Thread: AAA 2012 Draft
View Single Post
11-16-2012, 05:35 PM
Registered User
jkrx's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,108
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
No, I don’t see the pattern. Even before earning a shot with the Sedins, he was more valuable than McClelland ever was.

As you know, McClelland didn’t play on Edmonton his entire career, so he had a chance to be more important to other teams.
Right but as you know it was in Edmonton he was used on a checking line while the dead wigns tried to reduce him to a goon again but he wasnt a goon. He was actually quite adept at positioning and getting people off the puck. He is used on a line with Legwand and Irvine who are a bit more skilled in other departments so Im not to worried.

With that said, it’s sure pretty interesting how many goals he scores that aren’t assisted on by either one of them.

LOL! You might want to read that link that you provided to me again. The evidence is proving that the glue guys (including Burrows) are improving the production of the smaller, softer players (like the Sedins)

Here it is again:

This year (glue guy) has improved their offensive production between 20 and 25% and it isn’t because (glue guy) is an elite offensive player relative to those three guys. He only has 12 goals and 28 points in 54 games this year and is Tampa’s 6th leading scorer…

…I have always been interesting in exploring the optimal way to build a team and so this prompted me to look a little deeper to see if mixing in some toughness with more pure skill players makes the skill players better. So, here are a few more examples that I found interesting…

…the big strong wingers made their smaller skilled linemates (particularly the centermen) better offensive performers and while most of the players I looked at above are quality players no one will really call them elite offensive starts that can carry an offense. They are at best secondary top line players

That "80%" number you threw out and called "a lot" (which it is) helps Burrows' case just as much as you thought it was hurting it, because it's actually saying the complete polar opposite of what you thought it was.

AHA! And this explains why HockeyAnalysis was in this thread! He saw that his blog was being quoted here. (heh, that’s what I’d do too, if I had a hockey blog)
Ofcourse the glue guy helps the skilled players too otherwize it wouldnt make sense to put them on a line, right? Have I ever written in the thread that Burrows is bad? No. Actually it all started with you slagging off some players while proclaiming that Burrows is the best at everything.

The fact is that you seem to believe that a glue guy outscoring his playmaker center/linemates is something unusual when it isnt and several undrafted players have done it, some of which wont even get drafted.

It's not entirely relevant that he has done it four times (glue guys usually move on to better contracts with other teams or get pushed down the pecking order by free agent signings).

Ideal 4th line player for this draft. He was our #1 choice… maybe we should have taken him by now.

Actually, maybe we wanted Lapointe a little bit more, but we didn’t expect Lapointe to last until we took 4th lines.

I’m thinking Lapointe is the better and more valuable player overall; would anyone disagree?
Really depends, McCarty brings a different skillset than Lapointe. Lapointe was probably better as top-6 glue guy while I think McCarty were better as a physical presence on a mid-6 line. I also think that McCarty brought more leadership to the table than Lapointe did. Depending on who you already have on your team I doubt you could go wrong with either of them.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote