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

Most of Nash's goals are meaningless...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2013, 08:41 PM
  #1
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,172
vCash: 500
Most of Nash's goals are meaningless...

... or so Columbus fans want you to believe.

Was going to throw this in the "How many goals will Rick Nash score?" thread, but decided to put it in it's own thread so people that don't visit that thread but subscribe to the idea that he scores a majority of his goals in meaningless situations might see it.

This isn't all of his goals, it's only 278 of them, I couldn't get data for all of them due to game logs only going so far back. It should be fairly accurate, but I am a human being so I might have made a mistake or two.

What it shows as far as his goal scoring is the bulk of his goals come when the game is tied, or his team is either trailing or leading by one goal. Looking through the game logs a lot of his goals are early and give his team the lead, 65% of his goals come in the aforementioned situations.

So already over half of his goals should be considered meaningful, which lays to rest the claims that he scores a majority of his goals in meaningless situations or when the team is either way ahead or too far behind. However, in '11-'12 there was a very clear pattern and a fair share of his goals did come in blowout games, which is probably why people recall that memory. It's the most recent one they have of him.

52% of his goals either tied the game or gave his team the lead, a number of them when the team is down two goals or up two goals ended up being key goals that started a comeback or padded the lead before CBJ let down and gave up a couple late in games.

The bottom portion of the chart shows some stats for games his teams won and lost and by what differential based on his scoring, what it shows in my opinion is just how bad those Columbus teams were. They lost a lot of games they either had a lead in or came back and tied. Quite a few of them by three or more goals.

So just how many of his goals are meaningless? Tough to really say since everyone's opinion on the matter is bound to vary a little, but IMO you take the goals he scored in blowout losses and games where the team was down by three at some point and lost, and the same goes for the blowout wins or games they were up by 3 and won by that margin or better and it gives you a rough idea. Which is roughly 11%.

The bottom half is more of a headache than anything, reason being is multiple goal games, if he scored multiple goals I put the W or L in the column that corresponded to his last goal of the game. That's why they don't all add up properly.




Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:07 PM
  #2
Miller Time NYR
Wrong^
 
Miller Time NYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
First off is it possible to score a meaningless goal on a team that was nearly incapable of scoring more than 2/3 goals a game...

Second I don't know about the argument from Columbus fans but its not like they were blowing teams away over the last 10 years giving nash the opportunity to score a "meaningless" goal in a 5-2/6-1 etc win...?

Also if Columbus fans are going to argue his goals came during blowout losses what the **** is he supposed to do not score at all how is that his fault and how does that discredit him from being an elite goal scorer.... The whole concept is laughable

Miller Time NYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:14 PM
  #3
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishBullet62 View Post
First off is it possible to score a meaningless goal on a team that was nearly incapable of scoring more than 2/3 goals a game...

Second I don't know about the argument from Columbus fans but its not like they were blowing teams away over the last 10 years giving nash the opportunity to score a "meaningless" goal in a 5-2/6-1 etc win...?
You'd be surprised, but the majority of what they considered meaningless were in blowout losses. Basically any goal that didn't actually help the team, whether it be a goal late in a game when down 3 or a goal that padded the lead.

Bringing up Columbus fans in this situation is somewhat hyperbolic, I only did it because someone in the other thread mentioned that "Columbus fans are always saying he scored a lot of meaningless goals." But it is something I've seen said on HF by many fans, especially when he was talked about before the trade happened and people were trying to find ways to support not wanting him on their team.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:17 PM
  #4
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,108
vCash: 500
Nash was pretty irrelevant goal scoring wise in the playoffs for us.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:40 PM
  #5
Cresto
In the pantry
 
Cresto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
mmmm I was saying something about this a while ago and someone countered that he had a lot of 3rd period goals and I didn't have the mental fortitude to gather the relevant information. Thanks, this helps! Also, from what CBJ fans were saying, this year is pretty much a reflection of his scoring. I think it's his size and puck possession being a real advantage against the opposition when the game is iced in either directions.

Cresto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:42 PM
  #6
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
Nash was pretty irrelevant goal scoring wise in the playoffs for us.
I know right, he had the same amount as Toews through his first three rounds of PO's, Seguin through the entirety of the playoffs, Ovechkin, Selanne, and just one fewer than Kane through two rounds.

