It doesn't matter what "line" fans decided to call number 1, 2, 3 or 4. Or who he played with.
Dubi averaged 20:13 a game, 1st on the Rangers forwards and 18th highest among all NHL forwards. That's "1st line" minutes.
He deserved those minutes on an average NHL team. What's the problem here?
Again, it's not as if he wound up on the first line of a terrible team where he was forced to play minutes he didn't deserve.
Also, the point I was making is that it's not as if he was a guy playing with a couple superstars and racking up points because of that. He played with two competent, but not great NHLers. He was arguably the most offensively talented player on his line for most of the season.
So my question stands: can you name a two-way player who had over 50 points?
He deserved those minutes on an average NHL team. What's the problem here?
Again, it's not as if he wound up on the first line of a terrible team where he was forced to play minutes he didn't deserve.
Also, the point I was making is that it's not as if he was a guy playing with a couple superstars and racking up points because of that. He played with two competent, but not great NHLers. He was arguably the most offensively talented player on his line for most of the season.
So my question stands: can you name a two-way player who had over 50 points?
IMO, the offense was terrible. They probably would've been ranked in the 20's in goals scored if not for having the most blowout wins of any team.
I disagree regarding your feelings on the Dubinsky contract. Judging by his production last year Dubinsky was ranked about 15th in regards to all LW's. In addition to his scoring also is great at protecting the puck alongside the boards, is a big physical body, plays both sides of the ice and has a high compete level. Not to mention he has grown into a leadership role and has shown signs of improving his play every year. He was probably even our best forward last year (an honor I would have given to Callahan had he not gotten injured and kept up his play at the same level). He got a fair contract for where he is as a player and he might still improve.
I also think you are being unfair in regards to Dunbinsky's skill level and many less skilled wingers manage to fit in with top-end players because they provide other treats such as energy, ability along the boards and play defense like Dubinsky will do (Lucic, Holmstrom, Franzen and many others).
I also find it odd you are already feeling Dunbinsky will be redundany because of all our prospects coming up. It is very common for prospects to not turn out and it wouldn't be much of a surprise if none of our wingers in our organization turn out to be as good a player as Dubinsky. Kreider has yet to dominate college hockey and I don't think anyone in our organization is penciling him in on a top line role in the NHL within two years. I am excited about Fasth and Thomas, but even if they pan out it isn't like we will not be able to retain them because we have Dubinsky locked down. I also like Hagelin but I would be shocked if he ends up being more than a 3-4 line type of player. If he does then that just adds more depth to our line up.
So in summary, thanks for the read. But I respectfully disagree with your thoughts toward Dubinsky.
Last edited by The Sweetness: 07-23-2011 at 05:09 PM.
He deserved those minutes on an average NHL team. What's the problem here?
Again, it's not as if he wound up on the first line of a terrible team where he was forced to play minutes he didn't deserve.
Also, the point I was making is that it's not as if he was a guy playing with a couple superstars and racking up points because of that. He played with two competent, but not great NHLers. He was arguably the most offensively talented player on his line for most of the season.
So my question stands: can you name a two-way player who had over 50 points?
Not saying that he didn't deserve those minutes, but it's worth noting that he played the most of the entire team and 18th highest among every forward in the NHL while acquiring the 54 points he totaled.
There are plenty of two way players around the league that scored more than 50 points this year.
OK, someone humor me and give me a list of 3rd liners in the league that are capable of scoring 50+ points. I have seen this assertion many times, that Dubi as well as Cally are 3rd liners, and I think it's about time that it's backed up by some evidence instead of being thrown out there blindly.
From some of the posts I've read the last few days about point breakdowns per line, it would seem that Dubinsky is closer to a 1st liner than a 3rd liner.
OK, someone humor me and give me a list of 3rd liners in the league that are capable of scoring 50+ points. I have seen this assertion many times, that Dubi as well as Cally are 3rd liners, and I think it's about time that it's backed up by some evidence instead of being thrown out there blindly.
From some of the posts I've read the last few days about point breakdowns per line, it would seem that Dubinsky is closer to a 1st liner than a 3rd liner.
That's just the thing. It all depends on personal perception. Fans just like to make their own 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines up and rank who is what.
What it really all boils down to is ice time. If Sidney Crosby is primarily playing with Mike Rupp and Eric Godard but playing 22 minutes a night, he's not a fourth liner, he's a first liner.
It's just an example, but people should understand the point.
That's just the thing. It all depends on personal perception. Fans just like to make their own 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines up and rank who is what.
There has to be some objective way to judge things. The guy is easily in the top 90 of NHLers, and there should be 90 first liners in the league (30 teams with 3 first liners each). And based on his physicality, defense, leadership, etc., the rest of his game is easily on par with someone who deserves to play in the top-6.
The guy who is #180 in NHL scoring (30 teams times six 1st and 2nd liners=180) had just 34 points. Assuming some players missed a significant number of games, it's safe to make 40 points a cut off to be a decent second liner. For the record, getting 40 points would tie a player for #41 among left wings and #142 among all forwards. That's solidly second line performance.
If Dubi can score in the mid-50s regularly, he will be a borderline first/second line player.
