True. But unlike others, I fully expect him to find his scoring groove eventually. It's not like he forgot how to be an NHL scorer. He still does things conducive to scoring. He still is the same style of player he was last season, when he was on pace for 20. So I'm not concerned.
I wish I was as confident. He's spent more time here looking like he may never score again than he has looking dangerous imo, though his play lately has been good. Hopefully he can keep it up.
True. But unlike others, I fully expect him to find his scoring groove eventually. It's not like he forgot how to be an NHL scorer. He still does things conducive to scoring. He still is the same style of player he was last season, when he was on pace for 20. So I'm not concerned.
I also understand fans have to vent right now, so let them. Verviticus, slow down, no need to bring logic to a vent fest. Let it pass.
Alot of people will balk at this statement, but I don't think he's going to score at the pace he did/we expect until he gets consistent playing time on a go-to scoring line with solid scoring line players (like Kesler/Burrows/Sedins). I don't think he'll just work his way into scoring regularly again being used the way he currently is.
I do not believe he is the type of player with the ability to carry a line or produce the way we want him to playing with tweeners, personally. I trust guys like Hansen/Higgins/Raymond to be more successful in that situation than Booth can be.
That said, I'm not sure I would call his production acceptable or excusable, but it should be (unfortunately) expected to some degree. I've never seen him as the type of player to get much done without two other guys getting alot of the offensive work done for him. He's a very limited but useful support guy. (This is why Kassian-Higgins seemed to work, because when Kassian's on, they CAN do all the work)
That said again, I'm not sure there's any way around that until Kesler comes back-- He's a terrible terrible fit with the twins.
Last edited by Shareefruck: 03-17-2013 at 07:42 PM.
What does Raymond do at a top-6 level?
Score? Borderline
Play physical? No
Playmake? No
Strong defense? Yes
What does Booth do at a top-6 level?
Score? No
Play physical? Borderline
Playmake? No
Strong defense? No
What does Hansen do at a top-6 level?
Score? No
Play physical? Yes
Playmake? No
Strong defense? Yes
What does Higgins do at a top-6 level?
Score? No
Play physical? No
Playmake? No
Strong defense? Yes
Feel free to add criteria or argue that my evaluations are wrong. But at least try to come up with something more productive than your previous post.
what im saying is that this isn't a fair way to evaluate players. look at their offensive and defensive stats and compare them to the league
i mean if you want me to bust out an effort post of numbers justifying raymond and hansen and possibly higgins (all i need to say we have 6 of a top 6) i'll do it. tell me and i will, but you'll need to give me time
we obviously disagree on booth because i can't say he's produced, but i think he's just been unlucky
That said again, I'm not sure there's any way around that until Kesler comes back-- He's a terrible terrible fit with the twins.
oddly enough, booth's best fit is with kesler (from a possession standpoint). if he has a high ankle sprain we just have to guess, but if thats what it is and he's lucky, he'll be back in 5-6 weeks
if he's unlucky, well, next season
edit: with booth's 'luck' he'll be good to go when his contract ends
oddly enough, booth's best fit is with kesler (from a possession standpoint). if he has a high ankle sprain we just have to guess, but if thats what it is and he's lucky, he'll be back in 5-6 weeks
if he's unlucky, well, next season
edit: with booth's 'luck' he'll be good to go when his contract ends
I think it's because Kesler does ALL the heavy lifting, such that Booth can just swoop in and be a handful with his strength and speed. There's not that much thinking required-- Kesler plays a pretty straightforward game as well. With the Sedins, there's a COMPLETE disconnect neither party knows what to do with the other. Booth doesn't know where to go because he can't think at the level that the Twins do, and the twins can't make use of his size/strength advantage, because they don't want to let go of the puck unless they can get it to an open scoring area.
I don't think Booth has much need for a pure playmaker, so much as someone who can maintain possession and put the puck in the right areas like Higgins/Burrows, personally.
Over the last 40 odd games I believe Booth has 1 goal and 3 points. I still can't fathom how people try to paint that as acceptable due to his Corsi numbers.
You can overlook a lack of durability if you're dealing with a player that brings immense value when they're healthy. Unfortunately, in Booth's case, he is either giving the team moderate to poor value when healthy and can't seem to hold up to the rigours of a long season.
Hard to argue with those that questioned Booth's durability or value to this team. He's provided 1 assist for $4.2mil. Worst value the team has ever received, by any player in club history.
It's really just more support for why i could care less about a lot of these 'advanced stats' much of the time. They aren't completely useless, but so many people just take it way too far. And when you're justifying that kind of production with, 'well he's got real good corsi #s!!!' you've missed the boat. It's hockey, not a hockey simulation in stats class...and the bottom line is he hasn't produced.