His playoffs weren't great but he's not the only player that struggled in the post season, especially on this team.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:46 PM
  #7
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,706
vCash: 500
We should've fired him instead of Torts

JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:50 PM
  #8
Cresto
In the pantry
 
Cresto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
I mean, he responded "good" when asked how his PO performance was... I think he's just trying to be positive instead of being political about it. His response also makes me wonder if he's satisfied because he's happy with his effort but there was something beyond his control at that point that he felt resulted in his inability to score.

Cresto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 10:11 PM
  #9
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCrusty View Post
I mean, he responded "good" when asked how his PO performance was... I think he's just trying to be positive instead of being political about it. His response also makes me wonder if he's satisfied because he's happy with his effort but there was something beyond his control at that point that he felt resulted in his inability to score.
Nash saying he thought it was good, was probably just trying to be positive like you said, he's a pretty laid back guy, and something being a good experience doesn't necessarily mean it was flawless and a lot of fun. If you have a terrible day at work where things are constantly going wrong, but you learn new ways to handle those situations you can say it was a good experience. Either way, it's time for the '13-'14 season and rehashing these old arguments seems pointless.

Time will tell as far as all of these players are concerned, and hopefully Nash and Stepan don't have another bad playoffs.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 10:57 PM
  #10
Cresto
In the pantry
 
Cresto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
I thought Step was excellent considering Nash wasn't.

Cresto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:13 PM
  #11
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,706
vCash: 500
I'd like to give Step a break considering his two line mates equaled 2 arms

JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:29 PM
  #12
Aufheben
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 11,959
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnC View Post
I'd like to give Step a break considering his two line mates equaled 2 arms
I didn't realize we had an astrophysicist among us on HFNYR!

Nash clutch during the regular season. Probably a case of a fanbase lowering their opinion of a player once he's traded. Seemed like every goal he score was meaningful.

Aufheben is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:36 PM
  #13
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
I didn't realize we had an astrophysicist among us on HFNYR!
I don't understand. I'm a business student

JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 11:37 PM
  #14
Aufheben
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 11,959
vCash: 69
Sorry, bad joke. Carry on, lol.

Aufheben is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 01:21 AM
  #15
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
I know right, he had the same amount as Toews through his first three rounds of PO's, Seguin through the entirety of the playoffs, Ovechkin, Selanne, and just one fewer than Kane through two rounds.

His playoffs weren't great but he's not the only player that struggled in the post season, especially on this team.
Lowering the bar including guys like Seguin and Selanne in there. Then you include Ovechkin who played in less games and against the best goalie in the world in his games, so there goes that example. Now you consider Toews who got a solid amount of bad press for his offensive output, but he's not supposed to be the pure goal scorer Nash is supposed to be. Nash contributes NOTHING other than his goal scoring. He's been a poor playmaker, he's got no heart, he doesn't play D, he doesn't hit, he doesn't lead. Toews is/does all of those things which make him valuable even when he's not putting the puck in the net. Same goes for Kane, who's season high goal total was 30 which he only did once.

Nash has been a disappointment so far. And I had low expectations of him coming into things.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 01:24 AM
  #16
Aufheben
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Angola
Posts: 11,959
vCash: 69
His playoffs were disappointing, along with many other Rangers; His regular season was great.

Aufheben is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 01:36 AM
  #17
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
Lowering the bar including guys like Seguin and Selanne in there. Then you include Ovechkin who played in less games and against the best goalie in the world in his games, so there goes that example. Now you consider Toews who got a solid amount of bad press for his offensive output, but he's not supposed to be the pure goal scorer Nash is supposed to be. Nash contributes NOTHING other than his goal scoring. He's been a poor playmaker, he's got no heart, he doesn't play D, he doesn't hit, he doesn't lead. Toews is/does all of those things which make him valuable even when he's not putting the puck in the net. Same goes for Kane, who's season high goal total was 30 which he only did once.

Nash has been a disappointment so far. And I had low expectations of him coming into things.
You're making excuses for everyone listed except the player you have a strong distaste of, poor basis for an argument. You've revealed your deck on certain topics and left yourself exposed without even showing the slightest hint of objectivity. So what point is there in discussing said topics with you?

I know of several people who disagree with your assessment, which has no bearing on your opinion, so you either think you know everything, or you're ignorant. There doesn't seem to be any gray area, which is ok. But discussing anything with someone like that doesn't really appeal to me.

It's not as if anyone is trying to force you to believe Nash had a good playoffs, or even to like him. I posted this because I saw the topic in another thread, and thought I'd dissect it, has nothing to do with the post season.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 02:05 AM
  #18
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
You're making excuses for everyone listed except the player you have a strong distaste of, poor basis for an argument. You've revealed your deck on certain topics and left yourself exposed without even showing the slightest hint of objectivity. So what point is there in discussing said topics with you?

I know of several people who disagree with your assessment, which has no bearing on your opinion, so you either think you know everything, or you're ignorant. There doesn't seem to be any gray area, which is ok. But discussing anything with someone like that doesn't really appeal to me.

It's not as if anyone is trying to force you to believe Nash had a good playoffs, or even to like him. I posted this because I saw the topic in another thread, and thought I'd dissect it, has nothing to do with the post season.
No, I'm explaining to you why your examples were bad. If you think I was wrong, explain why instead of going on some long whining *****fest about me having a POV you don't like. It's differing POVs that make these boards interesting. Everyone has a POV, there's no such thing as absolute objectivity coming from any human being in any field or topic. However, that doesn't mean that certain arguments aren't better than others objectively. Right now my POV is informed by my best effort at objective analysis. I don't want Nash to suck, he's the best forward on my favorite team. But, based on what I've seen from him and from other players in the league I'm very concerned he's not good enough to build a championship team around.

Now bringing this back to the point of this thread, I said Nash was meaningless as a goalscorer in the playoffs. 1 goal in 12 games is a pretty good piece of evidence I got going for me there. Now, you countered by trying to say that other similar players have been just as poor, and I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point of bringing this up was to say that either I shouldn't be so down on Nash (although this doesn't really counter my point about him) or that since these other players didn't score many goals in the last playoffs I shouldn't be concerned that Nash didn't. I think the latter is the weaker argument, but has the desired implication you want, that either Nash will be better in the future or that we won't need him to be.

Now my response to your argument there was to say that your comparison was faulty. In order for a comparison to have a point, the objects of comparison have to be similar. I'll grant you that half of the equation here works, the lack of goalscoring in last year's playoffs. But that's only half, you need the other have to work too. The other part is that the players you used have to have strong similarities to Nash. Here is where I disputed your notion and explained why. I think I thoroughly dismantled your argument, but if you think you can explain where I went wrong I'd be very willing and eager to hear it. So just to be clear, you need to explain why those players were good comparables to Nash in light of the reasons I explained they were not.

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 02:35 AM
  #19
Carlos Ranger
Zucc-a-Rella
 
Carlos Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,180
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishBullet62 View Post
First off is it possible to score a meaningless goal on a team that was nearly incapable of scoring more than 2/3 goals a game...
You're almost correct.. but Richards managed to do it a lot.

Carlos Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 03:08 AM
  #20
Cresto
In the pantry
 
Cresto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
I don't think it should be thought of like this. He scores goals when the game is no longer relevant so barring constant and dramatic comebacks, they're pretty useless. However, I think it's better to think of Nash's goal scoring ability as a B+ on top of which he scores goals when both teams are floating as opposed to an grade A scoring ability but he scores useless goals often.

Remembering back to the beginning of the season when Nash was basically breaking through defense every other game and for those first 8 games or so, he out dangling and out maneuvering at a Malkin+ level. After that, he stopped doing that almost completely. His goals from thereafter were less pretty and had a lot more to do with structured goals and I think it's a bit problematic when you don't utilize that skill set. His size may not be used much in a physical manner but what it is used for is scoring goals.

Watching Gaborik's demotion to the 3rd and 4th line, disregard everything that lead to him getting there, skill sets are not being used. Torts has his reasoning for constructing the top six the way he did but that was his comfort zone and Gaborik wasn't a part of what he had in mind which frankly was stupid because there should be a lot more focus on your 40 goal scorer.

In any case, Nash's pointless goals are a product of the other team letting up defensively which leads me to believe that the reason why Hagelin - Stepan - Nash worked well is because of Stepan and Hagelin's puck carrying and skating. Step understands how to create space through the neutral zone and skates well. Hagelin skating ability is as good as anyone and the both of them are both actual threats with the puck in the neutral zone to inside the offensive zone as opposed to a Ryan Callahan, an irrelevant Gaborik in Tortorella's dump-in/anti-carry-the-puck-into-the-offensive-zone, or a Richards who could barely skate at an NHL level last season. Our LW depth was and is pretty meh and so there weren't any competent LWs who were able to create an offensive threat so that pretty much left only Hagelin. Basically, putting that seafood Paella together, Hagelin-Stepan-Nash wasn't magical at all. It was just good complimentary skill sets.

Nash's playoff performance was ten degrees of meh but considering he had to deal with the top defensive pairings that had the same goal as McDonagh when it came to OVechkin, it's not entirely his fault. When you look like a guy with Ovi who uses that explosiveness to create space and needs just a sliver of time to get a shot through, McDonagh was a good match on defense for us. His skating and sound positioning negates a lot of Ovi's strengths and it ended up being Ovi's linemates that did the bulk of the scoring on that top line.

When the intensity picks up in the PO and you're playing against a top 16 team every game and a top 16 top defensive pairing where strategies of matching lineups are so crucial, the fault isn't entirely with the player who was shutdown.

During the RS and in the PO especially OT, the transition game of Ottawa that left many of us mouthing off Torts for his complete incompetence to adjust to Walrus's speedy transition game executed by speedy young forwards is a part of why our top players always disappear during the playoffs. Our top guys are shut down and Torts didn't have a response. There isn't always a perfect way to counter being shut down but his style of not getting the defense involved and keeping the bottom six to largely defensive roles killed us in some ways. In 11-12, aside from Brad Richards, our defense did most of the important work. GWG in wins 9 and 10: Girardi & Girardi. GWG in win 8: Michael Del Zotto (opening goal BR), GWG in win 7 Staal, GWG in win 6 a rare Gaborik appearance set up by BR, GWG in win 5, a rookie Kreider, GWG in win 4, Girardi (other Ranger goal from Staal), GWG in win 3, Kreider's 1st NHL goal, win 2 Brian Boyle in a game where we won 1-0, game 1: Richards.

It's too easy for the top players like Nash, Gaborik, Stepan, and even a Callahan to be shut down in the PO. We need a few of the bottom 6 guys to be able to contribute offensively and not only provide offense but also allow for greater flexibility in terms of line ups and match ups. The defense need to become a part of the offense in a dramatic way at times to take the pressure off the forwards who are going to be facing powerhouses during the playoffs. There's no doubt in my mind that we have a lot more depth than last year and certainly a lot more scoring in our bottom six with the new additions and our center depth. If AV is able to convert on the top 9 and bottom 3 "energy line", then I think we will see a lot more production out of Nash and co during the playoffs.

His useless goals reflects his ability to work with time and space as a goal scorer and the lineups has a lot to do with how much time and space he has.


Last edited by Cresto: 09-03-2013 at 03:23 AM. Reason: missed a word
Cresto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 09:06 AM
  #21
Badko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 132
vCash: 500
This thread is a sure sign we need to get this season started soon!!

Badko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 11:27 AM
  #22
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
No, I'm explaining to you why your examples were bad. If you think I was wrong, explain why instead of going on some long whining *****fest about me having a POV you don't like. It's differing POVs that make these boards interesting. Everyone has a POV, there's no such thing as absolute objectivity coming from any human being in any field or topic. However, that doesn't mean that certain arguments aren't better than others objectively. Right now my POV is informed by my best effort at objective analysis. I don't want Nash to suck, he's the best forward on my favorite team. But, based on what I've seen from him and from other players in the league I'm very concerned he's not good enough to build a championship team around.

