Whenever fans begin to talk about their young prospects who are nearly ready to make the jump from their current league to the big club a regular argument occurs about what is best for the player's long term development. This argument generally focuses on two main possibilities, that the player stays in the AHL (or other league) and gets top line minutes playing 20 minutes a night give or take in all situations or that the player plays in the NHL but only getting 5 to 7 minutes a night on a lower pairing and only in certain circumstances.
Sure there could be other possibilities, such as with Duchene coming into the league and getting 2nd line center responsibilities right away and getting good playing time in many different situations, but generally those top lines and high-responsibility minutes will be filled with someone having more experience so in the end it will likely be one of those two argued scenarios that the young player ends up in. So what is better for their long term development and their career?
There is some logic to thinking that a player is best served by returning to the minors to play a lot of minutes in many situations. Obviously the more a player plays the more they are honing their skill. Also, with an increased role on the team they will see not only even strength time but power play and penalty kill time generally, as well as time at the end of a game either defending a lead or trying to get things evened up. In the NHL where they would see others get those responsibilities they wouldn't get that first hand experience of being the person leaned on in those situations.It also makes some sense for the club as another year in the minors doesn't burn up that year of their entry level contract keeping them with the team on that contract that much longer.
However they aren't playing against the NHL level competition that they could be. The game is just a bit below where the NHL is and that could be a negative as well. The game in the minor league is a bit slower, and the players are a bit smaller. Playing in the NHL they could get used to the speed and size of the game a bit faster than if they weren't exposed to it until later in their careers. You see a similar trend in European players coming to North America to get used to the smaller ice surfaces earlier in their careers in recent years.
Also in playing in the NHL rather than the minors you are playing against the best and learning from the best, not only how to play on the ice but how to act, train, and think off the ice as well. This opportunity is a valuable one. Some things that can be done at the lower levels won't work in the NHL. Players see that first hand and are forced to adapt their games to what works for them at the higher levels of the sport.
So what is best for a player? Really it comes down to a case by case basis and valid arguments can be made for either side. Organizations such as Detroit develop players for years before they come into the NHL and that has worked well for them, but then there are players such as Duchene, O'Reilly, and Tavares that jump right into the league and despite some growing pains develop well also.
For myself I would be torn. Using pool as a reference as that is something I can use a real life example with, I wanted to play as much as I possibly could, however I also wanted to play against the best. I learned from the best even if I was getting beat regularly by them. If I was watching and only getting in an occasional game which happened at times because of the level of competition I wouldn't have been putting what I learned to the test, but I was still learning from those I watched. Playing against lesser competition did some for my game because I got to play a lot, but I also didn't learn much from those I was playing with. I realize they are different worlds, hockey and billiards, but I feel the experience gives me some thoughts on it that others might not have.
In the end I think that the argument can't really be made by outside observers, discussed with valid points sure, but argued no. In each case, each player or organization, the decision of what is best for each individual player rests with those that know how the player best learns and adapts. The player himself and the organization are left to decide if the player is better suited by getting more playing time to practice his skills even if against lesser opponents or if it is better to get less playing time but to be learning from the best of the best. Us fans can speculate and want to see one or the other for their favorite prospects, but in the end we have to trust the players and club to do what is best for the team and the player.
No comments:
Post a Comment