No 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.
Advertisement
The player: Ethan Bear, age 22
The comparable: Jake Gardiner, age 21
The similarities
For most of the salary cap era the Leafs’ blue line was in a state of disarray, but in the 2011-12 season there seemed to be a future bright spot in 21-year-old Jake Gardiner, a slick skating puck-moving defenseman the team acquired in 2011 from Anaheim. Gardiner scored 30 points in 75 games that year and was a breath of fresh air on the Leafs’ back end, a guy who can push play offensively. He didn’t play the toughest minutes, but he did reasonably well given the circumstances of his teammate quality. Though there were defensive shortcomings to start, Gardiner solidified himself as a top-four option in his first season and there was a buzz around him that he would only get better.
There’s been a similar buzz with another Canadian team this season, one whose blue line hasn’t had much success in the past either. That buzz belongs to Edmonton’s Ethan Bear who found himself on a top pair with Darnell Nurse in his first full season and has drawn rave reviews from Oilers fans. The opening narratives are similar, but of the five Next Ones, this is admittedly the weakest match with a similarity score of 44. Bear had a unique season without many high comparables, but of those, Gardiner’s trajectory is arguably the most promising and relatable.
Like Gardiner, Bear was pretty effective in putting up points at 5-on-5, though his 0.87 points-per-60 were a touch behind Gardiner’s 0.95. Both players had their defensive struggles with near-identical expected goals against rates – with more of Bear’s ending up in the back of the net – but made up for it with their offensive instincts as solid puck-movers. It wasn’t enough to put either above break-even in expected goals percentage, but both did face similarly above average usage. Bear played against tougher competition than Gardiner and that’s a plus in his favor, but he also had the benefit of playing primarily with two of the best players in the world – Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl – on most of his shifts which makes his usage easier.
Bear is a bit behind where Gardiner was at the time, but the potential is clearly there for Bear to become a true top-pairing defender if he becomes more of an offensive force and cleans up his defensive game.
What each player has shown to date
Considering both players are just one full season into their careers during the comparison period, not much but promise. The puck-moving ability was apparent, as was the ability to drive offense. Both players could handle over 20 minutes per night, but like a lot of young defensemen, they seemed to struggle to play those minutes in their own end.
Advertisement
That was the knock on Gardiner early in his career and it stuck with him. Bear’s numbers are just as poor. Only nine other defensemen saw more goals against per 60 than Bear this season and only 18 others saw more expected goals against. Perhaps part of it was a stylistic run-and-gun approach when playing with McDavid and Draisaitl (the trio allowed a staggering 4.6 goals-per-60), but it didn’t seem to be worth it considering the team gave back more on defense than they got on offense with Bear on the ice. That equilibrium needs to change for him to take the next step.
Though Oilers fans were wondering if Bear should receive some Calder buzz for his play this season, my model wasn’t sold based on his poor defensive numbers that drowned out his offensive contributions. He got out-chanced and out-scored at evens this season despite frequently playing with two of the best players in the world. Though it’s nice to be trusted by your coach to play the toughest minutes, simply playing them isn’t enough – a player needs to actually succeed in those minutes. Bear didn’t do that in his first season.
That’s not a knock on Bear, it’s a very tough job for a rookie defenseman, one that only a select few could handle. It’s his first season and there’s plenty of room for Bear to become a legitimate top-pairing option down the road, and not just a player used like one out of necessity. It took some time for Gardiner to get there, though the fact Bear is being trusted in those spots already is a good sign for his future. Gardiner didn’t get that treatment.
What the future might hold
In his second season, Gardiner spent most of the year in the AHL or press box, suiting up in just 12 of 48 games that season. It’s a decision that didn’t make much sense at the time and still doesn’t now, but what was clear was that Gardiner wasn’t really trusted by his coach. That lack of trust continued even when he did play as he was heavily sheltered against tougher opponents.
What’s interesting looking back on Gardiner’s numbers is that Randy Carlyle may have had a point in not trusting him. He took it too far with the benching of course – Gardiner was obviously one of the team’s six best defensemen – but there may have been a method to his madness in terms of not trusting him with very tough minutes.
Advertisement
The prevailing wisdom at the time was that Gardiner was a play-driver because his Corsi numbers were strong relative to his teammates. It was a simpler time. We now know those numbers were less impressive because those minutes weren’t exactly the toughest, but more importantly, his expected goals rates in those early years were often way worse than his shot attempt rates, a sign of poor shot quality. It wasn’t until his fourth season where the two numbers started to line up and it took a couple more years after that for his share of goals to follow.
It was Year 6, the 2016-17 season, where everything began to click at once for Gardiner where he could be truly considered a force at 5-on-5. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it was the same year where a coach, Mike Babcock, finally trusted him to be a leader on the back end. For the next three seasons, he played like a legitimate No. 1 defenseman for Toronto, averaging 2.2 wins per 82 games for the club. The team out-chanced and out-scored opponents by a significant margin whenever Gardiner was on the ice.
Bear already has that trust in his first season and it doesn’t seem like that trust will evaporate anytime soon. The question is whether he can pay back that trust with actual top pairing quality results, an outcome that may not happen overnight. It took a while for Gardiner, only becoming a legitimate top-pairing caliber player in 2016-17 according to his true talent level (a weighted average of his GSVA in previous three seasons).
It can’t be forgotten though that Gardiner’s lesser valued years were also spent playing on a bad team and his best years coincided with Toronto’s ascension. A rising tide lifts all boats and as Edmonton begins its McDavid/Draisaitl led ascension, Bear’s numbers may improve in lockstep as he grows with the team. That, or he gets slotted in a more appropriate role to succeed if he can’t keep up with the tide. His first season numbers suggest that’s a possibility given his poor defensive numbers with the top line, but it does take time for defensemen to find their NHL footing.
Other comparables
Gardiner in 2011-12 was not Bear’s top comparable, but he was one of the more flattering ones and given the glowing sentiment amongst Oilers’ fans who watch him every night, it felt appropriate to deliver a best-case scenario: A player who eventually became a solid No. 2 puck-mover while driving play offensively. Gardiner isn’t the only comparable that fits that mold as there’s also Justin Faulk, Cam Fowler and former Oiler Jeff Petry that have a 35 percent similarity or higher to Bear’s rookie season. Future shutdown defenders like Travis Hamonic and Ryan Murray also make the cut, as does an actual No. 1 defenseman, Morgan Rielly.
But there are also less flattering comparables, ones that warn of players with similar numbers to Bear’s that didn’t really grow into their roles like Jack Hillen, Jamie McBain, and Dmitry Kulikov. It’s worth noting too that Bear’s projected GSVA of minus-0.03 is the lowest of his top 20 comparables.
Despite that low current projection, there was still promise in Bear’s rookie season and many future paths towards being a capable top-four defenseman. Despite playing top minutes, I don’t think he can be considered that yet based on his numbers, but it is where his current trajectory points toward. That’s based on the above comparables, and there’s potential for more with some of the best cases breaching the top pairing barrier of around one win of value.
The biggest common ground Bear has with all of his comparables are poor defensive numbers, both in expected and actual goals against. It’s a sign that those rough defensive numbers to start his career don’t have to define the rest of his career and that he can still become a very effective player. While many of the players on the list remained poor defensively throughout their careers, most did see some improvement, but more importantly found a way to make up for it with sparkling offense.
Advertisement
While the word “defense” is right there in the position title, it’s not all that a defenseman is responsible for and as long as the player gets his team above break-even in chances and goals, it’s a win. The answer to the question of whether or not a player is effective shouldn’t be how he got his results, but that he got them. Gardiner was the epitome of that, a wild card that didn’t play by the book but still managed to get his team on the right side of the ledger. That’s not where Bear was in his first season, but neither was anyone on that list above. But it’s where Bear needs to be to take the next step in his career to be considered alongside those names.
(Data via Evolving Hockey)
(Top photo: Andy Devlin / NHLI via Getty Images)
