HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Rick Nash+S.Delisle+cond. 3rd to NYR for Dubinsky+Anisimov+Erixon+2013 1st (Part III)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2012, 12:11 PM
  #351
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I agree about Smith's mindset and I think Keenan got in his head also. That said, I don't think they were the epitome of one and done. They got unlucky with the shortened season the following year. And just didn't have the depth despite that run to the ECF in 97 to make deep runs.
the following year they lost Tikkanenn, Anderson, and MacTavish. Not a complete overhaul, but they were key players in the 94' run. they were certianly one and done. Noonan and Mattheiu, weren't anything special the following year especially Mattheiu...

By 97' it was a considerably different lineup. For all of that movement we should have been a more powerful team for alot longer than we were. We caught lightning in a bottle with those moves.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:15 PM
  #352
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,898
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Here's the way I see the above.

Had we kept both Amonte and Weight, I BELIEVE we still win the cup in 93-94.

Following that, the drafting may still have been as you post it, but it's not nearly as detrimental as it turned out to be because we still have the crown jewels playing and making a difference season in and season out. As such I believe the approach to the drafts would have been significantly altered in terms of approach due to org. needs.

Maybe the Rangers don't draft Christian Dube in 95 and look to address a different area of need. Maybe they DO draft Dube and he actually develops properly due to not being rushed to the NHL.

Maybe the Rangers don't look to draft Jeff Brown...conceding that they still take Brown, it's still not as impactful to a team that doesn't trade youth for age.

97 they took Cherneski, Was a great pick as he had Adam Graves clone written all over him. No fault for the Rangers in that pick. the 2nd rounder could have been better.

98 the Rangers should have taken the Colorado offer of 3 first rounders for the Rangers first. That was the opportunity to right alot of previous wrongs. The Copley pick in round two is rendered an afterthought.

99, Inman is not an issue if ONE of Brendl or Lundmark develope right. One busts immediately and the other is yo-yo'd in the system because of a rift between Coach and GM.

The point I am trying to make is that the approach to building this team and the choices made after trading Weight and Amonte became issues because we had no other youth in the system that could ALLOW the picks to develope at a proper rate.

The Rangers problems were two fold, Yes, they did not draft very well. I will be the first to concede that point. But not having the time to bring these kids along meant that you were forced to look to draft kids that you felt were more ready and prepared to make an impact in the NHL Sooner than they should have been expected to. As such, there are more risks taken that what you see from those kids is they best they will become and in most cases that's what happened.

A good example could be this current Rangers team.

Draft a dog like Jessiman in the first round. Yes it sets the team back, but because we do not trade youth it's a hit the system can afford to take.

Don't like that example?

Draft a dog like Sanguinetti in the first round. Doesn't set the Org. or system back at all. Why? No Youth for Age trades.

A great pick like Cherepanov passes way to soon. Set the team back? Not really. Could he have helped? Absolutely, but the Rangers are still contending for a cup.
There's just a lot of conjecture here. You want to talk about what may have happened. I'm talking about what did happen.

I would argue that the Jessiman pick set the organization back more than the Weight and Amonte trades:

1) Whether you believe they would have won the Cup with Amonte and Weight, they did win the Cup with the players they received in those treads.

2) Setting aside the players they took Jessiman over, from where the team was at that time they needed a player who was going to contribute to the team in some manner. They didn't get that. And that was at a time when there was no youth at all between poor drafting, unfortunate injuries (Blackburn. Cherneski) and poor talent evaluation (Brendl, Lundmark). Not sure what youth for age trades the Rangers were going to make in 2002.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:19 PM
  #353
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Lundqvist View Post
Amonte scored about 70 goals in his first 2 seasons, he would have been fine with this team.

I have a feeling Weight and Savard would have been great players either way.

