Schroeder is more of a playmaker. Prior to his AHL career, he has usually carried a 1:2 goals to assist ratio. Hodgson, on the other hand, is more of a 1:1 player.
Hodgson has the better shot IMO. Hard and accurate. Schroeder, from the very few games I saw of him, still has more inaccuracy in his shot specifically because he's trying to pick corners every time out. He still needs to work on this. However, the biggest change here is that he is shooting more often. So while the accuracy is still suspect, he's relying on the percentages to produce more overall, and he has.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Hodgson's shot is fantastic. We saw it against Boston and Detroit. I believe there were many OHL coaches that said he had the best shot in the league in 2008-09 (note the absence of Stamkos) but, has actually had his shot compared to Stamkos by others as well. I don't remember who said it, I want to say Bob McKenzie but he said the difference between Stamkos and Hodgson was Stamkos' explosive speed. I don't think he meant Hodgson was in the same ballpark as Stamkos offensively though, my recollections tend to get hazy sometimes when I'm pulling stuff off the top of my head.
Schroeder has a good wrist shot, but yes I'd say shot not as good as Hodgson, but much better playmaker than Hodgson.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Hodgson's shot is fantastic. We saw it against Boston and Detroit. I believe there were many OHL coaches that said he had the best shot in the league in 2008-09 (note the absence of Stamkos) but, has actually had his shot compared to Stamkos by others as well. I don't remember who said it, I want to say Bob McKenzie but he said the difference between Stamkos and Hodgson was Stamkos' explosive speed. I don't think he meant Hodgson was in the same ballpark as Stamkos offensively though, my recollections tend to get hazy sometimes when I'm pulling stuff off the top of my head.
Schroeder has a good wrist shot, but yes I'd say shot not as good as Hodgson, but much better playmaker than Hodgson.
As with most young players under AV if Schroeder can show he can play a good defensive game he'll make the team and get his share of 5-on-5 icetime. I suspect his speed and acceleration will help in that regard...something Hodgson struggled with. I don't know how Schroeder is built so lack of strength may or may not be issue (is he a wispy Steve Kariya or a Sergei Samsonov tank?).
As with most young players under AV if Schroeder can show he can play a good defensive game he'll make the team and get his share of 5-on-5 icetime. I suspect his speed and acceleration will help in that regard...something Hodgson struggled with. I don't know how Schroeder is built so lack of strength may or may not be issue (is he a wispy Steve Kariya or a Sergei Samsonov tank?).
Schroeder said he was going to work a lot on his shot this off-season, and talked about his accuracy problem as well as his pass-first mindset. He's quite aware that he needs to put points on the board while also playing at both ends of the rink. He mentioned missing a number of easier goals by hitting posts or missing the net. I forget the source, but others here likely saw the same interview.
Schroeder was really good at the bench press during his pre-draft combine, so he's no wispy small guy. With his quickness, speed, and recent willingness to play defensively, he stands apart from Hodgson in those respects, which, along with attitude, were the reasons Cody was traded. Those also are key attributes of a third-line centre. The question will be if JS can create goals and assists at the NHL level. Assists are his forte . . . and we'll see how the summer of shot practice works out, goal-wise. If he can be quicker and more responsible than Hodgson--which seems almost certain--AV will give him his chance at 3C. Scoring could be his issue, even more than his size. But if he can score, the organization has a strong interest in capitalizing on the draft pick investment he represents.
I'd be happy to just add another playmaking centre to the team's lineup. Having more vision and creativity would be a welcome addition. Like Pitseleh said, he'll probably be sheltered at ES at first but he - as a smart guy - should be able to adapt and hold his own against decent competition soon enough, for a rookie. He'll get a lot of help from two-way wingers like Raymond/Higgins and Hansen on his flanks.
I'd be happy to just add another playmaking centre to the team's lineup. Having more vision and creativity would be a welcome addition. Like Pitseleh said, he'll probably be sheltered at ES at first but he - as a smart guy - should be able to adapt and hold his own against decent competition soon enough, for a rookie. He'll get a lot of help from two-way wingers like Raymond/Higgins and Hansen on his flanks.
speaking of which, what's the deal with reinprecht? is he UFA now? could be worth a tryout if he's not pissed that he never got the shot that gillis hinted at in last year's playoffs.
speaking of which, what's the deal with reinprecht? is he UFA now? could be worth a tryout if he's not pissed that he never got the shot that gillis hinted at in last year's playoffs.
Whatever, Steven Reinprecht's time is done in the NHL, no way around it.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Hodgson's shot is fantastic. We saw it against Boston and Detroit. I believe there were many OHL coaches that said he had the best shot in the league in 2008-09 (note the absence of Stamkos) but, has actually had his shot compared to Stamkos by others as well. I don't remember who said it, I want to say Bob McKenzie but he said the difference between Stamkos and Hodgson was Stamkos' explosive speed. I don't think he meant Hodgson was in the same ballpark as Stamkos offensively though, my recollections tend to get hazy sometimes when I'm pulling stuff off the top of my head.
Schroeder has a good wrist shot, but yes I'd say shot not as good as Hodgson, but much better playmaker than Hodgson.
