 5-on-4 (1.26 PTS/60). He was christened Marc-Andre Grebeshkov early in the year by a commenter over at Lowetide's site (I forget who, sorry), and he seemed like a real chaos defender early on, something his statistics bear out (2.64 GAON/60), but that tendency diminished as the season wore on. Reasonable expectation: Some degree of proximity to the break even point in goal differential against quality opponents. An increased role and nicer numbers on the powerplay.
Ladislav Smid is a somewhat controversial prospect in the Oilersphere, with various groups having no degree of consensus on what he is. A few seem to feel he isn't much of a prospect, others peg him for a less than glamorous defensive role, while a few still feel he has untapped offensive potential. I've compared him to Jaroslav Spacek in the past, and was rebuked by Dennis, who said, "Spacek actually has a shot - Smid doesn't:)".
I've come around to that point of view. Smid is not an offensive defenseman; his career high in goals at any level is 3, while his career high in points (and the only time he ever exceeded 10) is 28, achieved in 2005-06 with the Portland Pirates of the AHL. His offensive numbers (0.25 PTS/60, 1.91 GFON/60) are so strong as to be definitive.
His defensive numbers weren't terribly nice to look at this year- 2.93 GAON/60 is a rather ugly mark for a defensive defenseman. His penalty-killing numbers were OK, however, and we know that he was playing relatively tough opponents as well. Finally, given his age and the steeper development curve for rearguards, I think there's lots of hope that Smid can turn into a player somewhat resembling Rostislav Klesla; tough (he led the Oilers defense in hits last season) and low-event against top opponents. Reasonable expectation: A reduced GAON/60 against tougher opponents, and a bigger role on the penalty kill. A modest improvement in his offensive production rate, especially since it can't get much worse than it was this past season.
Finally, since I referenced it in my title, I think the "sophomore slump" is a simplistic explanation of complex phenomena only really referenced by the uninformed or the lazy/hurried (which is why you hear even good colour commentators mention it). It is mythology, akin to Thor, Zeus and efficient bureaucracy. The real explanation is that the numbers the vast majority of hockey fans use to judge players (i.e. counting stats) are influenced by a wide variety of factors (ice-time, quality of opposition and teammates, luck) and that a sophomore player is often placed in a different role with increased responsibilities and a decreased cushion. The ability of the player generally doesn't go into the toilet, and the underlying numbers can make it obvious why he took a step backward superficially. The problem is that the majority of fans never go beyond the superficial numbers, or bother to look at the situation where a player gets playing time. It's all a matter of perspective.
12 Comments:
Nice post:
The analysis of Nilsson shows what a stupid idea the challenge post before this one is.
It proved your talent!
I paraphrase MacT, "we will see if he is a first line player."
Reading this makes me want to see thses two lines.
Cole-Horcoff-Nilsson
Cogliano-brodziak/Pouliot-Pisani
I enjoyed your analysis here Jonathan, very well done, especially the point you make about Brodziak maybe being the new Horcoff.
That's a point only an optimistic Oilers fan would see and make, but that's OK. Sometimes the optimists are right, as they were with Gagner this year, as opposed to the pessimists, who thought he would be better off in major junior.
There is a type of physical defenceman who does develop some scoring punch half-way through his career, and Smid could well be one of the, so I'm certainly not giving up hope he can be a point-every-second game kind of player, a Spacek. How many points did Spacek get as a young NHLer? It took him awhile to get going. He was 25 - 26 when he had his first big offensive season.
Finally, I'd add that as much as I like the work you're doing, I'm not so sold with looking at player only in terms of his plus/minus at even strength, for reasons I've spelled out in the past. If you focus too much on that, I believe, you will over-estimate the season Robert Nilsson had last year and under-estimate the one Gagner had. My eyes told me they were pretty much the same player, kinda strong on offence, kinda weak on defence.
I know other disagree with me on this -- they really believe Nilsson was a defensive whiz compared to Gagner. But I just didn't see it. They both kind of stunk it out now and then when it came to defensive play.
(BTW, this sameness between the two players is reflected in their Errors vs. Points Plus/Minus, which were pretty much the same.).
I have a hunch that Gagner was on for many goals where he wasn't at fault, not involved in the play, many more such goals than Nilsson was, for whatever reason.
In conclusion, it seems to there's a risk relying too much on either sets of stats, the basic counting number stats (goals, assists, points, to which I would add primaries, secondaries and errors), as well as the plus/minus numbers and the stats derived from them, such as QualComp and goals against per 60 minutes/goals for per 60 minutes.