Zubov had a career year in 94 with 89 points. Him and Leetch were arguably the best power play tandem ever.
The Rangers knew what they were trading in Weight but felt it was worth it to finally win a cup. Savard was a flawed prospect who ended up maximizing his skills (injuries aside). Zubov was alot like Karlsson and should have been kept. However, getting Samuelsson and Robitaille wasn't bad value. I wouldn't have traded Zubov but it wasn't terrible at the time.

As for Amonte, the Rangers knew he could score but they felt he was a defensive liability who disappeared for stretches and was worth dealing for two pieces who were tougher and better defensively.

Bottom line, we won in '94 and that can never be taken away. Whatever it took to get that cup it was worth it. Trading Zubov and Norstrom in the years following wasn't that smart.

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:21 PM
  #354
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Cup or no cup, the Weight and Amonte Trades ARE two of the worst deals the Rangers have ever made.

While it would be nice to win a cup, I would rather take 15-20 good swift kicks at the can than one significant kick and then wait 10+ years before we get another legit shot.

I want to be competitive and in contention EVERY YEAR similar to the wya the Devils and Red Wings are/were and have been the since the early 90's.

One cup in 18 years while being a laughing stock for 7 years if not the ideal way to run an organization.

screw that.

Give me a shot at the cup every year than one cup every 50+ years
How old were you in '94? I'm guessing young. If so, you have no idea how important that one moment was and how important it was to get that monkey off the franchise's back. The key is have both like the Devils and Wings; contend consistently and win every 8 years or so. But we NEEDED that cup in '94 and dealing prospects to get it turned out to be the right move because we won.

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:22 PM
  #355
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
There's just a lot of conjecture here. You want to talk about what may have happened. I'm talking about what did happen.

I would argue that the Jessiman pick set the organization back more than the Weight and Amonte trades:

1) Whether you believe they would have won the Cup with Amonte and Weight, they did win the Cup with the players they received in those treads.

2) Setting aside the players they took Jessiman over, from where the team was at that time they needed a player who was going to contribute to the team in some manner. They didn't get that. And that was at a time when there was no youth at all between poor drafting, unfortunate injuries (Blackburn. Cherneski) and poor talent evaluation (Brendl, Lundmark). Not sure what youth for age trades the Rangers were going to make in 2002.
The organization was disfunctional in every conceivable way for a good 10 years or so. To your point, I never got too upset about the post-94 youth leaving town because they pretty much stunk. Who left after the cup and went on to have a successful NHL career? Marc Savard, Mattias Norstrom, and Kim Jonsson maybe? Good players, but not guys that were going to carry the franchise out of the abyss.

Having lived through all of that, I'd probably be the last person in the world to buy into some wild scenario where the Rangers won the cup with Amonte/Weight, became committed to youth, became successful in the draft, and lived happily ever after.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:23 PM
  #356
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,898
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I agree with this 100%.

At the time of those deals, we didn't have the organizational depth to do those deals.

And no, those deal will have no bearing on what the Rangers do for the next 30 years.

The mindset of it being OK to trade youth for age in the manner in which those deals were concluded will have a bearing on what the Rangers do for the next 30 years.

I have no issues with the trade the Rangers made for Nash. I believe we have the organizational depth to make that move. There's no reason to follow this Nash trade up with another 4 kids for one player deal no matter who the player is coming back.

The healthy teams in the league funnel youth into their team on a regular basis. Scouting, drafting and developing well is huge, but retaining that youth and letting them develope into the kinds of players you are looking to acquire is the better route to take when building a team.
I'm not sure I agree. First of all, they had a fairly young core with Leetch 26, Graves 26, and Richter 28. They also had the Ferraro brothers, Niklas Sundstrom, Kovalev (who was 21, Corey Hirsch and Zubov.

And they had a team that they felt was close. Sometimes a prospects' best value to organization is as a trading piece.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:25 PM
  #357
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
You're trying to have the best of both worlds, which is an awfully difficult thing to do in what-if scenarios.

I understand your points about drafting after '94, but at the same time I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe the team would draft much better just because Amonte and Weight were in the lineup. Then again, your entire post here is predicated on the fact that the 94 team would win the Cup with Amonte/Weight, which is the biggest what if of them all. Lets say they didnt, do you think the organization would be preaching youth and patience? Ha, yea right.

This is 18 years later, and the Rangers have finally seemed to get it right, so this is a much easier argument for me...and it boils down to:

Reality - The Rangers traded Weight and Amonte and won the cup

What-if - The Rangers hung onto Weight and Amonte and maybe won the cup, but maybe didnt.
Not looking for the best of both worlds here.

The fact is that prior to the trades, the Rangers were running away with the NHL. The team that it turns out gave them the most problems in the PO's were WALKED THROUGH before the trades.

The Rangers were a better, faster and deeper team pre-94 deadline and to argue that would be foolish.

Logic speaks to me that had those trades not happened, the end result of that season would have been the same. A what if? Conceded. However based on the make up of the team and how we played against our toughest competition prior to the deadline, I believe we knock off the devils in 5 games and Canucks also in 5 games. THAT's how good the Rangers were pre-deadline in 94.

It's not a matter of the Rangers drafting better as it would be the Rangers drafting differently as they then wouldn't have had to address certain needs.

Additionally, the kids they did draft would not have been rushed to the NHL as they were with how things played out.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:28 PM
  #358
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Here's the way I see the above.

Had we kept both Amonte and Weight, I BELIEVE we still win the cup in 93-94.

Following that, the drafting may still have been as you post it, but it's not nearly as detrimental as it turned out to be because we still have the crown jewels playing and making a difference season in and season out. As such I believe the approach to the drafts would have been significantly altered in terms of approach due to org. needs.

Maybe the Rangers don't draft Christian Dube in 95 and look to address a different area of need. Maybe they DO draft Dube and he actually develops properly due to not being rushed to the NHL.

Maybe the Rangers don't look to draft Jeff Brown...conceding that they still take Brown, it's still not as impactful to a team that doesn't trade youth for age.

97 they took Cherneski, Was a great pick as he had Adam Graves clone written all over him. No fault for the Rangers in that pick. the 2nd rounder could have been better.

98 the Rangers should have taken the Colorado offer of 3 first rounders for the Rangers first. That was the opportunity to right alot of previous wrongs. The Copley pick in round two is rendered an afterthought.

99, Inman is not an issue if ONE of Brendl or Lundmark develope right. One busts immediately and the other is yo-yo'd in the system because of a rift between Coach and GM.

The point I am trying to make is that the approach to building this team and the choices made after trading Weight and Amonte became issues because we had no other youth in the system that could ALLOW the picks to develope at a proper rate.

The Rangers problems were two fold, Yes, they did not draft very well. I will be the first to concede that point. But not having the time to bring these kids along meant that you were forced to look to draft kids that you felt were more ready and prepared to make an impact in the NHL Sooner than they should have been expected to. As such, there are more risks taken that what you see from those kids is they best they will become and in most cases that's what happened.

A good example could be this current Rangers team.

Draft a dog like Jessiman in the first round. Yes it sets the team back, but because we do not trade youth it's a hit the system can afford to take.

Don't like that example?

Draft a dog like Sanguinetti in the first round. Doesn't set the Org. or system back at all. Why? No Youth for Age trades.

A great pick like Cherepanov passes way to soon. Set the team back? Not really. Could he have helped? Absolutely, but the Rangers are still contending for a cup.
You may be right, you may be wrong. What i do know if the team that was assembled won the Stanley Cup in 1994 and therefore I cannot criticize the deals made to build that team. After the disappointment in 1992 and with Mess getting older they needed to build to win and they did. Everything else is superfluous considering the 54 years without any glory.

