HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Trade Dubinsky....... Now.

View Poll Results: Trade Dubinsky?
Keep Dubinsky. He's a valuable part of our future 105 43.75%
Trade Him. It won't hurt our club and we can get something good in return. 23 9.58%
On the side of keeping him, but would not object to a trade if for the right return. 112 46.67%
Voters: 240. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2010, 10:39 PM
  #201
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 17,600
vCash: 500
I think if Dubi uses his size and grit he can easily score on crashing the net on the PP.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 08:28 AM
  #202
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverTheCap View Post
Under Renney, though, Dubi still played center, and Drury and Gomez almost always had priority over him on the PP. Both Gomez and Drury would play on PP1, leaving Dubi to get minimal PP time centering the 2nd unit.

Honestly, the Rangers' PP was pretty awful towards the end of Renney and Pearn's tenure, perhaps they should have used Dubi more. This was the year they were using good ole punching bag Voros on the PP, so I'm not sure they were making the wisest of personnel choices. I also thought Cally was underutilized on the PP as well.

Dubi's role has changed a lot since Renney was coach... he is now a winger and his big body can be planted in front of the goalie. He set a career high in PP goals this past season despite missing 13 games. In his first full season as a winger, he should be given more opportunities to screen the goalie on the PP. We'll see what happens.

Exactly. There's far too many variables for the opposing argument to hold much water.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Oh I agree but that doesn't change anything. The point remains that Renney felt Dubinsky deserved only limited minutes. In Renney's assessment, Dubinsky wasn't good enough to displace Gomez, Drury (a telling comment in its own right) or even a winger.
No. The point doesn't remain the same. We had two players who WE BROUGHT IN SPECIFICALLY to be our top 2 centers and arguably lead us deep into the playoffs.

Again, Dubinsky was a rookie in 06-07, and a third line center behind two guys making over $7.5 million at his same position.

You can try and sit there and say "In Renney's assessment, Dubinsky wasn't good enough to displace Gomez/Drury.."

But you really just sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

You're not taking any part of the circumstance into account. There are plenty of variables you're neglecting to acknowledge.

I can tell you're a bright guy, but I get the feeling you're just trying to play devil's advocate for some reason.

There's no way you can honestly believe what you're saying, and there's no way you're not smart enough to realize how ridiculous teh argument you're trying to make sounds. You're just selectively picking things out, when there's tons of variables. I'm not sure what you're trying to do.

If you're not that high overall on Dubinsky I can accept that. I just don't understand how you're proving it to be fact with this argument.

Can you state the elements of Dubinsky's game that don't translate to the powerplay?


Last edited by ruckus*: 10-01-2010 at 08:33 AM.
ruckus* is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 09:42 AM
  #203
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
No. The point doesn't remain the same.
Yes. It does. In Renney's opinion, Dubinsky did not have the offensive prowess to displace any of the forwards ahead of him on the powerplay. Now you can name those forwards or not, the point doesn't change. Renney did not feel Dubinsky merited time in front of them.

That was Renney's assessment of Brandon Dubinsky. It was his assessment of Dubinsky in 07-08. It was his assessment of Dubinsky in 08-09. It is Tortorella's current assessment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Again, Dubinsky was a rookie in 06-07, and a third line center behind two guys making over $7.5 million at his same position.
I have never made a point about the 06-07 season EXCEPT to say that I'm not interested in it. I do, however, continue to point to the two seasons following that year, two seasons wherein Renney did not deem Dubinsky worthy of significant powerplay time.

Now if you want to debate Renney's regard for Dubinsky, do so in the years I've listed, not in the year we agree should be put aside because Dubinsky was a rookie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
You can try and sit there and say "In Renney's assessment, Dubinsky wasn't good enough to displace Gomez/Drury.."

But you really just sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

You're not taking any part of the circumstance into account. There are plenty of variables you're neglecting to acknowledge.

