Welcome to a special edition of Goldipucks and the Three Skaters! With the 2017 playoffs now over, and on the heels of my playoff breakouts column last week, I figured it was a good time to look at three players (Jake Guentzel, Alex Pietrangelo, Kyle Turris) who had seemingly atypical scoring during the playoffs in order to determine who was too hot, too cold, and just right? Can you guess which player falls into which category? Lock in your choices and read on!

First time readers, or those needing a refresher, click here for an explanation of how this column works. Briefly, it’s a play on Goldilocks and Three Bears, except instead of bowls of porridge I cover skaters and declare one too hot (i.e., doing unsustainably better than he should), one too cold (i.e., unsustainably worse), and the third “just right” (producing where he should). Each skater will also receive a 1-10 rating to indicate how hot (rated 7-10, where 10 is the most unsustainably hot), cold (rated 1-3, where 1 is the most unsustainably cold), or ”just right” (rated 4-6, where 5 is the most “just right”) he is.

Player #1 – Jake Guentzel

After impressing with 33 points in 40 regular season games, Guentzel exploded for 21 points (13 goals) in 25 playoff contests. Time to lock him in for 70+ points next season, right? Many think yes, but from where I sit there are several objective factors working against this, starting with the fact that he cooled considerably as the playoffs went on (tallying a point in only five of the final 12 games).

Beyond that, since 2005-06 Pens forwards who’ve scored 65+ points in a season consist of Sidney Crosby (10 times), Evgeni Malkin (8 times), plus Phil Kessel, James Neal, Chris Kunitz, and Mark Recchi (just once each). What this shows is as great as Crosby and Malkin are great at creating offense, they also factor directly into the scoring on many goals, leaving fewer points to go around.

Also, in their 65+ point season, Neal, Kunitz, Kessel, and Recchi had 22-30 PPP each and 3:32+ of PP time per game. This matters because the 2016-17 Pens' PP clicked at the third best rate in the NHL, with Malkin, Kessel, and Crosby being together on PP1 over 90% of the time. Thus, chances are the team won’t rethink having those three on PP1 next season. That leaves one other PP1 spot for a forward, assuming they don't use two d-men. And If you go back basically the last decade, the Pens have always had a "big body" on PP1, namely at least one of Kunitz, Neal, or Patric Hornqvist. Speaking of Hornqvist, the team's shooting percentage at 5×4 in 2016-17 was highest with him on the ice – 15.89%, although in fairness it wasn’t much lower (14.29%) for Guentzel. In short, Guentzel is unlikely to command the type of PP time these other players apparently needed to post 65+ points.

Add to all this the reality that Guentzel’s 5×5 shooting percentage was already sky high in the regular season and that also in the picture are other young forwards (Conor Sheary, Daniel Sprong) plus whomever the team might add in the offseason, and the takeaway becomes Guentzel – more likely than not – is TOO HOT. We owe it to ourselves to pause to consider that although he might indeed be great next year, or down the road, he could end up like Colby Armstrong (who, for what it’s worth, posted an Guentzel-like stat line of 40 points in 47 games as a Pens rookie in 2005-06, then faded into the fantasy sunset) or now punch line Ville Leino (one of two NHLers, with Dino Ciccarelli, whose rookie playoff scoring mark Guentzel tied. I’m assigning Guentzel a 9.25 rating, which means poolies should brace themselves for the very real chance he won’t be anywhere near as productive as he was 2016-17.

Player #2 – Alex Pietrangelo

Poolies were just getting used to the formerly elite Pietrangelo – who posted 51 points in consecutive full seasons by age 24 – no longer being a top fantasy rearguard option, when lo and behold he jumped back up to 48 points for 2016-17. But then he had a lukewarm postseason, with four points in 11 games. What should the outlook be for 2017-18 and beyond, especially with heir apparent Colton Parayko waiting eagerly in the wings? The answer is expectations should be even higher.

Although Pietrangelo’s 48 points was an excellent year-long total, it actually masks the 18 points in 20 games (including eight of his 19 total PPP) he amassed following the Blues trading Kevin Shattenkirk. At the same time, Parayko had just seven of his 35 points (and one of his ten PPP) in those 20 games, for a lower scoring rate than before Shattenkirk was moved!

Let’s also remember that there’s a new coach in the Gateway City – Mike Yeo, who poolies know isn’t afraid to lean heavily on one rearguard, like he did for several seasons with Ryan Suter in Minnesota. Look no further than Pietrangelo logging 27:00 per game as many times (nine) in the 20 games after Shattenkirk left town as he did in his other 60 contests.

Beyond these factors, collective data suggests that Pietrangelo wasn’t unsustainably lucky last season. He did see his second highest career full season team shooting percentage at 5×5 (9.3%), but it came despite his 2016-17 offensive zone starting percentage cratering to 42.9%, which has nowhere to go but up. Also, ten of his 18 assists at 5×5 in 2016-17 were primary assists, for a rate – 55% – slightly higher than his 52% combined rate from his two 51 point campaigns. Lastly, he only managed a point on 35.3% of goals scored while he was on the ice at 5×5 in 2016-17, which is lower than the 40.0–47.5% rates he posted in his previous four seasons.

Things are aligned for Alex Pietrangelo to post 50-55+ points in 2017-18, so he’s TOO COLD based on his postseason output and even his regular seasons numbers, with a rating of 2.5. Try to target him in your drafts or offseason keeper trades, and chances are the cost you’ll have to pay will be less than the value he provides.

Player #3 – Kyle Turris

During Ottawa’s remarkable 2017 playoff run, most of the attention focused on the resurgence of Bobby Ryan, the perseverance of Erik Karlsson, and the emotional return of Clarke MacArthur. Meanwhile, Kyle Turris followed up 55 points in 78 regular season games with just ten in 19 playoff contests. Could Turris have already peaked? Sadly for poolies who own him, the answer looks to be yes.

Turris only has one 0.75 points per game season to his credit, this despite having been Ottawa’s unquestioned #1 center for several seasons coinciding with what, on paper, should’ve been his prime (he turns 28 this summer). This season also saw his PP time slip to under 3 minutes per game for the first time since 2013-14, while his SH utilization started to inch back upward to its highest level since that same season. In short, Turris is likely exiting his peak while seeing his ice time worsen – a bad combination.

Also, his 55 points this season were helped greatly (and, most likely, unsustainably) by him having received a point on 80% of the goals scored at 5×5 while he was on the ice after not having reached the 70% mark in any of his three previous seasons. In fact, had his 5×5 IPP been the average of his prior three seasons (i.e., 64.7) then he’d have tallied six fewer points overall.

Although Turris’ 5×5 team shooting percentage was 6.99%, which is well less than the 9.0% average for most regular forwards, it’s actually his fourth time in six seasons below 7.0%. The only two seasons where it was above 7.0% were his previous career highs, when it was 9.63% and 8.85%, which suggests perhaps he “runs low” as his norm and, in turn, makes it less likely he’d be able to return to the higher scoring levels associated with those seasons. Meanwhile, his PP rate and offensive zone starting percentage for 2016-17 were within past norms, so those didn’t unsustainably benefit or hurt his output.

Simply put, if Turris was going to develop into the elite center he was projected to be when drafted within the top five overall, then most likely that would’ve already occurred. As a team, Ottawa’s scoring appears to be more driven by its wingers, leaving Turris and Derick Brassard as somewhat lower scoring pivots. Thus, while Turris’ 43-point scoring pace during the playoffs was a bit low, his 55 points in 78 games during the regular season was a bit high. Put them together and his 2016-17 output of 65 points in 97 games is essentially JUST RIGHT, with Turris getting a rating of 5.25 since I see him as a slightly larger risk of ending up closer to 50 points than 60.