Name: The Next Ones: Can Alex Nylander be the next Kyle Turris?
Brand: theathletic.com
SKU: theathletic-com-65
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

The Next Ones: Can Alex Nylander be the next Kyle Turris?

preview

Jul 13, 2020No two hockey players are the same, but some are more similar than others. They may not look or play the same way on the ice, but the end result is close enough to wonder what it means for a player’s career trajectory. For young players, a statistical comparable from the past can showcase a potential path forward – hope for a brighter future. They won’t follow the same specific path, but the similarities shown to date can help visualize what could happen going forward. These players might be the next ones.This is the third in a five-part series. |The Player: Alex Nylander, age 21The Comparable: , age 21High draft picks always come with high expectations as teams hope the player they drafted becomes an important piece of the puzzle. Usually they are, but sometimes those players just don’t live up to expectations.Or, they take their time getting there.In 2007, the selected Kyle Turris third overall after lighting up the BCHL. The team had high hopes for him, but he only managed to suit up for three games in his first year after being drafted. The following year he got into 63, but only scored 20 points while being an enormous liability at 5-on-5. It was clear Turris wasn’t NHL-ready yet and he spent the following year in the AHL. In 2010-11 he got another shot with the big club, but still only scored 25 points in 65 games and still wasn’t great in his own end. Four years after being drafted with a top three pick and the Coyotes had little to show for it with Turris.Nine years later, the selected Alex Nylander eighth overall and he too struggled to live up to the billing. Like Turris, Nylander struggled to stick with the big club, suiting up for four games in his post-draft year, three the year after and just 12 three years after being drafted. More ominous though, was he wasn’t exactly lighting up the AHL either. That led to Nylander being traded to Chicago, but even his first year there wasn’t too impressive with numbers very similar to Turris: 26 points in 65 games and weak defensive numbers. They’re almost exactly the same size at 6-foot-1 with Nylander being just two pounds heavier.In all both players were worth under 0.5 wins, on the cusp of being top nine players. Their numbers across the board were really similar leading to a similarity score of 66, the highest of any of the five Next Ones.The most important similarity between the two players however is ice-time. Playing at a 30-point pace isn’t much to write home about, but when you’re a young player that’s only afforded 11-to-12 minutes of ice-time per night, it’s a lot more impressive than meets the eye. On a per-minute basis both players were actually very productive given their usage with Nylander scoring 1.95 points-per-60 (94th in the league) and Turris at an even stronger 2.32 points-per-60 (26th in the league). Though both players had stints with the team’s top dogs, neither saw any consistency in their linemates making their production even more impressive.It made it a lot harder to show what they were capable of.It took a while for them to show anything as each player’s first three years post-draft were spent outside the . When they did play there was a lack of trust in their ability and for good reason as neither appeared to be a responsible NHL player.In Turris’ first full season he had a 41 percent expected-goals rate and a laughably bad 34 percent goal rate. He was getting run over at evens to the point it simply didn’t look like he was NHL calibre. Nylander looked even worse which is likely why his stint was shorter. In the 19 games he played in the first three seasons he had a 42 percent expected goals rate and a 33 percent actual goals rate – not far off from Turris.The season in question, each player’s age 21 season, is where real progress started being made. They both became productive scorers, but more importantly, they weren’t getting caved in as frequently as the prior seasons. Relative to their teammates, both Nylander and Turris were only a bit below average in terms of goal differential being 0.1 goals-per-60 worse than their teammates, while by expected goals they were in the same range with Nylander being 0.1 below and Turris being 0.1 above.It still wasn’t pretty, but it was a sign of advancement toward reaching their potential ceiling, one that seemed hopeless in the years prior. It may not have been as promising as what made each player such a high draft pick, but it sure seemed like each player could become a capable NHLer after all.One of the big similarities between both players was that they were traded very early in their careers. In Nylander’s case, the trade had already