I can tell you're a bright guy, but I get the feeling you're just trying to play devil's advocate for some reason.

There's no way you can honestly believe what you're saying, and there's no way you're not smart enough to realize how ridiculous teh argument you're trying to make sounds.
Your opinions about me are duly noted. Now, would you care to talk about Dubinsky and his production as it relates to his allotted ice time? Honestly, I'm trying hard to avoid a urinating contest with you, but it seems that's all you really want here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
You're just selectively picking things out, when there's tons of variables. do.
Dubinsky's production is what it is. Dubinsky's ice time is what it is. They are data that point toward his qualities as an offensive producer, and they are not terribly flattering to him. There is nothing to "selectively pick" about those numbers, even if some of us don't like what they indicate.

The only possible rebuttal to those numbers is to blame his coaches and say things would be different if the coaches played Dubinsky more.

That's fine but that "rebuttal" is not a fact. It's an opinion founded in speculation. You are entitled to that opinion, and I won't debate it for the simple reason that it's a game of "what if?" and nothing more. I can just as easily opine the reverse, and it would be just as unfounded.

dedalus is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 10:01 AM
  #204
Noose18
Registered User
 
Noose18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rauma
Country: Finland
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
what about?

All the rumors about possible trade with FLA/CBJ/PHO
so what do you guys think about a trade like:

Dubinsky, Christensen +2nd(wsh)

for:

Vermette


Lineup could be something like

Frolov-Vermette-Gaborik
Avery-Anisimov-Callahan
Prospal-Drury-Fedotenko
Boogaard/Kennedy-Boyle-Prust

thoughts?

Noose18 is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 11:19 AM
  #205
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Yes. It does. In Renney's opinion, Dubinsky did not have the offensive prowess to displace any of the forwards ahead of him on the powerplay. Now you can name those forwards or not, the point doesn't change. Renney did not feel Dubinsky merited time in front of them.

That was Renney's assessment of Brandon Dubinsky. It was his assessment of Dubinsky in 07-08. It was his assessment of Dubinsky in 08-09. It is Tortorella's current assessment.


I have never made a point about the 06-07 season EXCEPT to say that I'm not interested in it. I do, however, continue to point to the two seasons following that year, two seasons wherein Renney did not deem Dubinsky worthy of significant powerplay time.

Now if you want to debate Renney's regard for Dubinsky, do so in the years I've listed, not in the year we agree should be put aside because Dubinsky was a rookie.


Your opinions about me are duly noted. Now, would you care to talk about Dubinsky and his production as it relates to his allotted ice time? Honestly, I'm trying hard to avoid a urinating contest with you, but it seems that's all you really want here.


Dubinsky's production is what it is. Dubinsky's ice time is what it is. They are data that point toward his qualities as an offensive producer, and they are not terribly flattering to him. There is nothing to "selectively pick" about those numbers, even if some of us don't like what they indicate.

The only possible rebuttal to those numbers is to blame his coaches and say things would be different if the coaches played Dubinsky more.

That's fine but that "rebuttal" is not a fact. It's an opinion founded in speculation. You are entitled to that opinion, and I won't debate it for the simple reason that it's a game of "what if?" and nothing more. I can just as easily opine the reverse, and it would be just as unfounded.

It's just a terribly simplistic way of looking at it.

Without taking the noted variables into effect, the "facts" aren't relevant to me.

You like to state this idea of Renney not playing Dubinsky on the powerplay due to his play, but you refuse to acknowledge the state of the organization and the other players above him at the time.

If you're Tom Renney, and your organization has just signed Scott Gomez and Chris Drury to $7+ million dollar contracts, and you've taken the team to the post season every year since the lock out, you assume you're going to be at your job for a while.

Those two players were brought in to carry the load. That was their job. They failed miserably, and it's why one of them is gone, and the other has become a fourth line penalty killer here.

At that point though, they were still holding the positions they were brought in for.

Playing your 22 year old third line center who was never a big time offensive prospect to begin with would make sense how exactly?

I don't have any issue with your "facts". I just think that you're being incredibly short sighted and you're choosing to only look at things that you think favor your argument.

For most of last year Tortorella liked to keep the forward lines the same on the powerplay.

Dubinsky wasn't playing with Gaborik for the entire season. And Gaborik is the primary guy Tortorella wants to get on the ice for every power play opportunity.

It's the coaches philosophy to try and keep the chemistry from the forward lines in tact on the power play.

How exactly is that a knock on Dubinsky's game and what the coach thinks about his ability on the powerplay?

I still haven't heard you state the aspects of Dubinsky's game that don't translate well to the power play.

Everything he does well has power play written all over it.

Again, you can state the "facts" all you want, but you're really just picking and choosing statistics that you think help your argument. You're not even allowing for the idea that there are a ton of variables that make those "facts" pretty much irrelevant.

ruckus* is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 11:24 AM
  #206
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noose18 View Post
All the rumors about possible trade with FLA/CBJ/PHO
so what do you guys think about a trade like:

Dubinsky, Christensen +2nd(wsh)

for:

Vermette


Lineup could be something like

Frolov-Vermette-Gaborik
Avery-Anisimov-Callahan
Prospal-Drury-Fedotenko
Boogaard/Kennedy-Boyle-Prust

thoughts?

You're ****ing joking right?

Vermette is 4 years older than Dubinsky and his best season was last year (his sixth in the league).

In that season, he scored 65 points. Dubinsky's progress is showing nothing to assume that he wouldn't be capable of producing similar numbers to Vermette.

Again, the point of trading Dubinsky is what exactly? You're making a lateral move at best, and in the process giving up another roster player and a 2nd rounder?

ruckus* is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 01:34 PM
  #207
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
It's just a terribly simplistic way of looking at it.
It's a data-driven way of looking at it. You can accept that or not as you like. "Variables" are all very nice, and they may well point to how things COULD be different, but they don't change how things have been.

My conclusion is simple and simply stated: "The discrepancy between Dubinsky's ice time and his production is noticeable ... his production as a function of the amount of ice time he's given is average, nothing more."

You've still not debated that. Rather, you've offered that things would be different if his coaches treated him differently.

That may be true. It may not be true. Either way I don't care. It's not what I've been talking about except in addressing jas's claim that the coachs' decisions definitively play a role in Dubinsky's very average production-to-icetime ratio. Because his claim is grounded in speculation and in the pretense of knowing the coachs' minds, it's not a refutation of the numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
I don't have any issue with your "facts".
Then we have no argument, because my statement is simple and grounded entirely in those facts. It has to do with what Dubinsky has shown, not what he might show if conditions change for him.

In short, we're arguing past one another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
I still haven't heard you state the aspects of Dubinsky's game that don't translate well to the power play.
That's because my personal feelings about Dubinsky's game are not my subject of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by robruckus View Post
Again, you can state the "facts" all you want, but you're really just picking and choosing statistics that you think help your argument.
Tell me what you think my argument is.

dedalus is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 01:53 PM
  #208
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
Yep. This is true but it begs the question: Does he deserve more PP time or is his lack of PP time an indicator that the coaches simply don't think he produces enough when given the opportunity?

That is, are his stats a partial product of his PP time, or is his PP time a partial product of his stats?
Considering Dubinsky was the teams 2nd leading goal scorer, ahead of Callahan and equal to Prospal (in less games), two players that spent most of the year on the first PP unit, that seems like a ludicrous theory.

The explanation, as you said, is probably the simplest one. 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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
In truth, with the dire need this team has had for offense, I find it almost impossible to imagine Dubinsky would be kept off the ice during premium scoring time if Tortorella actually felt Dubinsky could make productive use of that time.
I would not put anything past our coaches. They have made so many bonehead moves, especially involving the PP. With all the PP woes he have had the last few years, why hasn't anyone used Drury on the PP the way he was used in Buffalo where he was a leading goal scorer? He certainly never got the opportunity to "fail" at it here.