Number of forwards who had more than 40 points? 131. 131/30= 4.4 Meaning on average, every team in the NHL has about 4 or 5 players who are better than Dubinsky. Meaning, In his first full season Dubinsky was already a low end 2nd line player, high end 3rd line player.
Dubinskys second season: 82/13/28/41
Similar numbers, 143 forwards with more points than him, again, every team has 4 or 5 players better than him, ok second liner, great 3rd liner.
Dubinskys 3rd season: 69/20/24/44 44 points puts him at 117 players better than him...now we're at 3 or 4 players better than him...meaning hes a solid 2nd liner. Extrapolate his numbers to 82 games you're at 52 points with only 81 players higher (granted youd have to extrapolate everyones points, so it's not the best comparison).
Dubinsky last year potted 24/30/54 in 77. Number of forwards who have more points than him? 67. 67/30= Meaning every team in the NHL has 2, maybe 3 players better than him...meaning hes now an OK 1st liner, and a solid 2nd liner. once again extrapolate to 82 and you get 58 points, 49 players better than him, solid first liner, but again, not a fair comparison to make.
His 24 goals were only bested by 53 players, making him a 1st liner there, his 30 assists were bested by 73, again a first liner, but maybe a little closer to a 2nd liner.
So one could say, and fairly i would think, that goal scoring wise, Brandon Dubinsky is a 1st line caliber player. Playmaking wise, he's more like a 2nd line caliber player. Which is why it was so smart to move him to wing. With that said, I will have to disagree with my friend Leslie in the assessment that he is a 3rd line tweener. Im a stats junkie, and the numbers simply do not bear out that assessment...not even a little bit im afraid.
Not only all of that, but the premise was flawed. I like the Rangers prospects a lot too. However, historically speaking they will be lucky if ANY of them are as good as Dubinsky, much less better than him. Being uncomfortable because he might be surpassed by the prospects is a little on the ridiculous side. Especially considering that it isn't like we have any fears of regression on his part. If he were to get surpassed on the depth chart because Kreider and Fasth are better NHLers, then his contract is very tradeable. I don't think the Rangers have that kind of luck.
If anyone is likely to lose his job within the next few years, it's Girardi, considering all the defensive talent we have.
Just out of curiosity, why many people think/want Girardi to be traded? The NHL leader in blocked shots and who only missed two games in the past four years, seems to be EXTREMELY underrated around here.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
I think when people are talking about first liners or second liners, they mean players on a potential contenders, not first liners on crappy teams. So let's say that a true first liner is someone who can be a top-3 forward on the best 10 teams, a top 2 forward on the average middle ten teams and the best forward on the average bottom 10 teams.
That would give us 60 true first liners or an average of 2 per team (with top teams having more and bottom teams having fewer). Dubi was tied for the 68-71 place.
This puts things in perspective. Dubi can definitely be a first liner on a crappy, non-playoff team, he might be a first liner on on the playoff team that makes it as a 6-8 seed, and he's very weak for a first liner on a contender.
I think this is how most of us see it, we just didn't define what we mean by "first liner" or "second liner".
That said, Dubi is definitely at least a second liner, and can't be classified as a third line scrub. Scoring 45 points would put one at #113-120 in the league, and if you assume that there are 4 contender-quality top-6 players per team, that's 120 players. So I would say that scoring 45+ points puts you solidly as a second liner on a possible contender.
This is what you need from a player on a Cup contender who has a good all-around game (more from someone with bad defense, but that doesn't apply to Dubi).
First liner: 0.75+ points per game
Second liner: 0.50+ points per game
Third liner: 0.33+ points
Dubi had 0.70 per game. This makes him a very solid second liner, closer to a true first liner than a third liner. That's about how I always saw him and the math confirms it.
Not only all of that, but the premise was flawed. I like the Rangers prospects a lot too. However, historically speaking they will be lucky if ANY of them are as good as Dubinsky, much less better than him. Being uncomfortable because he might be surpassed by the prospects is a little on the ridiculous side. Especially considering that it isn't like we have any fears of regression on his part. If he were to get surpassed on the depth chart because Kreider and Fasth are better NHLers, then his contract is very tradeable. I don't think the Rangers have that kind of luck.
Yeah, I think this is what I was trying to say. Nicely put. No disrespect to Leslie, just can't agree with her opinion on this
I think when people are talking about first liners or second liners, they mean players on a potential contenders, not first liners on crappy teams. So let's say that a true first liner is someone who can be a top-3 forward on the best 10 teams, a top 2 forward on the average middle ten teams and the best forward on the average bottom 10 teams.
That would give us 60 true first liners or an average of 2 per team (with top teams having more and bottom teams having fewer). Dubi was tied for the 68-71 place.
This puts things in perspective. Dubi can definitely be a first liner on a crappy, non-playoff team, he might be a first liner on on the playoff team that makes it as a 6-8 seed, and he's very weak for a first liner on a contender.
I think this is how most of us see it, we just didn't define what we mean by "first liner" or "second liner".
