Your list says nothing about what your claiming, therefor he is not on the list. That list is 180 goals from 28-33, Gaborik isn't 33, of course he isn;t on the list.
I honestly did not think of that. So maybe he will be when he hits 33.
Which adds to my point. What are the chances of lightning striking twice?
I honestly did not think of that. So maybe he will be when he hits 33.
Which adds to my point. What are the chances of lightning striking twice?
No it doesn't. How do you make a point off of statistics that have nothing to do with your point?
Your link shows players who have scored 180 or more goals from 28-33. What the **** does that **** have to do a player increasing his goal totals after age 28 which was your original point on the 7th page?
Lightning has struck hundreds of times. Your notion that players WON'T increase their output during their prime is so false.
__________________
I feel like this is such an appropriate quote for these boards...
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience"-Mark Twain
What does it have to do with anything? It means you wishful thinkers that see Rick Nash having a born-again experience with the Rangers is, well, unlikely to say the least. He will not improve his goal totals from now until 33. Unless you think he's some sort of shining beacon of generational talent.
Off-topic: Ignore advanced stats to your peril (Even these aren't, at all). Puck possession (Corsi and whatnot) was a major problem of ours last season and we didn't do much at all to improve it in the offseason. You know, uh, having the puck is a good thing.
Except the table you keep posting has nothing to do with advanced statistics. It is just several counting stats shoehorned together masquerading as a trend. Anyone that knows anything about statistics (not just sports) knows that counting statistics are very easily
manipulated.
Increasing them from what? The year before, or over their career total?
If Nash has to beat his career total this year to get on that list, that means he can score 41 goals and still not get his name on there.
Which makes your list completely worthless. Everyone on here will be ecstatic if Nash scores 40 goals.
As I pointed out, a player like Gaborik came here at age 28 and he has scored 40 twice despite only doing it once before, at apparently the "peak" of his career from 18-27 in Minnesota.
He comes to NY and scores 40 twice in three years.
Oh, but he doesn't make your worthless list because he only scored 42 and 41 goals here. Since his career high was 42 previously, he didn't "increase" his number of goals scored over his career high after 28, so he doesn't make your list.
Who cares? Your list is ridiculous semantics.
There is nothing to prove that Nash can't score 40 here just like Gaborik did. And if Nash only gets 39, there's nothing wrong with that either.
Getting a 40 goal scorer like Gaborik in here (and Nash in on that level) is well worth what we gave up.
No it doesn't. How do you make a point off of statistics that have nothing to do with your point?
Your link shows players who have scored 180 or more goals from 28-33. What the **** does that **** have to do a player increasing his goal totals after age 28?
Dear Lord...
What does it have to do with it? Multiple 60 (points) times 6 (seasons) = 360 points. 30 (goals) times 6 (seasons) = 180 goals. Basically, don't expect more than 30-30 from Nash during his stay in Manhattan.
It has everything to do with it. A 30-30 player making $7.8 million per? Is anybody out there who can actually hear me on this?
What does it have to do with anything? It means you wishful thinkers that see Rick Nash having a born-again experience with the Rangers is, well, unlikely to say the least. He will not improve his goal totals from now until 33. Unless you think he's some sort of shining beacon of generational talent.
Off-topic: Ignore advanced stats to your peril (Even these aren't, at all). Puck possession (Corsi and whatnot) was a major problem of ours last season and we didn't do much at all to improve it in the offseason. You know, uh, having the puck is a good thing.
Considering you don't even seem to know what your list is, I don't really know how to respond. It's just the 33 highest scorers between the ages of 28 and 33. A group ranging from Gretzky down to good but not great players like Verbeek, Guerin, and Andreychuk doesn't say very much. You can't tell me that Nash isn't capable of performing up to the level of a Pat Verbeek.
His 82 game average is 35 goals. He's moving to a more talented team by FAR. He is in the prime of his career. To say scoring 35-40 is far fetched is not a remotely credible statement unless by far fetched you mean "likely".
Except the table you keep posting has nothing to do with advanced statistics. It is just several counting stats shoehorned together masquerading as a trend. Anyone that knows anything about statistics (not just sports) knows that counting statistics are very easily
manipulated.
I never said it had anything to do with advanced stats! The guy I quoted said it was "advanced stats" and I corrected him! These are not advanced stats! Very simple to read.
It is a trend. A very, very, very real one. A short list of very, very, very elite players.