Not that I think that it is necessarily a case of stupidity. Its most likely a case of spreading out offense. Unfortunately thats a lot of points lost for Dubie. Not that is really matters outside of arguments like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedalus
Dubinsky's production is what it is. Dubinsky's ice time is what it is. They are data that point toward his qualities as an offensive producer, and they are not terribly flattering to him.
Sorry to cherry pick this out of your other post but I think this pretty neatly sums up your opinion, which I respectfully disagree with.

20/44 in 69 games as a 23 year old is impressive statistically no matter what the spin. At least in my opinion. The ice time argument seems forced. If you look at ES production, Dubinsky is in the same ballpark as most of his contemporaries.


----------ES TOI/G-----Minutes-----Points-----Points per Minute
Zajac-----15:32----------1274--------45---------0.0353
Nash------15:28----------1175--------41---------0.0349
Dubinsky---15:07---------1043---------32--------0.0307
Weiss ------15:18---------1224---------37--------0.0302
Versteeg---12:49----------1013--------29--------0.0286
R. Smythe--15:07----------1013--------29--------0.0286

Ahead of Weiss, Verteeg, Smythe, not far behind Zajac who easily played with better line mates. I have no idea what Nash is doing that low. I thought he would be up with the elite players that were up in the .050 range

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. Plus I think there is a little bit too much left out here for a TOI argument to be valid. Line mates, the role a player has on the team, team goals scored, times shorthanded/up, even something as crazy as how many one goal losses a team had or how many SO/OT a team went to and whether or not the team goes for the win or waits for the SO.

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.

McRanger is offline  
Old
10-01-2010, 04:08 PM
  #209
ruckus*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 3,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
It's a data-driven way of looking at it. You can accept that or not as you like. "Variables" are all very nice, and they may well point to how things COULD be different, but they don't change how things have been.

My conclusion is simple and simply stated: "The discrepancy between Dubinsky's ice time and his production is noticeable ... his production as a function of the amount of ice time he's given is average, nothing more."

You've still not debated that. Rather, you've offered that things would be different if his coaches treated him differently.

That may be true. It may not be true. Either way I don't care. It's not what I've been talking about except in addressing jas's claim that the coachs' decisions definitively play a role in Dubinsky's very average production-to-icetime ratio. Because his claim is grounded in speculation and in the pretense of knowing the coachs' minds, it's not a refutation of the numbers.


Then we have no argument, because my statement is simple and grounded entirely in those facts. It has to do with what Dubinsky has shown, not what he might show if conditions change for him.

In short, we're arguing past one another.


That's because my personal feelings about Dubinsky's game are not my subject of discussion.


Tell me what you think my argument is.
Variables are of utmost importance, and your refusal to acknowledge them shows how ignorant your argument is.

If the point you were trying to make held any significant water, you would have no issue discussing the variables, because your argument would still stand firm. Unfortunately, the variables that you refuse to address are just as much facts as what you're bringing to the table.


I'm not sure what your argument is other than trying to make a nonsensical one against a very good young player who has done nothing to show that he doesn't deserve more PP time and has attributes to his game that would be perfect for it.

That's exactly why I said earlier that I feel like you're just arguing to argue.

The fact that you're trying to state all this as if you're too intellectual and fact driven to consider any alternative is just insane. If the "facts" are your only argument, then you shouldn't be so foolish as to not consider every variable that affects those facts.

You neglect to comment on any of them, cause they completely disprove what you're trying to tell us.



Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Considering Dubinsky was the teams 2nd leading goal scorer, ahead of Callahan and equal to Prospal (in less games), two players that spent most of the year on the first PP unit, that seems like a ludicrous theory.

The explanation, as you said, is probably the simplest one. 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.

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.