That said, Dubi is definitely at least a second liner, and can't be classified as a third line scrub. Scoring 45 points would put one at #113-120 in the league, and if you assume that there are 4 contender-quality top-6 players per team, that's 120 players. So I would say that scoring 45+ points puts you solidly as a second liner on a possible contender.
Basically Dubinsky is the PERFECT type of player to put next to 2 other true blue elite first liners...because he is a tweener...hes somewhere between a first and a second liner, depending on the circumstances.
the real problem here is that the Pack line showed unbelievable chemistry, and played like a true top line for most of their time together....that means if we can find someone else to put on the left side of Richards and Gabby, we could very possibly have 2 first lines....or like a 1 and 1A type situation going.
Just out of curiosity, why many people think/want Girardi to be traded? The NHL leader in blocked shots and who only missed two games in the past four years, seems to be EXTREMELY underrated around here.
I don't want him to be traded, but I think that at some point, he is the likely odd man out simply because he has a lot of value, he makes decent money (but not too much to hurt his trade value) and there's no way we are going to trade Staal.
We have a lot of defensive talent coming up in the next few years. If anyone is going to be traded, Girardi makes the most sense since trading him would net us a good return and save us some cap space.
Obviously we have to see how those young players pan out, and what our cap situation is over the next couple years, but still, I think Girardi has a higher chance of getting traded than Dubinsky.
I actually agree with Leslie in the sense that I'm not completely sold on Dubinsky. Dubi needed a lot of maturity when he first came to the Rangers and I still believe he has a while to go. It just seems like more of a game to him while some others believe it's a way of life. I'm not saying Dubinsky doesn't take it seriously, and no I'm not in the guys head, but it seems like he has some real maturing to do still.
The reason Dubinsky and Callahan aren't comparable in the sense of value is because Callahan brings it every night and shows us that he brings it every night. Fans appreciate that more than anything. Topple in the fact that Cally's last season showed us he has real world potential in surpassing Dubi in the point category and you'll have no real reason to compare the two if that happens.
I like Dubi as a player, but I must admit I'm inclined to see what we could get back for him in the future if things haven't patched up with his extreme consistency issues.
Your talking points are dated. Seriously, start watching the games instead of parroting what you've heard others say years ago.
Good article as usual (especially the BCHL streaming link, great stuff), but the Dubinsky part is just...not well thought out to put it extremely lightly.
Calling him a 2nd/3rd line tweener aside, you essentially said signing Dubinsky, a proven commodity, was a mistake because we have prospects that could, one day, possibly fill that void? I fail to see how that makes sense in any possible way. Why would we choose to not sign Dubinsky because the 2012 draft is supposed to be deep? That's insanity.
Like you said yourself in the article, with Thomas, Kreider, Hagelin, Fasth and Miller, it's a crowded playing field, and players will need to be traded. Why the heck would Dubinsky, a player developed in the system and fitting the Rangers philosophy to perfection, be the one to go?
Not only all of that, but the premise was flawed. I like the Rangers prospects a lot too. However, historically speaking they will be lucky if ANY of them are as good as Dubinsky, much less better than him. Being uncomfortable because he might be surpassed by the prospects is a little on the ridiculous side. Especially considering that it isn't like we have any fears of regression on his part. If he were to get surpassed on the depth chart because Kreider and Fasth are better NHLers, then his contract is very tradeable. I don't think the Rangers have that kind of luck.
Exactly, I'm amazed so many people are focused on Dubinsky's line label when the premise is that insane.
Miller and the 2012 draftee are about a half a dozen years away from reaching their potential. In 3 years, they will be 20-21 years old. They will likely not be on the Rangers yet or might at most be ready for bottom-6 duty as a rookie or if we are truly lucky a sophomore.
That leaves Kreider, Hagelin and Zuccarello. I think the Rangers will be lucky if within the next three years, one develops into a first liner, one into a good third liner and one becomes a scrub. But that too leaves the team with enough space for Dubinsky.
And if 2 of those 3 pan out, the Rangers can pull a trade or move Zuccarello to the right wing.
I think there is more of an overload at center than LW. We already have four quality guys (Brad, Step, Anisimov and Boyle), and Lindberg will be ready to go within a couple of seasons. In addition to a star center, we will have two second line centers and two third line centers. Someone will have to go, especially if in a couple of years it looks like St. Croix and/or Fogarty are developing well.
Oh and if the stars align perfectly and we wind up with 3-4 new top6 players coming out of our farm, the guy to go shouldn't be Dubinsky, but rather Gaborik. His salary is so high, it almost pays for Dubinsky and Callahan combined.
Then again, if we get multiple top players on their ELC, we should have the cap space for everyone. Let's say Dubinsky-Anisimov-Callahan become our third line based on talent, with Stepan, Kreider and Thomas exploding offensively. Getting rid of Wolski alone will cover those three salaries.
If Wolski and Zuccarello both fail next season, I would actually use the $6 saved on them to sign a quality LW next summer, should one become available.
With Gaborik and Brad on the team, no reason to wait for Kreider to come through years from now. Youngsters Hagelin and Kreider can develop in our bottom two lines. If anything, I would probably start Kreider in Hartford the first few months of 2012-13.
