Well I assume in a thread talking about 30 goal scorers that we would be talking about their ability to score goals and not looking at leadership qualities or defensive capabilities. Chris Clark was a decent PKer and grinder who scored 20 then 30 goals out of the blue.
Parrish was actually a decent scorer, 6 seasons with over 20 goals. I wouldn't call him the worst, but definitely a one dimensional player.
Based on the OP he was looking for the worst player who happened to have scored 30goals since 2002. In my mind being a good player is a combination of several factors and does not necessarily equate to strictly goals and assists like some ppull think [not saying you cuz you haven't said that].
The very fact that Parrish was such a one dimensional player is part of why I think he was a worse player then Clark.
I'll go year by year in my opinion of worst player to score 30 that year. From that list I'll pick my overall winner.
2002-2003- Richard Zednik
2003-2004- Robert Lang
2005-2006- Anson Carter HM- Marek Svatos
2006-2007- Chris Clark
2007-2008- Brad Boyes
2008-2009- Bryan Little
2009-2010- Patric Hornqvist
2010-2011- Nicolai Kulemin
2011-2012- Max Pacioretty (This is a hard one given we've had no time to examine if they'll fall off so please try not to roast me on this)
So I'm going with a grand Champion of Anson Carter. He had a few other 20G seasons in his career, but he was never a real threat on the ice. I can see how people would disagree but that's why opinions are like a certain hole on the human body. Everyone's got one and they all stink.
Based on the OP he was looking for the worst player who happened to have scored 30goals since 2002. In my mind being a good player is a combination of several factors and does not necessarily equate to strictly goals and assists like some ppull think [not saying you cuz you haven't said that].
The very fact that Parrish was such a one dimensional player is part of why I think he was a worse player then Clark.
btw - you know what they say about 'assumptions'
I hear what you are saying, I'd personally rather have a Chris Clark on my team than a Parrish or Svatos as I value more than just goals, but you have to admit that Clark's 30 goal season looks out of place in comparison to Parrish and maybe even Svatos.
Biggest underachiever (skilled but should've done it a lot more often) ... probably Boyes, Gomez.
An interesting test would be to figure out who only had 30 or something close once and who had a bunch of garbage goals in those 30. At least with Svatos and Cheechoo those guys were potting legit goals and just couldn't hack the physical aspect of the game.
Scott Young was the first name that came to mind, but I'm not really sure how he was as a player. All I know is that he scored 40 out of nowhere and that was it.
Young, was a great, tenacious, gritty player. I've always liked him.
You don't think sniper with him though.
Also, Cheechoo doesn't belong in this thread. He had 28 in the year before Thornton was traded to San Jose, and was on pace for 24-27-51 when Thornton joined the Sharks (7-8-15 in his first 24) which was actually a slightly better start than the previous season (6-5-11 in his first 24, or 21-17-38). As you can see, he was a slow starter, improving his pace by around 25% in the remaining games. Which puts him as a 30-34-64 in 2005-06 if Thornton isn't acquired, assuming the same improvement. If we're going to say that a decently skilled guy who benefited from being the go-to guy for a highly skilled playmaker is the winner of this thread, why not Milan Hejduk? He hit 50 with Forsberg one year, and 30 a couple others. When has he hit/come close to 30 without a highly skilled playmaker (Forsberg, Sakic, Stastny)? He hasn't. Good circumstances for a guy who can put the puck in the net. The difference is that Cheechoo was traded and lost his confidence, and it killed his career. He could have continued on as a perennial 30-goal guy. He had the skill, and probably still has the shot to park a few in the net if a team were to take the chance on him. Ottawa was a bad fit. San Jose was a great fit. He might not be a bad option for Chicago, actually, if he can recapture his magic. Play Kane as the 2C and take advantage of his playmaking abilities, utilize Cheechoo's shot. It would be kind of an Oates/Hull situation where Chechoo's job is basically to find the scoring spot and wait for Kane to get him the puck. Kane's shot and the fact that they'd be against 2nd units are threatening enough to offset the improved QoC compared to the early 90s when Hull could just stand around while Oates did all of the work.
I don't normally go about calling people out, I might present an opposing view now and again however.....some of the above is just plain wrong. He didn't lose his confidence and subsequently got traded. And Ottawa a bad fit? Like their isn't a top tier play making centre in Ottawa?
Cheechoo just plain and simple could no longer skate at an NHL level. He lost that ability due to injury. End of story. He couldn't skate, he couldn't get to the seams to score the goals that he historically scored. He wouldn't survive in Chicago with Kane as a C. What could possibly make you think he'd suddenly be a scorer again with Kane as a C when it wasn't working with either Thornton or Spezza?
Cheechoo was a great goal scorer. But at the end of the day, you still need to skate to play in the NHL and he just cannot do it at that level anymore.
You are right, Cheechoo doesn't belong in this thread. He was a decent hockey player. But he couldn't have continued as a perennial 30 goal guy.
So I'm going with a grand Champion of Anson Carter. He had a few other 20G seasons in his career, but he was never a real threat on the ice. I can see how people would disagree but that's why opinions are like a certain hole on the human body. Everyone's got one and they all stink.
But Anson Carter was good enough to be traded for Jagr!
Also, Cheechoo doesn't belong in this thread. He had 28 in the year before Thornton was traded to San Jose, and was on pace for 24-27-51 when Thornton joined the Sharks (7-8-15 in his first 24) which was actually a slightly better start than the previous season (6-5-11 in his first 24, or 21-17-38). As you can see, he was a slow starter, improving his pace by around 25% in the remaining games. Which puts him as a 30-34-64 in 2005-06 if Thornton isn't acquired, assuming the same improvement. If we're going to say that a decently skilled guy who benefited from being the go-to guy for a highly skilled playmaker is the winner of this thread, why not Milan Hejduk? He hit 50 with Forsberg one year, and 30 a couple others. When has he hit/come close to 30 without a highly skilled playmaker (Forsberg, Sakic, Stastny)? He hasn't. Good circumstances for a guy who can put the puck in the net. The difference is that Cheechoo was traded and lost his confidence, and it killed his career. He could have continued on as a perennial 30-goal guy. He had the skill, and probably still has the shot to park a few in the net if a team were to take the chance on him. Ottawa was a bad fit. San Jose was a great fit. He might not be a bad option for Chicago, actually, if he can recapture his magic. Play Kane as the 2C and take advantage of his playmaking abilities, utilize Cheechoo's shot. It would be kind of an Oates/Hull situation where Chechoo's job is basically to find the scoring spot and wait for Kane to get him the puck. Kane's shot and the fact that they'd be against 2nd units are threatening enough to offset the improved QoC compared to the early 90s when Hull could just stand around while Oates did all of the work.
No no no, Cheechoo has lost it all. Injury or not, I'd be marveled if he can score 10 goals again.
I hear what you are saying, I'd personally rather have a Chris Clark on my team than a Parrish or Svatos as I value more than just goals, but you have to admit that Clark's 30 goal season looks out of place in comparison to Parrish and maybe even Svatos.
It may or may not look out of place, doesn't really matter. The question was who was the worst player and by saying you'd rather Clark on your team then Parrish or Svatos I conclude that you agree with me that he is the better player. I like that you, too, value more than just goals and agree that Clark is the more valuable/better player.
I don't normally go about calling people out, I might present an opposing view now and again however.....some of the above is just plain wrong. He didn't lose his confidence and subsequently got traded. And Ottawa a bad fit? Like their isn't a top tier play making centre in Ottawa?
Cheechoo just plain and simple could no longer skate at an NHL level. He lost that ability due to injury. End of story. He couldn't skate, he couldn't get to the seams to score the goals that he historically scored. He wouldn't survive in Chicago with Kane as a C. What could possibly make you think he'd suddenly be a scorer again with Kane as a C when it wasn't working with either Thornton or Spezza?
Cheechoo was a great goal scorer. But at the end of the day, you still need to skate to play in the NHL and he just cannot do it at that level anymore.
You are right, Cheechoo doesn't belong in this thread. He was a decent hockey player. But he couldn't have continued as a perennial 30 goal guy.
I said he was traded and then lost his confidence; not lost his confidence and was traded.
Furthermore, Cheechoo didn't play with Spezza. Michalek took Heatley' spot. Cheechoo bounced around the second and third lines. Having Mike Fisher, Chris Kelly, or Matt Cullen as your center is not a good start to a goal-scoring season.
As far as Kane; Cheechoo would work well with Kane because Kane is a speedy skater and a capable playmaker, and they wouldn't be the primary scoring line. Thornton has never been quick, so that was a big shut-down right there. Fisher/Cullen/Kelly don't have significant offensive prowess. Cheechoo also basically received no PP time in Ottawa.
He would have to change his game a bit, but the idea would be to use him in a close-range scorer capacity; essentially replacing Brunette. The ability to get yourself to the location and the ability to place the puck are the only talents needed for the role; Brett Hull proved that.
It may or may not look out of place, doesn't really matter. The question was who was the worst player and by saying you'd rather Clark on your team then Parrish or Svatos I conclude that you agree with me that he is the better player. I like that you, too, value more than just goals and agree that Clark is the more valuable/better player.
The question is not "who is better now".
Parrish, from 2001-02 through 2005-06, averaged 30 goals per 82 games. AVERAGED. Over his NHL career to-date, he's averaged 25 per 82.
Clark might be a good defensive player, but he's not more valuable than Parrish if we're talking peak, prime, or career.
A lot of these guys were good at the time they scored 30, other than Chris Clark of course. I think more of guys who were completely elevated by other people, like Chris Simon in 99/00 when he scored 29 goals with Adam Oates, or guys like Rob Brown with Mario way back when. Anson Carter had 30 with the Sedins but he had some very good seasons in the past as well.
Brad Boyes scored about half his goals for the blues on the PP. Continued that pace as a Sabre. When league power plays dwindled his scoring plummeted. He's a soft perimeter player who is only effective in man up situations. However if league power plays go back to where they were post last lockout he'd be my pick to rebound.
Brad Boyes scored about half his goals for the blues on the PP. Continued that pace as a Sabre. When league power plays dwindled his scoring plummeted. He's a soft perimeter player who is only effective in man up situations. However if league power plays go back to where they were post last lockout he'd be my pick to rebound.
While stats wise that might look like the reason, having watch him I can assure you that is not the reason. He just can not hit the net unless it's during the shootout. I believe there is also something about him having to change sticks. He is money in the shootouts though.
Brad Boyes scored about half his goals for the blues on the PP. Continued that pace as a Sabre. When league power plays dwindled his scoring plummeted. He's a soft perimeter player who is only effective in man up situations. However if league power plays go back to where they were post last lockout he'd be my pick to rebound.
He just needs a Tavares.
----
Does Matt Moulson belong on this list? Even if he's done it three years in a row? Improving on goals and points in each of them?
Picking an arbitrary goal total and year can easily put things out of context regarding "worst player" to achieve these results.
Player ability doesn't vary as much, year over year, compared to goals/points totals relative to their unique situations.
I watched Steve Yzerman become a better players his point totals drop.
Ovechkin has become a worse player as his goals/points have dropped.
Joffrey Lupul got a lot of points on the Leafs top line last year, but he's the same player he used to be, just healthier with a chance to play on the first line, taking statistical advantage of the situation.
Some of the best players never reach (or barely reach) 30 goals (like Forsberg, Datsyuk) while some really bad hockey players can reach it on occasion (Prucha, Frolov)