At this point, with another injury (albeit another that's 'not his fault'), it's really hard not to question Booth's future here. I think a lot of people (myself included to some extent) have kind of fallen in love with the idea of what Booth should be. That is, the big strong power winger who can bang in goals and lay a heavy hit on the forecheck, bull his way through traffic to the net, etc. But that's not looking like the reality of what he is now. In most respects...he's looking like a faster Steve Bernier. A useful player and i'd be happy to have Bernier back now...but just like Bernier was overpaid for what he offered, so too is Booth at $4.2M when he's really more of a $3.2M player. Really have to question whether keeping Booth would be worth potentially losing Raymond and Higgins for example. Higgins brings most of what Booth does for example, PLUS immensely better defensive ability and PK utility...for $2.3M less...and though he'll be due a raise as a UFA this summer, i'd easily keep Higgins at say $2.55M as he was on previously, or even a bit more. Still much less than Booth's $4.2M for a player who offers much of the same performance here.
It's becoming more and more clear why Tallon/Florida were willing to let Booth go for what was essentially a cap-dump with an adequate temporary fill-in.
I think it's because Kesler does ALL the heavy lifting, such that Booth can just swoop in and be a handful with his strength and speed. There's not that much thinking required-- Kesler plays a pretty straightforward game as well. With the Sedins, there's a COMPLETE disconnect neither party knows what to do with the other. Booth doesn't know where to go because he can't think at the level that the Twins do, and the twins can't make use of his size/strength advantage, because they don't want to let go of the puck unless they can get it to an open scoring area.
I don't think Booth has much need for a pure playmaker, so much as someone who can maintain possession and put the puck in the right areas like Higgins/Burrows, personally.
Corsi rate for Kesler and Higgins went up by a greater amount than the opposite was true for Booth when AMEX was together. By the numbers, it seems Booth helped Kesler and Higgins more than the opposite true. Now, I understand it doesn't fit you narrative, but that's fact per the numbers.
In FLA, it's also hard to distinguish who drove the bus more, Weiss or Booth. Seemed like they complimented each other well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19
It's really just more support for why i could care less about a lot of these 'advanced stats' much of the time. They aren't completely useless, but so many people just take it way too far. And when you're justifying that kind of production with, 'well he's got real good corsi #s!!!' you've missed the boat. It's hockey, not a hockey simulation in stats class...and the bottom line is he hasn't produced.
At this point, with another injury (albeit another that's 'not his fault'), it's really hard not to question Booth's future here. I think a lot of people (myself included to some extent) have kind of fallen in love with the idea of what Booth should be. That is, the big strong power winger who can bang in goals and lay a heavy hit on the forecheck, bull his way through traffic to the net, etc. But that's not looking like the reality of what he is now. In most respects...he's looking like a faster Steve Bernier. A useful player and i'd be happy to have Bernier back now...but just like Bernier was overpaid for what he offered, so too is Booth at $4.2M when he's really more of a $3.2M player. Really have to question whether keeping Booth would be worth potentially losing Raymond and Higgins for example. Higgins brings most of what Booth does for example, PLUS immensely better defensive ability and PK utility...for $2.3M less...and though he'll be due a raise as a UFA this summer, i'd easily keep Higgins at say $2.55M as he was on previously, or even a bit more. Still much less than Booth's $4.2M for a player who offers much of the same performance here.
It's becoming more and more clear why Tallon/Florida were willing to let Booth go for what was essentially a cap-dump with an adequate temporary fill-in.
If I am to understand you right, at 3.2m Booth is worth keeping, and at 4.2m his future is uncertain? Does that sound reasonable to you?
Higgins doesn't bring what Booth does. If he did, he would be getting paid the salary Booth is getting. And before you say that Booth's salary wasn't issued by Gillis, Gillis willingly brought it in knowing full well the cap-hit and it's disparity to Higgins' own salary. The comparison between Booth and Higgins isn't there.
Oh, and ignoring stats doesn't diminish their relevance. You can try, but people will bring whatever information they can to the fore, to offer a differing perspective because they can. Because they think it adds something to the discussion.
Raymond, Hansen, Higgins and Kassian are not 2nd liners on a contender guy...or period, for that matter.
Yeah they are, kind of. They are the extra that gets stuck onto the 2nd line because teams can't put out 6 x $6m. They aren't the stars, but they are complementary level guys (2.5s). Top 6 filler, 1 on a line is OK, 2 on a line not so much.
A great breakdown. Actually, on those rushes, we see Kassian try to come over and provide and option because the C isn't there.
What does this team do off the rush anymore? Nothing. Their system is a modified dump and chase scheme and you can see the resulting goal totals. The middle of the ice should be the objective. Where for this team, keeping the play to the outside seems preferred...
A funny sort of dichotomy exists between the way this team plays in the opposite ends. It's considered safe to protect the middle of the ice and keep opponents to the outside, yet by only staying on the outside when cycling the puck yourself ironically you're also making it 'safe' for the opponent in defending your own players.
There's almost no tolerance for risk of any kind save from the D-men strangely, and too much so at times for that.
A funny sort of dichotomy exists between the way this team plays in the opposite ends. It's considered safe to protect the middle of the ice and keep opponents to the outside, yet by only staying on the outside when cycling the puck yourself ironically you're also making it 'safe' for the opponent in defending your own players.
There's almost no tolerance for risk of any kind save from the D-men strangely, and too much so at times for that.
And to add yet another twist, the type of game they play right now actually helps possession. So it hinders production by excluding risk both ways, but it also promotes possession so the stats seem good for their team regardless. I can picture both Gillis and AV pointing to possession stats as a justification to keep playing the way they are playing, but it's folly. Possession will be promoted at the expense of creating opportunity... in a weird way.
And to add yet another twist, the type of game they play right now actually helps possession. So it hinders production by excluding risk both ways, but it also promotes possession so the stats seem good for their team regardless. I can picture both Gillis and AV pointing to possession stats as a justification to keep playing the way they are playing, but it's folly. Possession will be promoted at the expense of creating opportunity... in a weird way.
the blues play a game that promotes possession and look what happened to them once they got a dude who didnt leak goals against
And to add yet another twist, the type of game they play right now actually helps possession. So it hinders production by excluding risk both ways, but it also promotes possession so the stats seem good for their team regardless. I can picture both Gillis and AV pointing to possession stats as a justification to keep playing the way they are playing, but it's folly. Possession will be promoted at the expense of creating opportunity... in a weird way.
In the attacking end of the rink, yeah I think you're right in that it tends to promote puck possession, although by being too passive in our own zone I'm not sure if it's also a contributing factor. Although certain other areas like the breakout that had been in place for most of this season thus far seem to go against their philosophy - poor puck support is almost by definition the very opposite of that style of play.
But if you look if the other good teams like LAK and STL, they don't appear to have the problems we do in getting the puck to high-percentage scoring areas. This could be partly due to the amount of size + skill they have, but not only are they good at getting it back regardless of the zone, they also know how to attack with it too in the first place.
For supposedly 'defense-first' clubs who don't have a tremendous amount of team speed up front they certainly aren't afraid to risk turnovers and take the puck into the middle of the ice to get scoring chances - particularly LA.
So I don't think possession and creation of opportunities are mutually exclusive. We may not have a ton of size up front but there should be schemes in place to help capitalize on those chances whenever someone like Booth takes it to the net hard. Even just crashing the crease. Looking around the league teams that are smaller up front than us can still manage to get garbage goals in front of the net. Even someone small like Gabriel Bourque the other night against Nashville. How often do we get those?
But I agree about the stats. It could be one instance where the numbers don't exactly tell the whole story - short of aggregate chance data or shot location.
the blues play a game that promotes possession and look what happened to them once they got a dude who didnt leak goals against
Yup, that's also true. It seems the Canucks are in a weird spot right now. They have the underlying numbers to justify the way they are playing, yet inherent to those numbers is playing a game that aims to reduce risk first, and the best way to do that is to push the puck the other way regardless of style or support. The objective is to push the puck period, and everything will sort itself out later.
Will be interesting to see where this ends up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck
In the attacking end of the rink, yeah I think you're right in that it tends to promote puck possession, although by being too passive in our own zone I'm not sure if it's also a contributing factor. Although certain other areas like the breakout that had been in place for most of this season thus far seem to go against their philosophy - poor puck support is almost by definition the very opposite of that style of play.
But if you look if the other good teams like LAK and STL, they don't appear to have the problems we do in getting the puck to high-percentage scoring areas. This could be partly due to the amount of size + skill they have, but not only are they good at getting it back regardless of the zone, they also know how to attack with it too in the first place.
For supposedly 'defense-first' clubs who don't have a tremendous amount of team speed up front they certainly aren't afraid to risk turnovers and take the puck into the middle of the ice to get scoring chances - particularly LA.
So I don't think possession and creation of opportunities are mutually exclusive. We may not have a ton of size up front but there should be schemes in place to help capitalize on those chances whenever someone like Booth takes it to the net hard. Even just crashing the crease. Looking around the league teams that are smaller up front than us can still manage to get garbage goals in front of the net. Even someone small like Gabriel Bourque the other night against Nashville. How often do we get those?
But I agree about the stats. It could be one instance where the numbers don't exactly tell the whole story - short of aggregate chance data or shot location.
Possession in the way the Canucks do it comes at the expense of opportunities. The contrast are teams like LA and STL. They get their chances from along the wall _and_ in front, while the Canucks haven't figured out how to utilize the middle of the ice as effectively.
The breakout factors in greatly here. If they fix the breakout then they can start to get more from the middle of the ice, which will only supplement their chance data from along the perimeter.