happened and outside his control. For Turris, it happened the following year after he and the Coyotes failed to agree on a contract. That led to him sitting out the start of the 2011-12 season as well as a trade request. He was moved to Ottawa less than a month after agreeing to a new deal.Given Turris’ efficiency the prior year and the lack of opportunity he received as a former third overall pick, the trade request appears warranted in hindsight and he showed exactly why in Ottawa as he finally began to blossom into a productive top-six forward. In the following two seasons, Turris saw a big minute increase with the and made it count scoring at a near-50 point pace. The two years after that were Turris at his best where he scored 58 and 64 points. He looked like a low-end top-line center, a top-six tweener that was worth just over two wins in both years, his peak.Turris still wasn’t the best play driver at 5-on-5 during his time in Ottawa, but that probably has more to do with being in a bit over his head as the top-line center. He was miscast there. On a good team, a player of Turris’ ilk is better suited to being a strong second line pivot and he showed that in his first season in Nashville where he scored 55 points and had an excellent 55 percent expected-goals rate. His 2.5 wins of value that year was a career-high.The two years since have been very weak, but his body of work up to that date is pretty solid. It’s below average for a third overall pick, sure, but it’s probably more than the Coyotes could’ve expected at the time of trading him. Over the next seven seasons, Turris was worth 1.6 wins on average and was a consistent top-six producer.Turris was a late bloomer especially by the standards of most third overall picks. It usually doesn’t take players drafted that high five years to look like an actual NHL commodity, but Coyotes’ lack of patience turned into the Senators’ gain. It may just be Chicago’s gain too with Nylander. Like Turris, maybe he just needs to be put in a position to succeed.When it comes to high pedigree players not living up to the hype, using Turris’ career trajectory as a comparable is an easy cop-out, an easy example to preach patience. If Turris can do it, so can Nylander, right?That’s where similarity scores can be really helpful as it shows the two players being in very similar stages at the same age. If Nylanderr’s top match was a top 10 pick that flamed out that would be relevant information, a red flag that his future NHL career looked dim. It there were a few such players it would be even more troubling. As it turns out, Nylander’s top match is Turris, a player who was able to salvage his early career. The underlying thread may just be young players who were productive despite their ice-time, a sign that they can bring top-six calibre offense in a bigger role. That, and they needed to improve their defense first.Turris wasn’t the only one. Other slow starters are here like , , , and JT Miller. Decently productive middle sixers like , and also make the cut. Recent breakout players like , and are represented. And there’s also Vegas sensation who actually has the same similarity score. (For Buffalo fans, it’s worth noting shows up here too so don’t give up hope just yet).There are, of course, less flattering comparables among the 93 names that have a similarity score greater than 50 with Nylander – his statistical profile isn’t very unique – but the majority of them did turn into productive NHLers and a lot of them are Nylander’s top comps. It leads to an optimistic forecast, a trajectory that likely has Nylander becoming a productive top-six player during his prime.That seemed like a likelihood on draft day, but Nylander clearly got lost along the way. If a player has the talent though, it’s never too late to find their way back again. Nylander has the tools and pedigree to get there and others in his situation have shown him the path. Now it’s on him to get on it.Data via Evolving Hockey and Natural Stat Trick(Top photo: Frederick Breedon / Getty Images)

Jul 13, 2020No two hockey players are the same, but some are more similar than others. They may not look or play the same way on the ice, but the end result is close enough to wonder what it means for a player’s career trajectory. For young players, a statistical comparable from the past can showcase a potential path forward – hope for a brighter future. They won’t follow the same specific path, but the similarities shown to date can help visualize what could happen going forward. These players might be the next ones.This is the third in a five-part series. |The Player: Alex Nylander, age...

public

Dom Luszczyszyn

Get every sports story that matters. Download The Athletic app: https://linktr.ee/TheAthletic

The Next Ones: Can Alex Nylander be the next Kyle Turris?

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS