If you are catching up, the menu for the previous ‘report card’ articles is at the bottom of this article.
Phil Di Giuseppe’s starting point for the 2016-17 season
Phil Di Giuseppe made his NHL debut as part of AHL-infused lineup shake up in early December of 2015. He was one of three players recalled to try to jump start a languishing Hurricanes team. It worked. Di Giuseppe found himself on a third line with Jeff Skinner and Victor Rask and fit right in. Skinner’s scoring bounced and Di Giuseppe filled an understated but important role of adding another forward who could skate with Skinner, provide support and keep defenses from ganging up on Jeff Skinner trying to play offense by himself. Di Giuseppe spent most of the rest of the 2015-16 season on that line. His 17 points in 41 games (for a 34-point pace over 82 games) was not earth-shattering, but when you consider that he did not see time on the power play, it represented decent depth scoring. He exited the 2015-16 season with a claim to being a front runner to seize a depth forward slot for the start of the 2016-17 season.
Phil Di Giuseppe’s 2016-17 season with the Carolina Hurricanes
Before training camp even started, a couple additions in the form of Teuvo Teravainen, Sebastian Aho and Lee Stempniak bumped Di Giuseppe out of the top 9 and into the preseason battle for a depth forward role. Di Giuseppe impressed with his blue collar and rugged style of play that hit its peak when he had a couple huge hits and a fight in a late preseason game against the Washington Capitals. His preseason was good enough to keep him at the NHL level to start the season but not good enough to get him a regular look in suddenly more crowded top 9.
To start the 2016-17 season, Di Giuseppe found himself fighting for ice time in a depth role. He was in and out of the lineup and played with a variety of line mates. Di Giuseppe rated well in terms of playing a consistent physical game, but he contributed literally nothing in terms of offensive production. When he was sent to the AHL in mid-November, he had no goals and no assists in 11 games to start the 2016-17 season. He spent the rest of the 2016-17 alternating between the NHL and AHL. He ultimately found the score sheet at the NHL level, but finished with a lone goal and 6 assists in 36 games at the NHL. He did stand out as one of the better players at the AHL level with 28 points in 40 games.
When you net out Phil Di Giuseppe’s 2016-17 season, it looks a bit like Brock McGinn’s which I reviewed yesterday. Both players bring a consistent physical edge and play hard, but both players need to find a much higher gear offensively to be more than an NHL depth forward prone to being past by the next wave of Hurricanes’ prospects at the forward position.
Grading Phi Di Giuseppe
Graded as: Graded as a fourth-liner versus a top 9 power forward.
Grade: B or C depending on role. If you read my grade for Brock McGinn yesterday, you could almost just insert that here. As with McGinn, Di Giuseppe’s grade is heavily dependent on what role he is evaluated for. He was fine as a fourth-line depth forward. Di Giuseppe was consistently physical, aggressive on the forecheck and pretty good defensively in the neutral zone. That makes him a serviceable fourth-liner with a physical edge that the Hurricanes need more of.
If I instead grade Di Giuseppe as a top 9 forward (which is a role he did play for parts of the 2016-17 season), his 7 points in 36 games just do not cut it. As a top 9 forward, Di Giuseppe gets a C for lack of offensive production.
Looking forward to 2017-18
Phil Di Giuseppe is in the pool of three players who could possibly be lost to the expansion draft. (Brock McGinn and Lee Stempniak are the other two.) If Di Giuseppe survives the expansion draft, he definitely figures to compete for an NHL roster spot in training camp next fall, but with younger forwards on the way, he, like McGinn, is on the clock to find a higher gear and carve out a place in the lineup.
On the positive side of the ledger, Di Giuseppe is known quantity at the NHL level with 77 games under his belt. He also showed consistency in playing a physical brand of hockey on an every shift basis. If Di Giuseppe can maintain the rugged and physical style of play that he has developed and then add a layer of offense on top of something, he could become a decent power forward to fill out the top 9. If he cannot find the offense, he is a decent fourth-line/depth forward likely to be limited in terms of ice time as more talented youth rise up.
Just like with McGinn, Di Giuseppe’s role in 2017-18 could very well be a function of which direction Peters/Francis go with the fourth line. If Peters leans old school and wants experience and physical play, Di Giuseppe fits well. If instead, Peters looks for a scoring boost from a new NHL fourth line, Di Giuseppe could be passed by some of the young players who potentially have a higher upside scoring-wise.
Di Giuseppe could go either way. If he can add offense to his physical style of play, he could surprise and push into the top 9. If not, he could fall all the way to a #14 or #15 slot on the Hurricanes’ forward depth chart which means playing in the AHL.
What say you Canes fans?
Where do you see Phil Di Giuseppe landing in the Hurricanes lineup to start the 2017-18 season?
Does anyone share my crazy view that despite his scoring woes in 2016-17 that Di Giuseppe could still be on the verge of a break out?
Previous report card articles
Go Canes!
D. PDG is not (yet?) an NHL player.He saw playing time last season where he could make an impact. This year while at the NHL level there was nothing. I actually don’t recall him spending time in the NHL after he was sent down – nothing memorable. I am not sure he will see the NHL in a Canes uniform again.
Agree with tj. I would leave DiGuseppe unprotected. He might turn into 15 to 20 goal scorer if given a real chance, which he might get with LV. But I don’t see his progression in the Canes organization. As others have mentioned, he seems to fighting for the same spot as younger players who appear to have higher ceilings. I hope I a wrong if he is on the team next year. It is not unheard of for a player at 24 (his age starting the season) to improve dramatically. Still, I don’t see it.
Matt, your post about analytics today might have an application in the case of players like PDG. I wonder if “time in the AHL” is a traditional belief that is overrated. I am a big tennis fan. The best players seem to hit their peak around 22/23, so not unlike hockey. However, where there seems to be a significant difference is how young players choose to compete. Very few top juniors turn into top pros. One reason is that many turn pro at 16 or 17 and take their lumps against elite players (though they also play on the “Challenger” circuit, which might be more akin to the AHL). My point is it seems that only playing against the best, even if it means getting overwhelmed, leads to improvement. I think the NHL mentality is that developing players need to be protected. Is there any statistical evidence that this is true. While no team wants to put players on the ice who might cost points in the standings, it should be determined who really gives a team the best performance over the course of a season. Would Peters and RF believe the numbers if they indicated that rookies are a better option over a full 82-game schedule than borderline veterans? Would many of the commenters on C&C be willing to start next season with 3-4 true rookies?
Assuming a team is not rebuilding at a level where they are willing to chuck losses into player development, I think of rookies/young players in two fairly different categories.
1-Players who are reasonably sound in terms of positioning, defense, decision-making, etc. (not that they don’t make mistakes, but it’s a manageable volume) but just need to get better. Rask is a good example. He was limited offensively and had some trouble with NHL pace early on, but he was advanced in terms of sorting out the game mentally. Because of that he could play at the NHL level without killing you and learn on the job if you will.
2-Players whose biggest need for improvement is defensively (and this is especially true for defensemen). Ryan Murphy might be the best example and to some degree I think Hanifin is (or hopefully was) as well. This kind of player has the potential to swing entire games quickly the wrong way.
In this way, Lucas Wallmark is interesting. He reminds me of Rask. It’s not yet clear which of the other rookies will be reasonably sound players early, but that kind of player is much more capable of learning at the NHL level compared to players who have significant work to do in terms of positional play and decision-making.
Matt. I think your two categories are sound. My point is just that there may be a moneyball insight that is different. Something like players who drive Corsi and don’t commit penalties should be your depth players, and being able to drive Corsi translates from lower leagues. (As always this is hypothetical as I don’t have the data.)
The Nashville/St. Louis series is full of guys between 20-24. Most have played one or more seasons. The Canes need to make the playoffs next year, but even with my optimism I don’t think they win more than one round. So it is a team in transition from rebuilding to dominating. I think there needs to be a way to get some of the talent on the ice so they can help dominate in 18-19 and beyond.
If the analytics indicate otherwise, I am fine with that as well. But the value of analytics is when it gives a team an advantage by going against conventional wisdom.
cc and tj make good points in their write ups above. ct has really presented several good points. I have a little different opinion on DiGuiseppe in that I think, with the exception of Ryan, he has a little more upside than any of the players that have come up from the AHL in the past couple of years. My opinion is based on observing DiG plays closer to the net on offense than McG does and thus will generate more offense. I would try to protect him in the Vegas draft over McGinn. I will say that I could be entirely wrong on this as no one ever accused me of being some sort of expert on player potential.
RR. This is where analytics NEEDS to help. Because my bias is just an far from an expert as yours–I prefer McGinn because he ended the season with a shootout goal and that was rare.
So at least your bias is for game-in, game-out potential! I enjoy everyone’s insights, they make me realize that being in RF’s shoes is tough.
Hey ct…Let me give you some background on my “expertise” in hockey matters. One year I leaned over to my buddy at the hockey game and told him Wallin would be an all-star defenseman in the league. About 5 minutes later on the ice Wallin scored a goal. Unfortunately, he put it in our net and not our opponent’s goal. Just thought this little story would let you know that there’s no genius behind the RR (which I bet you have already surmised on your own). Keep up your input. It’s always on point and well stated.
RedRyder…Great story on Wallin. We will keep that in mind as we consider your predictions and player evaluations. 🙂
On a more serious note, I think we are making in valuing a variety of different viewpoints (I know I do).
I maintain that it’s a coffee shop. It’s not about who is right or who knows more. It’s about enjoying conversation, listening to what other people have to say and building a small community.