I think the importance of playmaking is bring underrated here.
The Canucks are missing an NHL level top 9 passer on any line except the Sedin line. It's no wonder only the Sedin line can move from the boards to dangerous scoring areas while or other lines can't.
We win possession all over the ice and generate shots but we doing get in truly dangerous areas which means there are less rebounds and overall lower grade scoring opportunities even though we are winning in many other areas.
^ I think when fully healthy, this team has at least 4 good playmakers: Henrik (just leaving Daniel out as you know they're not being split up), Kassian, Schroeder and Hansen. 2 from the center ice position and 2 from the RW.
Kesler is the wildcard, I feel. He's capable of doing it like he has in the past but who knows if he will?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean
Possession in the way the Canucks do it comes at the expense of opportunities. The contrast are teams like LA and STL. They get their chances from along the wall _and_ in front, while the Canucks haven't figured out how to utilize the middle of the ice as effectively.
The breakout factors in greatly here. If they fix the breakout then they can start to get more from the middle of the ice, which will only supplement their chance data from along the perimeter.
The question is if they can get more chances out of it without changing how they attack (I'd say unlikely), yet a team like LA is able to do it better, and get more opportunities out of it at the same time. So far though against the Blues, Kings and Hawks I'm not seeing it (going off what I remember of the chance data). But it's just worrying that even against lesser teams they still struggle at this too.
What does Hansen do at a top-6 level?
Score? No
Play physical? Yes
Playmake? No
Strong defence? yes
Feel free to add criteria or argue that my evaluations are wrong. But at least try to come up with something more productive than your previous post.
funny that you say that because Hansen is 1 goal behind Daniel and 3rd on the team in points. So I say yes he scores, and yes he can playmake because his passes are more than often leading to goals. One example is Higgins' goal from a couple weeks back. He is on pace for 50 points this year which is decent for a complimentary winger, and he's 26. so he could very well be a top 6 forward in the future provided that he continues along his development curve, particularly his hands. In recent years, he's been trending upwards in terms of points and has been getting better each year so I don't see why he can't morph into a top 6 forward at some point. This has been an extremely biased post by Promethesis. good night.
funny that you say that because Hansen is 1 goal behind Daniel and 3rd on the team in points. So I say yes he scores, and yes he can playmake because his passes are more than often leading to goals. One example is Higgins' goal from a couple weeks back. He is on pace for 50 points this year which is decent for a complimentary winger, and he's 26. so he could very well be a top 6 forward in the future provided that he continues along his development curve, particularly his hands. In recent years, he's been trending upwards in terms of points and has been getting better each year so I don't see why he can't morph into a top 6 forward at some point. This has been an extremely biased post by Promethesis. good night.
He's been amazing this year, and is a complete player unlike Booth. He's made some great passes, unlike Booth, that heads up play at the end of the game to kill time was proof of his hockey sense, which Booth completely lacks. And that shot tonight.. wow Booth could never make that shot even if his life depended on it.
He's been amazing this year, and is a complete player unlike Booth. He's made some great passes, unlike Booth, that heads up play at the end of the game to kill time was proof of his hockey sense, which Booth completely lacks. And that shot tonight.. wow Booth could never make that shot even if his life depended on it.
He's been amazing this year, and is a complete player unlike Booth. He's made some great passes, unlike Booth, that heads up play at the end of the game to kill time was proof of his hockey sense, which Booth completely lacks. And that shot tonight.. wow Booth could never make that shot even if his life depended on it.
This team needs more Hansen, less Booth.
Lol... I could be wrong here, but I'm guessing you're not a Booth "fan". Hahaha
He's been amazing this year, and is a complete player unlike Booth. He's made some great passes, unlike Booth, that heads up play at the end of the game to kill time was proof of his hockey sense, which Booth completely lacks. And that shot tonight.. wow Booth could never make that shot even if his life depended on it.
This team needs more Hansen, less Booth.
At this point I wonder if it's possible for you to comment on any Canuck player without throwing in at least a couple digs at Booth.
What does Raymond do at a top-6 level?
Score? Borderline
Play physical? No
Playmake? No
Strong defense? Yes
What does Booth do at a top-6 level?
Score? No
Play physical? Borderline
Playmake? No
Strong defense? No
What does Hansen do at a top-6 level?
Score? No
Play physical? Yes
Playmake? No
Strong defense? Yes
What does Higgins do at a top-6 level?
Score? No
Play physical? No
Playmake? No
Strong defense? Yes
Feel free to add criteria or argue that my evaluations are wrong. But at least try to come up with something more productive than your previous post.
I fail to see why physical play and strong defense are required in a top 6 forward. Nice to have, but if a guy isn't afraid of contact and isn't a liability then what does it matter?
Raymond is a top 6 forward by reasonable standards.