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:31 PM
  #359
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardof425 View Post
How old were you in '94? I'm guessing young. If so, you have no idea how important that one moment was and how important it was to get that monkey off the franchise's back. The key is have both like the Devils and Wings; contend consistently and win every 8 years or so. But we NEEDED that cup in '94 and dealing prospects to get it turned out to be the right move because we won.
I was 25 and completely understand how important it was.

Doesn't make the deals any better.

I agree that we needed the cup. BUT I believe we win the cup easier had we kept Amonte (the Weight deal was done a year before at a failed attempt to make the PO's)

Been watcting hockey since the 70's. Big Rangers fan, just never been a fan with how they have treated young players until the last few years.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:33 PM
  #360
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Not looking for the best of both worlds here.

The fact is that prior to the trades, the Rangers were running away with the NHL. The team that it turns out gave them the most problems in the PO's were WALKED THROUGH before the trades.

The Rangers were a better, faster and deeper team pre-94 deadline and to argue that would be foolish.

Logic speaks to me that had those trades not happened, the end result of that season would have been the same. A what if? Conceded. However based on the make up of the team and how we played against our toughest competition prior to the deadline, I believe we knock off the devils in 5 games and Canucks also in 5 games. THAT's how good the Rangers were pre-deadline in 94.

It's not a matter of the Rangers drafting better as it would be the Rangers drafting differently as they then wouldn't have had to address certain needs.

Additionally, the kids they did draft would not have been rushed to the NHL as they were with how things played out.
Not true, the value of defensively responsible, tough veterans doesn't show up on the score sheet. But winning the cup validates the deals. So I guess it could be argued.

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:47 PM
  #361
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I was 25 and completely understand how important it was.

Doesn't make the deals any better.

I agree that we needed the cup. BUT I believe we win the cup easier had we kept Amonte (the Weight deal was done a year before at a failed attempt to make the PO's)

Been watcting hockey since the 70's. Big Rangers fan, just never been a fan with how they have treated young players until the last few years.
If you understand how important that cup was then you know that at the time it really didn't matter if we sold our soul to the Devil to get it. We needed to get it. We'll never know if we win without the deadline deals. These days we are showing more patience and trying to become a perennial contender which I agree with, but in 1994 after the disappointment of '92 and the 53 other non cup years it didn't matter what it took to get the win.

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:57 PM
  #362
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardof425 View Post
Not true, the value of defensively responsible, tough veterans doesn't show up on the score sheet. But winning the cup validates the deals. So I guess it could be argued.
Defensively? Rangers were 3rd in the league in GAA. They were solid enough before the trades.

What you call tough veteran, I call slow, plodding and offensively challenged.

Those games where we had difficulty scoring goals your tough vets didn't help. Amonte and Gartner would have added the elements of talent and speed to a slow and predictable group.

I disagree that winning the cup validates the deal. I think we win the Cup with the team as it was prior to the deadline.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:58 PM
  #363
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardof425 View Post
If you understand how important that cup was then you know that at the time it really didn't matter if we sold our soul to the Devil to get it. We needed to get it. We'll never know if we win without the deadline deals. These days we are showing more patience and trying to become a perennial contender which I agree with, but in 1994 after the disappointment of '92 and the 53 other non cup years it didn't matter what it took to get the win.
I diagreed with that approach then, I disagree with it now.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:28 PM
  #364
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardof425 View Post
If you understand how important that cup was then you know that at the time it really didn't matter if we sold our soul to the Devil to get it. We needed to get it. We'll never know if we win without the deadline deals. These days we are showing more patience and trying to become a perennial contender which I agree with, but in 1994 after the disappointment of '92 and the 53 other non cup years it didn't matter what it took to get the win.
I agree with this (I was 28 when they won the CUP), but I would argue (as many here have) that those deals did not necessarily put us over the top. We were a couple of saves by Richter away from being eliminated in 6 and a bounce away from being elimnated in 7 by the Devils.
Matteau and Noonan were largely ineffective for most of the playoffs. They gave the Rangers a little more grit than they had, but I don't believe for a second they would have been any worse off with Amnte and Gilbert in the lineup vs. Matteau and Noonan.