Sorry to cherry pick this out of your other post but I think this pretty neatly sums up your opinion, which I respectfully disagree with.

20/44 in 69 games as a 23 year old is impressive statistically no matter what the spin. At least in my opinion. The ice time argument seems forced. If you look at ES production, Dubinsky is in the same ballpark as most of his contemporaries.


----------ES TOI/G-----Minutes-----Points-----Points per Minute
Zajac-----15:32----------1274--------45---------0.0353
Nash------15:28----------1175--------41---------0.0349
Dubinsky---15:07---------1043---------32--------0.0307
Weiss ------15:18---------1224---------37--------0.0302
Versteeg---12:49----------1013--------29--------0.0286
R. Smythe--15:07----------1013--------29--------0.0286

Ahead of Weiss, Verteeg, Smythe, not far behind Zajac who easily played with better line mates. I have no idea what Nash is doing that low. I thought he would be up with the elite players that were up in the .050 range

[B][B]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. Plus I think there is a little bit too much left out here for a TOI argument to be valid. Line mates, the role a player has on the team, team goals scored, times shorthanded/up, even something as crazy as how many one goal losses a team had or how many SO/OT a team went to and whether or not the team goes for the win or waits for the SO. 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.

Sorry, none of that is relevant to dedalus because those are variables, and his argument only allows for things to be as short sighted as possible.

You're also not allowed to use your eyes or common sense, as they are also variables that affect his "facts".

And the statistics you provided don't mesh well with his short sighted argument, so therefore they are null and void as well.

He also works as a global warming scientist.


Last edited by ruckus*: 10-01-2010 at 04:13 PM.
ruckus* is offline  
Old
10-09-2010, 09:12 PM
  #210
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Dubinsky---15:07---------1043---------32--------0.0307
Versteeg---12:49----------1013--------29--------0.0286
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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  
Old
10-09-2010, 09:40 PM
  #211
NYRFANMANI
beyond good and evil
 
NYRFANMANI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ye Old Saarbrücken
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,574
vCash: 500
Gtfoh Ot !!

NYRFANMANI is offline  
Old
10-10-2010, 02:21 AM
  #212
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
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.

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.


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.

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.
Just because Dubinsky crashes the net and plays with snarl does not mean he plays the game like Callahan does. They are pretty different players. regardless, the simple fact is that Callahan is usually the guy on his ass around the crease when the whistle blows. Which is why Callahan is the obvious choice for that assignment. Its the same reason Avery was on the first PP unit in the past.

For some reason under both Renney and Torts the Rangers are not fans of excessive moving around on the PP. They tend to stay fairly stationary with people just kind of "shifting" depending on what side of the goal the puck is on. This lends to a more "role" oriented approach. You are very rarely going to find Gaborik fighting in front of the net with Callahan shooting from the hash marks. Gaborik and Vinny were going to stay together, with DZ at the left point. After that it was a any right handed D man that was not playing awful and the guy who was most willing to get pummeled in front of the net.

Its the same argument when people point out Staals lack of power play time. "If he was better he would play on the first unit." No, he probably would not. Because DZ is simply that good. Staal is always going to be on the second unit even if he becomes a perennial ES 40 points scorer. It comes down to not only a position one plays, but the role one plays.

Of course this puts aside our coaches questionable decisions and the fact that Dubinsky was a much less refined player under Tom Renney than he is today. As you said I do not think either one can be quantified so its probably best ignored.

As for the bolded, Dubinsky had less ES time, less PP time and played with significantly less talented players and scored the same amount of goals as Prospal. In less games. So how that would work out I do not know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
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.

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.
This whole debate is forced, I suppose. I think people view the production and the stats the way they want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
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.
Zajac is the player that Dubie is most compared to so that is why he is on the list. Weiss and Versteeg were players that were recently talked about in dubie "trades" so that is why they were singled out. Smyth and Deadmarsh were two players Dubinsky has been compared to recently so I put Smyth in there too. (And to be completely honest Smyth had the exact same ES time as Dubie in almost the exact same games played, that is why I even remember it so it seemed easy)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
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.


