Plz read, before reacc 🥺
I maintain he was just underwhelming, with unique factors. He is one of almost noone ever to lose passion for playing. To identify as "non aggressive" in his words.
NHL Equivalency
Daigle didn't have the raw point totals of young gretz and Mario, but did they even compare at all in terms of pre draft NHLe? For this we'll have to adjust their numbers relative to goals per game that year in each league. Below are their adjusted NHL equivalency numbers.
| Player | G/g | D-1 | D Y | 2Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daigle | 8.6 | 29 | 46 | 75 |
| Mario | 9.6 | 51 | 90 | 141 |
| Gretz | 8.5 | 56 | 83 | 139 |
(Gretzky played in the WHA in his DY so the 8.5 is for his D-1 in the OMJHL)
As we see Daigle wasn't remotely comparable to them. They were arguably twice as good. Yet he was compared to Mario quite a bit. More on this later but. For now, who was Daigle actually similar to?
The Q was way higher scoring back then compared to now and most seasons, historically. His 110 points in 66 games in Draft -1 are more like 78 points in 66 games when adjusted for league offense and 137 points in 53 in DY is 99. So:
Daigle D-1 and DY historic comps
| Prospect | Yr | D-1 | D Y | 2Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daigle | 93 | 29 | 46 | 75 |
| ———- | —- | —– | —– | —- |
| Perfetti | 20 | 31 | 43 | 74 |
| Rossi | 20 | 29 | 49 | 78 |
| Marner | 15 | 26 | 51 | 77 |
| Drouin | 13 | 27 | 47 | 74 |
| Yakupov | 12 | 40 | 39 | 79 |
| Coots | 11 | 35 | 37 | 72 |
| Bouchard | 02 | 33 | 46 | 79 |
| Spezza | 01 | 31 | 46 | 77 |
| Friesen | 94 | 29 | 42 | 71 |
| Falloon | 91 | 36 | 44 | 80 |
| Sakic | 87 | 20 | 60 | 80 |
On average: these were very good not great prospects, taken around 7th overall, who became 70ish point players in their primes. Some down at 50 some up at 90+ but mostly around there. Rossi Perfetti comfortably on pace. Yakupov is the only true bust. A few hall of famers.
(FWIW Kariya had a pre draft NHLe 31 points higher than Daigle at 24 and 82 for 106 but was smaller so was taken 4th 🙄)
So Daigle underperformed his draft NHLe by a fair bit, was on pace for or at 50 points six times. However we have 6 seasons worth of TOI data and it makes his numbers more impressive. Ultimately his career is at the low end of these outcomes.
But a bust? Golly. At least 10 players every single draft underperform to this degree. Naturally. Might as well then call the likes of Colin Wilson a bust. Very bitterly harsh. Overuse to the point of losing meaning. A bust is a bizarre unlikely implosion like Yakupov that doesn't make much sense. We'll get to more reasons why he underperformed later on.
Scouting Input
The hype train going full steam into all time great territory was clearly a fever dream even back then. Caused by many unique factors. From various articles:
there was more than one scout who questioned his compete level and if his head was truly in the game
Partly the hype came from a bit of an urban legend. The 1993 Draft was in Quebec City, so the big headline was that the Nordiques wanted Daigle to be their 'hometown' star to help them get a new arena built. Purportedly Quebec asked Ottawa if they'd consider moving the pick for Forsberg, Nolan, Hextall and picks but the Sens also envisioned Daigle as their franchise guy that would help them get a new arena. Seemingly both Quebec/Ottawa GMs said that names were never discussed.
the draft broadcast was much more reserved about Daigle. Bob McKenzie compared him to LaFontaine/Sakic and cautioned that Daigle wasn't Lemieux.
Crucially as well the NHL was overflowing with Stars in 1993. Gretzky was still elite and his prime was fresh in people's minds. Lemieux led the league with 160 points, Lafontaine had 148 and two players (Selanne and Mogilny) were near a goal per game. Lindros -seen as a daigle comp- was on pace for 100 points as a 19 year old rookie. People just expected every elite prospect to go gangbusters (as they said back then).
Talent
Here's a video from his D+1 that really shows how he was never a historic talent back then, much moreso Marner than McDavid. Very nice speed and puck skills, but not extraordinary. Lateral mobility moreso than acceleration. Very nimble but not like ankle breaking. Not particularly competitive or conditioned. Not very athletic. Awareness wise just above average. Mario was a genius as we all witnessed many times, notably in the through the legs Olympic goal in 2002. Not to mention not being fully suited for the dead puck era as mario was with his huge frame. Where on earth did the Mario comparisons come from? One of his giveaways leads to a goal. A few of his passes get intercepted. Bizarre.
The Daigle phenomenon is more about bizarre mass hysteria, mistaking 90s swagger for actual confidence and a lack of thorough statistical analysis than anything. A perfect storm. Not a single thing suggests he would've been an all time great, not even really a hall of famer. Definitely at least more than he ended up producing but his extremely unique personality explains that:
"Me. I'm not aggressive at all. Zero percent" – Alexandre Daigle
by Radu47
11 Comments
There’s definitely been worse “future franchise players”
Part of the dilema with Daigle is that the sens purposely tanked to get him. Which is why we have a lottery system in place now. The other part is you’re talking about a a draft class that includes the likes of Kariya and Pronger to name a few….. a bust….I consider there are worse busts. But overall…picking him at number 1 was a joke. In addition to that, his contract would result in disputes with Yashin also caused issues in Ottawa. Given they were able to trade him (Yashin) and get Chara and Spezza in return….which isn’t bad. But overall the reason he wasn’t liked was because of the hype leading up to the draft wasn’t justified.
As I mentioned his points per 60 rates from 1997 to 2006 (while purportedly struggling) were quite impressive at 2.26
Claude Giroux was at 2.3 this season
So about a 60 point pace in a full role
He was 0.45 points per game in that span which is just under a 40 point pace
Another reason why I stand by my conclusion
Daigle was a bust no matter how you try to sugar coat it. Ditto for Wickenheiser i Montreal.
Perfectly fitting too a prospect in the NHL offensive hey day comes into the league right when the dead puck era starts 😬
Ofc can say this about lindros too
But definitely a factor ultimately
the argument really hinges on your personal definition of a “bust,” but you made a very convincing case here that the hype around daigle was unreasonable and more to blame for his reputation than his play. i’m too young to remember any of this, so i really appreciate your perspective! thank you!
My wife went on a few dates with him when the hype was going on and she said he was very clear that he never really wanted to play hockey in the first place… insane
Whether right or wrong, being a 1st overall pick does come with expectations.
Just based on his NHL numbers, the guy was a decent / serviceable player at best. Nowhere near 1OA status, arguably not even first round pick status.
Expectations aside, he was just not a great player.
He was 100% a bust. I think what you’re really trying to say is he never deserved the hype he got. Which is a fair statement.
Amazing player, so much talent. But the rumour back then was that he didn’t care much for hockey and was looking to parlay it into an acting career.
Great read, thx for the analysis
There’s bigger 1OA busts.
Yakupov and Stefan were a lot bigger busts but none of them had the hype train that Daigle had
That’s a lit of math to argue a case for a player that was the nail yakupov of the 90s.
Daigle most certainly was a bust.