His 82 game average is 35 goals. He's moving to a more talented team by FAR. He is in the prime of his career. To say scoring 35-40 is far fetched is not a remotely credible statement unless by far fetched you mean "likely".
Nope. The prime goal-scoring years are 22-27. A player begins to exit his prime, as displayed by the chart, at age 28.
edit: displayed more by who is not on it than by who is on it. ie, the lack of players who are not on it.
It has everything to do with it. A 30-30 player making $7.8 million per? Is anybody out there who can actually hear me on this?
I hear you. You are making no sense.
Here are some basic facts you can't refute.
Marian Gaborik scored 40 goals just ONCE between ages 18-27 with his original team, then scored 40 goals twice between ages 28-30.
Rick Nash scored 40 goals just TWICE between ages 18-27 with his original team (actually more often than Gaborik), and now has been dealt to the Rangers at age 28.
No one cares about your list and whatever it says.
The facts are that it is no stretch for Rick Nash to put up two 40 goal seasons in the next three years. Or more if he stays healthy.
And there's no reason he can't extend that out to a fourth or fifth year either. It's not like Gaborik looks to be slowing down yet.
I have no idea if Nash is going to score 180 goals from now till age 33 or whatever it is your stupid list says.
What I do know is that it's very reasonable for Nash to score 40, or close to it, for the next 4-5 years.
In which case we win. In which case no one cares about your list and Nash is worth his contract.
I never said it had anything to do with advanced stats! The guy I quoted said it was "advanced stats" and I corrected him! These are not advanced stats! Very simple to read.
It is a trend. A very, very, very real one. A short list of very, very, very elite players.
Is Nash that type of player?
I understand what you are trying to say, but there are clear holes in your table. There are assumptions built in that are faulty.
What does it have to do with anything? It means you wishful thinkers that see Rick Nash having a born-again experience with the Rangers is, well, unlikely to say the least. He will not improve his goal totals from now until 33. Unless you think he's some sort of shining beacon of generational talent.
Off-topic: Ignore advanced stats to your peril (Even these aren't, at all). Puck possession (Corsi and whatnot) was a major problem of ours last season and we didn't do much at all to improve it in the offseason. You know, uh, having the puck is a good thing.
You don't really understand how statistics are used in a theory, do you?
Marian Gaborik scored 40 goals just ONCE between ages 18-27 with his original team, then scored 40 goals twice between ages 28-30.
Rick Nash scored 40 goals just TWICE between ages 18-27 with his original team (actually more often than Gaborik), and now has been dealt to the Rangers at age 28.
No one cares about your list and whatever it says.
The facts are that it is no stretch for Rick Nash to put up two 40 goal seasons in the next three years. Or more if he stays healthy.
And there's no reason he can't extend that out to a fourth or fifth year either. It's not like Gaborik looks to be slowing down yet.
I have no idea if Nash is going to score 180 goals from now till age 33 or whatever it is your stupid list says.
What I do know is that it's very reasonable for Nash to score 40, or close to it, for the next 4-5 years.
In which case we win. In which case no one cares about your list and Nash is worth his contract.
Yes it is a stretch. Unless you think Nash is a generational talent or going to be a wild exception (which I hope). Don't say "fact". That's not a fact at all.
You still don't get it. It means do NOT expect more than 30-30 per year from Nash until he is 33. Again, very few have accomplished that feat. I mean, really? Are you serious?
You're right Gabby hasn't shown signs of slowing. Nash has though. He's right on pace to NOT make the elite list of 33.
It is NOT reasonable to believe Nash hits 40 EVER AGAIN! Much less 5 years in a row.
But yeah, keep calling it a "stupid list". Yeah, that stupid history. I hate it too.
Hey man. What you just said honestly..i don't even have words for how absolutely banana milkshake you sound right now.
28 is the new 40 in terms of goal scoring?
The first person to average 30-30 (for those of you who are not mathematically inclined, that's multiplying 6 seasons by both 30 and 60 for 180 and 360 respectively ) from age 28-33 was Rocket Richard in 1950-1955. So this isn't some new theory I made up and conspired with hockey-reference.com to discourage the trading for Nash
So, uh, make of that what you will. I have no idea what you're talking about "28 is the new 40". Some kind of age joke?
There are also some other good reasons to believe Nash will increase his production that no one has yet to mentioned thus far.