This is a great debate though. Nobody will ever be right or worng and I doubt anyone convinces somebody to change their mind either!

Cliffy1814 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:29 PM
  #365
Bardof425*
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
Defensively? Rangers were 3rd in the league in GAA. They were solid enough before the trades.

What you call tough veteran, I call slow, plodding and offensively challenged.

Those games where we had difficulty scoring goals your tough vets didn't help. Amonte and Gartner would have added the elements of talent and speed to a slow and predictable group.

I disagree that winning the cup validates the deal. I think we win the Cup with the team as it was prior to the deadline.
This is where you lose me. You think we win the cup without the deadline deals? So did I at the time. But I know we won after the deals and that certainty is more valuable than your or my opinion of the trades. And considering how long it had been since we were able to drink from the cup, my opinion of what would have happened is meaningless. A bird in the hand......

Bardof425* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 02:44 PM
  #366
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardof425 View Post
This is where you lose me. You think we win the cup without the deadline deals? So did I at the time. But I know we won after the deals and that certainty is more valuable than your or my opinion of the trades. And considering how long it had been since we were able to drink from the cup, my opinion of what would have happened is meaningless. A bird in the hand......
I agree that the crutch for you is there. No one is disputing that.

we won so it doesn't matter what was done to get there.

The deals made resulted in winning the cup.

Nice crutch.

pld459666 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 03:00 PM
  #367
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
I agree that the crutch for you is there. No one is disputing that.

we won so it doesn't matter what was done to get there.

The deals made resulted in winning the cup.

Nice crutch.
Thats not the definition of a crutch.

That is reality or fact.

What you're conveying is a theory or an opinion.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 04:37 PM
  #368
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy1814 View Post
This is a great debate though. Nobody will ever be right or worng and I doubt anyone convinces somebody to change their mind either!
That sounds like the opposite of a great debate
It basically means nobody actually has facts to back up their position and we're just exchanging opinions.

iamitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 07:50 PM
  #369
lbrowne
Registered User
 
lbrowne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,132
vCash: 500
Since we're on this topic and I've been a fan for quite sometime and long before 94, the one piece of the team that I really wished was able to stay and win that Cup with us was Mike Gartner.

I was huge fan of Amonte, Weight and didn't like seeing them go but I could live with it... but I really wanted Gartner to stay.

lbrowne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 09:17 PM
  #370
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 4,163
vCash: 500
I'm confused why the Weight, Amonte, etc conversation is happening in this thread though. Dubinsky and Anisimov are not Weight and Amonte by any stretch of the imagination. Rick Nash is not some third line rental grinder.

The attempts to downplay Nash through advanced stats and going, "oh he's declining" are just plain moronic. He's clearly been dragged down by having to carry a franchise on his own that was going nowhere. His lower level of play has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with atmosphere. Garbage management. Garbage coaching. Garbage teammates.

I saw someone point to his 08-09 and call it an outlier. You know what else is interesting about 08-09? It's the only time the Blue Jackets made the playoffs and weren't complete dog ****. This isn't baseball. The team around you matters and advanced hockey stats are about as useful as used toilet paper. You need other people to finish on your passes to get assists and you generally need decent linemates to pot 40 goals.

The fact is that Nash pots 30+ goals like clockwork without any help and defenses completely keying off him. It's goddamned impressive. If you can't figure out the difference between a 28-year-old Nash coming out of a bad situation and an over-the-hill LaFontaine, then you're a pig-headed idiot and I can't help you.

Zil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 09:25 PM
  #371
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I dont think you understand how difficult it is to win a Stanley Cup.