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.
What was the PP success of the teams of those players? Who did they play with?

It is tough to compare a guy like Mason Raymond (a fantastic young player) who's "2nd PP unit" consists of Kesler, Burrows, Samuelsson or whoever to the guys Dubinsky played with. Its so bad I can't even make out who was on the 2nd unit. Drury I guess? Higgins? I would not be surprised if there were guys on that list that played on the PP with a single teammate that outscored the other 4 players out on the ice with Dubie. It wouldn't take much. 25 goals maybe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
But didn't you just make a TOI argument above?
No, I was actually expanding on your argument in an attempt to show how flawed it was. I thought you would appreciate it more than me simply stating "I think your argument is flawed" and leaving it at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
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.
I could not agree more. But I think we are are already at the bolded, I think that is really the heart of the issue. We tend to lean towards towards a "woe is me" mentality on this board. Look at a guy like Zajac. At the same age as Dubie he puts up .244 goals/game and .756 points/game (as opposed to .290 g/g and .638 p/g) on a higher scoring team in a much, much more favorable position.

Zajac goes from being ridiculed to being a legit first line player. For Dubie we try and find ways that he is a 3rd liner. It is insane. We see what we want to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus View Post
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.
I think between this post and my previous ones I have spelled out my argument fairly well so I wont insult you by rambling and repeating myself.

Look at tonight as a microcosm of a season. Dubinsky was the 2nd leading forward in total TOI and ES TOI. He played almost exclusively with Callahan and Anisimov, neither of which are generally regarded as top 6 players on a good team (at the moment). If dubinsky played the whole season with them (scoring, say 20+ goals and ~50 points) would that really be less impressive than a guy who puts up similar numbers but plays a minute less a game, while sharing the ice with more offensively talented players? In a nutshell my problem with the whole TOI idea.

Anyway, I apologize if I lumped some of your posts together and missed any vital points. The argument is interesting but we can probably run around in circles forever analyzing stats so its best to simply agree to disagree.

McRanger is offline  
Old
10-10-2010, 08:02 AM
  #213
GeorgeHamiltonsTan
Registered User
 
GeorgeHamiltonsTan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,229
vCash: 500
stats schmats, we already deal with enough homophobic banter with avery on board...dubi making out with players on the bench isn't helping matters any.

GeorgeHamiltonsTan is offline  
Old
10-10-2010, 08:36 AM
  #214
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
Just one more reason for people on this board to irrationally hate Dubinsky. Trade him quick!

HockeyBurd* is offline  
Old
10-10-2010, 08:43 AM
  #215
Jeds2StepOpus
Registered User
 
Jeds2StepOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 893
vCash: 500
Yeah, he playfully kissed Stepan's visor in a celebration of fun.

Oh I could see it now.

Jeds2StepOpus is offline  
Old
10-10-2010, 10:01 AM
  #216
Lion Hound
@JoeTucc26
 
Lion Hound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noose18 View Post
All the rumors about possible trade with FLA/CBJ/PHO
so what do you guys think about a trade like:

Dubinsky, Christensen +2nd(wsh)

for:

Vermette


Lineup could be something like

Frolov-Vermette-Gaborik
Avery-Anisimov-Callahan
Prospal-Drury-Fedotenko
Boogaard/Kennedy-Boyle-Prust

thoughts?
Terrible

Lion Hound is offline  
Old
10-15-2010, 06:53 PM
  #217
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Anyway, I apologize if I lumped some of your posts together and missed any vital points. The argument is interesting but we can probably run around in circles forever analyzing stats so its best to simply agree to disagree.
Agreed. Thanks for another thoughtful exchange. There are many things on which we disagree, but you treat subjects with fairness and intelligence, and I appreciate that.

dedalus is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.