When it comes to hockey, the best argument is what we saw with our own eyes, which is why I like your Brodziak/Horcoff argument.
I saw some real offensive spark in Brodziak. Whatever success the Crosstiniaks had in scoring, he was the key to it. Now you supported that with his counting numbers and with plus/minus derived stats, but what I saw in his play is really what I believe. He's got a chance to score a few.
That's a point only an optimistic Oilers fan would see and make, but that's OK. Sometimes the optimists are right, as they were with Gagner this year, as opposed to the pessimists, who thought he would be better off in major junior.
Personally, with respect to Gagner, I felt he would have been best served with a year in the AHL (not possible under the agreement with the CHL). Given the choice between London and Edmonton in a year that was basically thrown to development before the season even started, I'd pick Edmonton. I didn't expect him to play to the level he did.
Finally, I'd add that as much as I like the work you're doing, I'm not so sold with looking at player only in terms of his plus/minus at even strength, for reasons I've spelled out in the past. If you focus too much on that, I believe, you will over-estimate the season Robert Nilsson had last year and under-estimate the one Gagner had. My eyes told me they were pretty much the same player, kinda strong on offence, kinda weak on defence.
I know other disagree with me on this -- they really believe Nilsson was a defensive whiz compared to Gagner. But I just didn't see it. They both kind of stunk it out now and then when it came to defensive play.
I think Gagner gets a lot about defensive assignments mentally, but he isn't anywhere near as strong as Nilsson is right now, and defensive reactions don't come to him as instinctively (which I chalk up to Nilsson's pro experience). That's what I see ;)
I haven't really weighed in on the errors in a definitive way, other than to basically say that any kind of innovative analysis is usually worth a try and I can't see them having no value, because I haven't proven their value to myself. This season I'm planning to shadow, at least for part of the year, your work on errors, as well as introduce the notion of QualComp; i.e. who was on the ice against when the goal was scored.
I really (at this point anyway) believe that +/-, when buttressed with the matchup data, is the best tool we have for analyzing hockey players, and that the extra plusses and minuses are both fewer than people think and that they generally balance out at the end of the year.
Finally, Nilsson was on the ice for 30 goals against. Gagner was on for 52. I really don't believe that's coincidence.
I have a hunch that Gagner was on for many goals where he wasn't at fault, not involved in the play, many more such goals than Nilsson was, for whatever reason.
This is someone elses line (RiversQ?) but I do generally believe that in most cases, the majority of players on the ice are complicit in a goal against. I'm open-minded about this idea and plan to put it to the test next season, but I'm going to keep believing it until proven otherwise to my satisfaction.
When it comes to hockey, the best argument is what we saw with our own eyes, which is why I like your Brodziak/Horcoff argument.
Yes, but all eyes aren't created equal ;) One of the things I like about goal differential is everything I've seen at Behind the Net pretty much matches up with what I've seen on the ice.
People look at Gagner and go- hey, he could be the first line guy, he's more talented than Horcoff, but they do that because they rely on their own, limited vision of the game. Horcoff is an instinctive defender, his strength is way ahead of Gagner's, and he has a wonderful chemistry with Hemsky that people underrate. But, hey, they see it, so they believe it.
Statistics should confirm what you see (and I'm stealing from Mc79hockey here), because both stats and what we see are expressions of the same events.
Additionally, it's difficult to debate or analyze with other fans based on what your eyes are telling you, because whoever you're talking to trusts their eyes more- after all, they saw it!
Beauty post Jonathan. When I wrote my post about the 2nd liners I had the line "I think the sophomore slump is a crock of shit" in it and for some reason deleted it. You win for coming out and saying it. Your expectations are probably more realistic than mine however. Just out of curiosity, if you had to pick, Pouliot or Brodziak? I'm a Brodziak guy but all this Pouliot talk is starting to gain traction. Once Stortini's agent gives his head a shake, I think Zach will prove to be a valuable player for the Oilers. A distraction from the kids who can be reliable.
Just out of curiosity, if you had to pick, Pouliot or Brodziak?
Brodziak. Until Pouliot can string together an entire season without the coaching staff losing confidence in him, he can't compete with Brodziak.
Of course, 51 is my favourite player on the team, so I'm a little biased.
Just as an interesting side note- connected with my Horcoff/Brodziak comment, this is a fun thread from 2003, at the start of the season where 25-year old Shawn Horcoff would score 31 points. Some of my favourite quotes:
"He has done plenty to write about...unfortuantly 99% bad...he CONSTANTLY chokes up the puck which is why LMHF#1 and I came up with the nick name "Professional Puck Loser"...he should definatly NOT be on the PP..."