Sounds like you'd be a wonderful fan of the 80's/90's St. Louis Blues, however.
The Blues had a dominant stretch of making the playoffs for 25 straight seasons. That's unreal.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 09:26 PM
  #372
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
I'm confused why the Weight, Amonte, etc conversation is happening in this thread though. Dubinsky and Anisimov are not Weight and Amonte by any stretch of the imagination. Rick Nash is not some third line rental grinder.

The attempts to downplay Nash through advanced stats and going, "oh he's declining" are just plain moronic. He's clearly been dragged down by having to carry a franchise on his own that was going nowhere. His lower level of play has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with atmosphere. Garbage management. Garbage coaching. Garbage teammates.

I saw someone point to his 08-09 and call it an outlier. You know what else is interesting about 08-09? It's the only time the Blue Jackets made the playoffs and weren't complete dog ****. This isn't baseball. The team around you matters and advanced hockey stats are about as useful as used toilet paper. You need other people to finish on your passes to get assists and you generally need decent linemates to pot 40 goals.

The fact is that Nash pots 30+ goals like clockwork without any help and defenses completely keying off him. It's goddamned impressive. If you can't figure out the difference between a 28-year-old Nash coming out of a bad situation and an over-the-hill LaFontaine, then you're a pig-headed idiot and I can't help you.
yeah absolutely a completely different scenario and maybe should have been a separate thread but what else is there to talk about

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 09:36 PM
  #373
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
The attempts to downplay Nash through advanced stats and going, "oh he's declining" are just plain moronic. He's clearly been dragged down by having to carry a franchise on his own that was going nowhere. His lower level of play has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with atmosphere. Garbage management. Garbage coaching. Garbage teammates.

I saw someone point to his 08-09 and call it an outlier. You know what else is interesting about 08-09? It's the only time the Blue Jackets made the playoffs and weren't complete dog ****. This isn't baseball. The team around you matters and advanced hockey stats are about as useful as used toilet paper. You need other people to finish on your passes to get assists and you generally need decent linemates to pot 40 goals.

The fact is that Nash pots 30+ goals like clockwork without any help and defenses completely keying off him. It's goddamned impressive. If you can't figure out the difference between a 28-year-old Nash coming out of a bad situation and an over-the-hill LaFontaine, then you're a pig-headed idiot and I can't help you.
Advanced hockey statistics mean something if you take the time to understand them. I thought the same thing too last yr, but after going in depth with the stats, they tell a lot of how players were sheltered and how they were shot/outshot in their minutes relative to competition.

You want to know how a rookie like Nugent-Hopkins was scoring at a torrid pace through his first 30 games? (4th in NHL scoring) He was sheltered a lot by Tom Renney. Hemsky, Horcoff and Hall were the players that received the toughest minutes on the Oilers, hence their decrease in production compared to Nuge and Eberle. They got easier zone starts, were placed against easy competition and were put in a position of success.

Look at our very own Brad Richards. You want to know why his point totals took a hit since joining the Rangers? No, he didn't have a rough season, he was simply put against the best competition on the Rangers. In Dallas, Ribeiro/Eriksson/Morrow played the tougher minutes while Richards got prime time PP minutes, offensive zone starts and played against 2nd pairing d-man and 3rd line players.

Same case with Gaborik. He had an exceptional season, but he got to face easier competition since Callahan's line was doing most of the weightlifting against top competition. This is determined by the stats QUALCOMP.

It's not stupid. You have to use it with context though. I agree that you can't judge a player primary on advanced statistics, but it tells a big story too.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 09:58 PM
  #374
Ih8theislanders
Full-kit ****ers
 
Ih8theislanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronx,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
The Blues had a dominant stretch of making the playoffs for 25 straight seasons. That's unreal.
And nothing to show for it.

Ih8theislanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 10:01 PM
  #375
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih8theislanders View Post
And nothing to show for it.
Ain't that something... But hey, who needs a Cup when you have good management!?

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:58 PM.

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.