Thread: Proposal: Trade Dubinsky....... Now.
View Single Post
10-09-2010, 09:12 PM
Registered User
dedalus's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
They wanted a second unit that could occasionally score. Gaborik/Prospal was locked in on the first unit. Callahan was used as the "stand in front of the net and get beat up" guy. Everyone else that had any talent went to the 2nd unit.
That makes sense to me, but it begs the question: why Callahan? Tortorella might just as easily have opted to go with Dubinsky who is just as effective down low as Callahan.

In any case, if you look at the chart below, you'll see that Dubinsky didn't even perform that remarkably on the 2nd PP unit relative to his cohort.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Part of the problem was Torts obsession with keeping Gabs and Vinny together. They had great chemistry in October, but I was less impressed the rest of the year.
But that's rather the point. It's easy to label that decision a "Torts obsession," but what can you point to that indicates it was an unreasonable "obsession" rather than Tortorella's simple conviction that Vinny was better?

I think that's an entirely open question, and one made more so by the fact that even if obsessed, Tortorella could have kept Vinny and Gaborik together, choosing instead to replace Callahan. He didn't.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
I would not put anything past our coaches. They have made so many bonehead moves, especially involving the PP.
I think that's a problematic statement when you're talking about two different head coaches with very different philosophies, even on the powerplay. Also, for however disastrous we might be inclined to feel the PP has been under Renney and now Tortorella, the fact is that the PP has been middle-of-the-road, not hideous. The team during their tenures has been middle of the pack, with Tortorella in fact having the better success.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
20/44 in 69 games as a 23 year old is impressive statistically no matter what the spin.
I'm actually inclined to agree. It is a good number for a 23-year-old forward. That does not make it a good number for a second line winger though, and particularly one who's given minutes equivalent to most first line forwards. That's what I'm responding to.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
The ice time argument seems forced.
Meh. I don't see it as any more forced than Fitzy Duke of NY's position that "Dubinsky finished 105th amongst forwards in goals." That is the post to which I jumped into this, and the simple goal total is very unnuanced.

Just as you want to argue that there's far more to this than TOI, there's far more to it than goals scored.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
If you look at ES production, Dubinsky is in the same ballpark as most of his contemporaries.

R. Smythe--15:07----------1013--------29--------0.0286
For starters I think it would be far more accurate to drop Versteeg from that list. Is it really appropriate to compare two players whose ice time differs by more than two minutes/game? I also don't see how you can make the claim that Ryan Smyth - at 34 years old - is a "contemporary" of Dubinsky. (At 27-years-old averaging 15:06/game, Mikko Koivu is a much closer comparison. In fact he's the same age as Weiss. He's also at .034/game.)

Personally I'd argue that Versteeg and Smyth as comparables are the most forced argument on the page.

That aside though, if you look at PP production among Dubinsky's contemporaries (+/- two years) who average the same PP minutes (+/- 10 seconds/game), you don't get a whole lot in his favor:

Player ..... PPTOI/G ..... PPP/min ..... PP ice time on team
Dubinsky ..2:07 .......... .068 ......... 6th among forwards
Potulny ... 2:00 .......... .077 ......... 8th
Wheeler .. 2:04 .......... .076 ......... 7th
Raymond . 2:04 .......... .105 ......... 7th
Brouwer .. 2:05 .......... .079 ......... 5th
Hanzal .... 2:05 .......... .035 ......... 7th
Bailey ..... 2:05 .......... .064 ......... 9th
Bernier .... 2:13 ......... .030 ......... 6th
Mueller .... 2:14 ......... .071 ......... 4th
Kostitsyn . 2:15 ......... .067 ......... 5th
Setoguchi . 2:16 ........ .062 ......... 5th
Berglund ... 2:16 ........ .055 ......... 9th

What we see is that all these young players were looking at the same situation as Dubinsky. All were second unit PP (or worse). All were logging roughly the same minutes. Dubinsky is about middle of the pack for this crew, and other than Mueller, I don't think we have any potential world beaters here.

The fact is that, even in the PP time he was being allotted, Dubinsky was not outperforming even the average members his cohort, forget about the best of them. If he was doing the first, I'd say there was a case to be made for PP time being a determining factor in a pretty non-descript PP minute average.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
The difference between Dubinsky and the 100th or 200th player in TOI is a matter of one or two minutes. That means he leaves one game in the first period with an injured hamstring and suddenly he drops significantly on the list.
That's true but it's a point that is just as true of every other player on the list. I can just as easily assert that twenty players BELOW Dubinsky in points would be higher if they didn't "leave one game in the first period with an injured hamstring."

Statistically, we can only deal with what we're given. After that we join fellows like robruckus.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Plus I think there is a little bit too much left out here for a TOI argument to be valid.
But didn't you just make a TOI argument above?

In any case, I think your point not unfair, and I certainly appreciate the legwork you did collecting data. I understand that it's far easier to merely spout points than it is to look for actual empirical evidence to support them.

That said, in my opinion there DOES come a time when we reach data freeze. If we sought to factor in every number, we would end up reaching no conclusions at all ... or merely the conclusions that we most want to believe.

If you want to say my bright line wasn't nuanced enough to begin with, that's okay. As you can see, I added some of your variables to the PP analysis above, and it doesn't help Dubinsky's case.

Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Most players couldn't score 20 goals in a season no matter who you put them on a line with. To score 20 in 69 games makes it more impressive. To do it playing part time with crappy players and with hardly any first unit PP time is, well, remarkable.
All that is true, but Dubinsky isn't being compared to most players in the league. His offensive output is being compared to other top-six players. Most other players in the league don't get nearly 20:00 of ice time each game. The question here is, how productive was Dubinsky given the quite extraordinary time he was allotted? It was nowhere near "remarkable" in my opinion. Like his performance on the powerplay, his overall production was quite average.

In the end what you seem to be saying is that it wasn't enough to give Brandon Dubinsky a great deal of ice time. The ice time needed to be premium ice time, and his linemates needed to be very good, as in Marion-Gaborik good.

That doesn't seem to me a very compelling argument for the offensive prowess he displayed last year.

Last edited by dedalus: 10-09-2010 at 09:20 PM.
dedalus is offline