If you were to look at the NHL at a conference level, other than Columbus, the most goals allowed in the Western Conference was Edmonton at 239. The Eastern Conference has 6 TEAMS that have allowed more goals than the worst GAA in all of the Western Conference. On top of that, Columbus plays in a division with Nashville, St. Louis, and Detroit. Arguably the best defensive division in the NHL.
Statistically speaking, I dont think a player could be put in a worse position in the entire NHL than Rick Nash. 2 teams scored less goals than Columbus last season. One of them won the cup, and the other got Parise and Suter.
So the poor guy is playing on the worst team in the NHL, not only offensively but 2nd worst defensively. Plays in the toughest defensive conference, in the toughest defensive division. He has no supporting cast whatsoever, and a coach that probably tells him to shoot from everywhere with 2 guys climbing on his back.
The guy's best seasons were played with Hitchcock. If there is one coach in the NHL you can compare to Hitchcock, its Torts. He also is going to play with not 1... not 2... but about 3-5 forwards that are instantly better than anything he has played with his entire career. Lets not forget our defense is otherworldly compared to his previous teammates.
Add to the fact the guy should be insanely motivated.
You know how hard it is to make the Canadian Olympic Ice Hockey Team? Hell... you have to be an all star just to make the B team. There is a reason the guy was selected. And I wouldn't be shocked in the least if he turned back into a 40 goal scorer on this team.
What does it have to do with it? Multiple 60 (points) times 6 (seasons) = 360 points. 30 (goals) times 6 (seasons) = 180 goals. Basically, don't expect more than 30-30 from Nash during his stay in Manhattan.
It has everything to do with it. A 30-30 player making $7.8 million per? Is anybody out there who can actually hear me on this?
No. Your posting statistics and trying to bend them to fit your absurdly bogus argument.
You said Nash won't score more than 30. Im so blown away by the stupidity of those stats in correlation with your argument I am kind of at a loss for words.
And yes, we all hear you on it, but none of us speak whatever gibberish you are attempting to communicate in.
No. Your posting statistics and trying to bend them to fit your absurdly bogus argument.
You said Nash won't score more than 30. Im so blown away by the stupidity of those stats in correlation with your argument I am kind of at a loss for words.
And yes, we all hear you on it, but none of us speak whatever gibberish you are attempting to communicate in.
I actually didn't bend anything. 33 players in NHL history have had greater than or equal to 180 goals/360 points (30-30 average) from ages 28-33. What's there to bend?
Now ask yourself is Nash that type of player? I hope he's an outlier, I really do, but history isn't quite on our side here.
Also, LOL @ "stupidity of those stats". Stats can be stupid? It's just the facts man.
Yes it is a stretch. Unless you think Nash is a generational talent or going to be a wild exception (which I hope). Don't say "fact". That's not a fact at all.
You still don't get it. It means do NOT expect more than 30-30 per year from Nash until he is 33. Again, very few have accomplished that feat. I mean, really? Are you serious?
You're right Gabby hasn't shown signs of slowing. Nash has though. He's right on pace to NOT make the elite list of 33.
It is NOT reasonable to believe Nash hits 40 EVER AGAIN! Much less 5 years in a row.
But yeah, keep calling it a "stupid list". Yeah, that stupid history. I hate it too.
HAHAHA. Waaaaaaaiiiittttt a ****ing second. Your saying Nash will INCREASE his offensive output AFTER 33 but is doomed to stay in the 30-30 range UNTIL 33?
The first person to average 30-30 (for those of you who are not mathematically inclined, that's multiplying 6 seasons by both 30 and 60 for 180 and 360 respectively ) from age 28-33 was Rocket Richard in 1950-1955. So this isn't some new theory I made up and conspired with hockey-reference.com to discourage the trading for Nash
So, uh, make of that what you will. I have no idea what you're talking about "28 is the new 40". Some kind of age joke?
you literally said it my man. i didn't make it up out of no where because i'm bored. please tell me you remember the comment you made just 10 minutes ago.
Yes it is a stretch. Unless you think Nash is a generational talent or going to be a wild exception (which I hope). Don't say "fact". That's not a fact at all.
Uh, it is a fact.
Gaborik scored 40 twice after age 28.
Nash is every bit the talent Gaborik is. Nash is 28 right now. It's very reasonable to expect that Nash can also put up 40 twice (or close to it) after age 28 just like Gaborik has.
) from age 28-33 was Rocket Richard in 1950-1955. So this isn't some new theory I made up and conspired with hockey-reference.com to discourage the trading for Nash 