"who recalls my suggesting that the Oilers should dispose of Horcoff in mid April, when the rest of the league believes Horcoff is a decent hockey player?"
"fact is, he has talent and no brains. just like cleary."
"Horcoff continues to avoid physical contact, lose faceoffs, and loses physical battles. He has okay abilities but doesn't look like a second line centreman to me. Reasoner is clearly emerging as a better talent."
"I never liked him since he got here! He is certainly not top 2 line material and he is wasting good minutes that could go to more deserving players."
Point being that it is really hard to see what the future holds, and that the 4th line late-bloomer can turn into a much better player than the ballyhooed prospect.
Brodziak is smart. He may never reach Horcoffs level, but he should have a nice long career.
I think 78 is the best option for the 3rd line Because he's been so low-event. Outside of the dreadful start to the '08 season, this guy's been hard to score against.
Great work Jonathan.
A few nitpicks:
1. I think Brodz slightly improving his GA # against tougher comp would be satisfactory. Expecting a drastic reduction against tougher comp is a bit much, unless his quality of linemates in that regard is taking a good jump up too. (which it might if lined up with Pisani and Cole).
I too am a big supporter of Brodz, and see a lot of Horc in him. Brodz has already proven to be a better goal-scorer than Horc at the same age. The man just generates quality scoring chances every single game it seems. But his defense does need work.
2. Comparing Bruce to Bryan (BBO) is a real shot at Bruce, there's no comparison there. I'll take Bruce every day of the week and twice on game days.
3. I think Stortini's ability is as an agitator who can fight, not as an enforcer. Any analysis of him should also include penalties drawn.
4. Size is an issue with Grebs. He still needs a bit of a baby-sitter in that regard. For eg, he should never be sent out with Staios.
5. I think Cogliano's shooting percentage may be indicative of the number of odd man breaks he finds himself on. He may maintain a level above 12 his entire career.
Staples' comments in support of Gagner over Nilsson are a bit strange. I recall a game last year where he dinged an error on Gags... Stoll had gone in on the forecheck and overplayed the puck. Gagner had to race from centre ice to the boards to try and check the play at right angles and naturally failed. Staples gave the primary error to Gagner although it was Stoll that created the situation, and every NHLer would fail making Gags' play at least 7 out of every 10 times.
Too much of the error is in the eye. Notably, he was a big defender of Stoll's play at the time.
And I'm not surprised Staples is against the contention that all men on the ice hold part responsibility for any given goal, since he evals by TV replay and thus can't see the whole ice.
I know he tries to be diligent by watching as many replays from as many angles that are provided, but it is just not the same.
Spoiler:
I'm the first to admit that I sometimes get it wrong when I assign errors, which is why I publish my results on my blog, and ask people to assist me if I've erred, so that the final results can be more accurate. It's good to have a few thousand sets of eyes helping ensure that the process is accurate, incuding your eyes Spoiler.
As for me being biased in favour of Stoll over Gagner, or some such notion, I don't know where this is coming from?
The truth is, all year I was much more out on a limb in support of Gagner than I was of Stoll. There's clear evidence of that from numerous blog posts.
Fact is, I liked both players a lot. If I have a favourite player it's Smid. Being aware of that, I think I marked Smid extra hard throughout the season.
So I'm not saying I didn't make mistakes in particular error assignments. I most certainly did. But I don't find your accusations of bias to be based on fact.
Mr. Staples,
1. When you posted that particular error, I made the same point about the play and you were having a very difficult time admitting an error
2. I have made no accusation of bias towards Stoll over Gagner. Prior to this game on your blog you had made a point that Stoll's defensive play was not as atrocious as it seemed to the ordinary fan, as evidenced by your error stat. I am merely noting a possible correlation.
3. 1000s of eyes? For every single NHL game? How is this error stat going to be practical?
2. Comparing Bruce to Bryan (BBO) is a real shot at Bruce, there's no comparison there. I'll take Bruce every day of the week and twice on game days.
Not meant to be a shot at Bruce, just a gentle poke for his level of support ffor Stortini. I know Bruce is one of the commenters whose opinion I value most.
3. I think Stortini's ability is as an agitator who can fight, not as an enforcer. Any analysis of him should also include penalties drawn.
Very nice point.
5. I think Cogliano's shooting percentage may be indicative of the number of odd man breaks he finds himself on. He may maintain a level above 12 his entire career.
I agree that it'll be high, I just doubt he can stay around the 18% mark.
Post a Comment