I said Hodgson's shot was better. He also goes to the net better than Schroeder.
The key difference is the preference of Schroeder to make plays and pass up his shot, while Hodgson is more selfish. Hodgson is more direct in his game. So he will find a way to attack the net, while Schroeder will elect to pass.
All that said, as 701 pointed out, Schroeder shot much more this past season. He should be able to score more as a result. Let's hope he translates some that to the NHL. Again, the key difference to me is the shot quality + shooting intent of Hodgson vs. the shot inaccuracy + preference to pass of Schroeder.
Sunshine Rays posted the following in the Lu thread, and I thought it might be a good basis for discussion considering the urge to want to bring in another top6 forward. Here's the quote:
Quote:
A top 6 forward by technical defn, is someone who contributes 40+ points per yr (35+ points for a very low end top 6er). Booth had 30 pts last yr, making him a 3rd liner last yr. If he played a full 82, he'd likely be in the top 6 forward category. (Note: Higgins was a few pts away from being considered a 1st line player. He's def not a tweener).
Good read: http://canucksarmy.com/2011/7/17/point-totals
I'm not a fan of Booth, but he's a good stop gap till Kassian/Jensen are top 6 ready. If the Canucks can get a good young centre ++ in a Luongo trade, I'm comfortable with the top 6.
So based on this, what do we have now? Do we have 9 top6 forwards according to this analysis?
Note: Booth was on pace for about 40 points last year.
Note 2: Raymond has had 2 seasons at top6 production and 1 below (broken back). Is he still considered a top6?
Note3: Higgins and Hansen were definitely top6 calibre players last year.
I said Hodgson's shot was better. He also goes to the net better than Schroeder.
The key difference is the preference of Schroeder to make plays and pass up his shot, while Hodgson is more selfish. Hodgson is more direct in his game. So he will find a way to attack the net, while Schroeder will elect to pass.
All that said, as 701 pointed out, Schroeder shot much more this past season. He should be able to score more as a result. Let's hope he translates some that to the NHL. Again, the key difference to me is the shot quality + shooting intent of Hodgson vs. the shot inaccuracy + preference to pass of Schroeder.
OK, I understand the point being made now. It seems like a bit of Schroeder's stock or value has dropped a bit since he was drafted. I think he is a bit underrated as a prospect. I hear nothing but good things about him last year in Chicago and how he's working on his defensive game too.
I really hope he breaks out to the NHL soon, we need more ELC players that can help the team significantly.
^ Thats a lot to give up for a 4-5 month rental in Perry. I would rather do Gaunce+1st+ for Ryan, younger and signed longer with potential to improve, buy low. I know at this point Perry is a better player but he has a larger cap hit, is older and is only signed till the end of the year. We would have to be pretty confident in resigning Perry to pull the trigger on that trade.
Also, I'm not sure I would trade Corrado+ for Leopold, Corrado is looking to be a steal, I would want to sit on him for another year and see how he performs in the AHL before shipping him off.
I think I rather keep Jensen around here. And have alot of money to spend on adding another player with the saved capspace. You need young players playing good minutes on cheap contracts
Yeah, I don't think we need Leopold, Tanev's been doing really well on the third pairing, and Corrado's bern looking really good.
Also, I think we should drop one of Jensen/Kadri from the Perry, deal, as it is only a rental.
I fo think Kadri should at leadt get a tryout on our roster to start the season(he and Schroeder can vie for the 2nd line C while Kesler's out. Odd man out is included in a package for Perry.
Sunshine Rays posted the following in the Lu thread, and I thought it might be a good basis for discussion considering the urge to want to bring in another top6 forward. Here's the quote:
So based on this, what do we have now? Do we have 9 top6 forwards according to this analysis?
Note: Booth was on pace for about 40 points last year.
Note 2: Raymond has had 2 seasons at top6 production and 1 below (broken back). Is he still considered a top6?
Note3: Higgins and Hansen were definitely top6 calibre players last year.
The obvious oversight in this article is the fact games played isn't factored in. Booth gets pro-rated to a 40 point player but the same isn't done for the dozens and dozens of other injured players...
Not to mention the point totals of players on weak teams that can't score is irrelevent. The objective isn't to be a poor or average hockey team... If it were, Gillis would have no reason to bring in another forward.
^ Thats a lot to give up for a 4-5 month rental in Perry. I would rather do Gaunce+1st+ for Ryan, younger and signed longer with potential to improve, buy low. I know at this point Perry is a better player but he has a larger cap hit, is older and is only signed till the end of the year. We would have to be pretty confident in resigning Perry to pull the trigger on that trade.
Also, I'm not sure I would trade Corrado+ for Leopold, Corrado is looking to be a steal, I would want to sit on him for another year and see how he performs in the AHL before shipping him off.
lol, i was about to say that if perry was avail at the deadline, it'd take a lot more than that
guy's a hart winning power forward
the orig is not bad value i guess, but not sure how much better kulemin for raymond makes us .... would rather stick w the devil we know. I have a feeling Raymond's going to bounce back...
So based on this, what do we have now? Do we have 9 top6 forwards according to this analysis?
Note: Booth was on pace for about 40 points last year.
Note 2: Raymond has had 2 seasons at top6 production and 1 below (broken back). Is he still considered a top6?
Note3: Higgins and Hansen were definitely top6 calibre players last year.
I think we do yes. I agree with that analysis and how expectations are overly high for what constitutes a '2nd liner'. Our first line is essentially set, and we have Booth + 1 of Higgins, Raymond and perhaps even Kassian to compete for the lone remaining 2nd line spot. Having one of the above and Hansen on the 3rd line is a good amount of depth.
I think a lot of the noise around acquiring another top-6 forward is related to a short term Kesler replacement. That, and some do not view Booth as a genuine top-6 option. Which, in light of both the analysis you mention and the fact that he has had to adjust to a new team both before and after a knee-on-knee hit, I think is an erroneous view.
Right now we have Booth, Higgins, Raymond competing for 2 top-6 winger spots. Next year (which may very well be when the next game is played), we will probably have Booth, Higgins, Jensen, Kassian and maybe Raymond. Competing for two spots. That is some serious scoring winger depth. The greater unknown is at centre, specifically the 3rd line centre.
Our expectations are overly high with what constitutes a 2nd liner because everytime we get to the playoffs our offense disappears. We need an upgrade because the pieces we have aren't good enough to get it done.
I think its appropriate value for a rental. I would not make the deal unless Gillis felt 100% on re-signing Perry. The going rate for star rentals are about a 1st, roster player, top prostpect and another prospect/draft pick.
I think the 2+5th would be enough for Leopold. I think having another top 4 dman would do wonders and would work well with either edler/garrison or Ballard. Tanev while good was being exposed during the playoffs run.
I'd rather have Kulemin as I think the big body would work better.
Perry was just an option.
I think a more realistic player would be Ryder, Weiss. These are the players I would look to make a deal as they are still at a decent age. If not than Jagr, Alfredsson could work too, but would not pay a premium.
Say Weiss is not thinking of re-signing with Florida, we could take Weiss, 1st for Luongo, Raymond.
The obvious oversight in this article is the fact games played isn't factored in. Booth gets pro-rated to a 40 point player but the same isn't done for the dozens and dozens of other injured players...
Not to mention the point totals of players on weak teams that can't score is irrelevent. The objective isn't to be a poor or average hockey team... If it were, Gillis would have no reason to bring in another forward.
I agree, but on a per minute basis things are the same - he was 160th at EV and 30th on the PP (with GP/TOI limits to eliminate small sample sizes), which makes him comfortably a top-6 forward. His EV productivity was also hurt by an abnormally low EV SH%. Even if you think Booth is generating lower quality chances than average, it's still very unlikely that he's generating chances that are 25-30% worse in quality than an average NHLer.
The obvious oversight in this article is the fact games played isn't factored in. Booth gets pro-rated to a 40 point player but the same isn't done for the dozens and dozens of other injured players...
Not to mention the point totals of players on weak teams that can't score is irrelevent. The objective isn't to be a poor or average hockey team... If it were, Gillis would have no reason to bring in another forward.
I don't think you read the article. There's no mention of pro-rating Booth's totals. Or pro-rating at all (AFAIK) That was a note I made.
The article dates July 17th, 2011. When the team still had Samuelsson... In it, it concludes that the top6 cut off being 34 points. Now I haven't checked nhl.com for this past year to see if the hypothesis holds from year to year, but it's not without reason that it does.
If it does hold, does it mean that the Canucks have 8 top6 forwards? Caveat: Now that's with pro-rating Booth and Raymond reverting to his old form... (They had 9 with Hodgson in the fold)
The map is not the territory. Esp. corsi (its a stat that seems to reward quantity over quality).
League-wide P/60 5 on 5 stats to measure top 6 worthiness fails to take into account your team's overall results and that of your linemates:
- Kes was 8th on the team (worst year since his rookie season I believe) - is he no longer a top 6? If anything...
- Flyers had 11 forwards with 1.7pts/60 or better - is Max Talbot a top 6 forward?
- Penguins had 7 forwards 2.14/60 or better (vs 3 Canucks) - is Pittsburgh that stacked?
- Wild had 1 forward at 1.96 and everyone else 1.6 or less - is Miko Koivu no longer a top 6 forward in this league?
The map is not the territory. Esp. corsi (its a stat that seems to reward quantity over quality).
League-wide P/60 5 on 5 stats to measure top 6 worthiness fails to take into account your team's overall results and that of your linemates:
The answer to your questions is quite simple: sample size. Scoring rates don't normalize over a single season because of a number of factors, most important of which is shooting percentage variability.
The reason that Corsi rewards quantity over quality is that over and over again it's been shown that quantity matters a whole lot more than quality for scoring at even strength, with the exception of a few players at the top end (like Crosby or the Sedins) and the bottom end (basically, goons).
Why are we comparing our players projections to the "average" top 6er? I would think it be more prudent to compare those stats with the final 4 teams in the playoffs on a yearly basis (and/or the top 4 teams in the entire league).