Now bringing this back to the point of this thread, I said Nash was meaningless as a goalscorer in the playoffs. 1 goal in 12 games is a pretty good piece of evidence I got going for me there. Now, you countered by trying to say that other similar players have been just as poor, and I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point of bringing this up was to say that either I shouldn't be so down on Nash (although this doesn't really counter my point about him) or that since these other players didn't score many goals in the last playoffs I shouldn't be concerned that Nash didn't. I think the latter is the weaker argument, but has the desired implication you want, that either Nash will be better in the future or that we won't need him to be.

Now my response to your argument there was to say that your comparison was faulty. In order for a comparison to have a point, the objects of comparison have to be similar. I'll grant you that half of the equation here works, the lack of goalscoring in last year's playoffs. But that's only half, you need the other have to work too. The other part is that the players you used have to have strong similarities to Nash. Here is where I disputed your notion and explained why. I think I thoroughly dismantled your argument, but if you think you can explain where I went wrong I'd be very willing and eager to hear it. So just to be clear, you need to explain why those players were good comparables to Nash in light of the reasons I explained they were not.
Nothing whiny about it, just an open and honest opinion. Sorry if you don't like it.

You missed the point completely, and it's simple. The point I am trying to illustrate is that bad playoff performances happen, even to guys with rings and substantial playoff experience. I don't really care if you are down on or dislike Nash. If you are to take anything away from it, and I'm not suggesting you should or will I would hope it was a slight tinge of optimism that maybe a player isn't as bad as you think, because **** happens and not all of it is defining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCrusty View Post
Condensed
While some of this is true, just looking at the sheer number of goals scored in the 1st period or when the differential is one, that teams shouldn't be floating in those situations. It's impossible to really know without dissecting each and every goal. But yes, I think some people fail to realize how easily teams can shut down a top performer in the PO's it happens all over the league, and guys like Malkin and Crosby that can perform consistently regardless of the game tightening up are an exception, not the rule.


Last edited by Barbara Underhill: 09-03-2013 at 11:33 AM.
Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 07:05 PM
  #23
shinchanyo
Registered User
 
shinchanyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Here
Posts: 2,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
No, I'm explaining to you why your examples were bad. If you think I was wrong, explain why instead of going on some long whining *****fest about me having a POV you don't like. It's differing POVs that make these boards interesting. Everyone has a POV,
This place is awful when it comes to actual debate and discussion. Most people just want to hear themselves talk and feel indignant as if a differing opinion is so offensive. It's pathetic from many people. With others maybe it's just being pissed off. Point is debate blows around here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Nothing whiny about it, just an open and honest opinion. Sorry if you don't like it.
Objective view on it. It seemed like you were just attacking him rather than his opinion. Just saying that and backing out of it.

shinchanyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 08:31 PM
  #24
azaloum90
Registered User
 
azaloum90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The coop!
Posts: 3,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCrusty View Post
I don't think it should be thought of like this. He scores goals when the game is no longer relevant so barring constant and dramatic comebacks, they're pretty useless. However, I think it's better to think of Nash's goal scoring ability as a B+ on top of which he scores goals when both teams are floating as opposed to an grade A scoring ability but he scores useless goals often.

Remembering back to the beginning of the season when Nash was basically breaking through defense every other game and for those first 8 games or so, he out dangling and out maneuvering at a Malkin+ level. After that, he stopped doing that almost completely. His goals from thereafter were less pretty and had a lot more to do with structured goals and I think it's a bit problematic when you don't utilize that skill set. His size may not be used much in a physical manner but what it is used for is scoring goals.

Watching Gaborik's demotion to the 3rd and 4th line, disregard everything that lead to him getting there, skill sets are not being used. Torts has his reasoning for constructing the top six the way he did but that was his comfort zone and Gaborik wasn't a part of what he had in mind which frankly was stupid because there should be a lot more focus on your 40 goal scorer.

In any case, Nash's pointless goals are a product of the other team letting up defensively which leads me to believe that the reason why Hagelin - Stepan - Nash worked well is because of Stepan and Hagelin's puck carrying and skating. Step understands how to create space through the neutral zone and skates well. Hagelin skating ability is as good as anyone and the both of them are both actual threats with the puck in the neutral zone to inside the offensive zone as opposed to a Ryan Callahan, an irrelevant Gaborik in Tortorella's dump-in/anti-carry-the-puck-into-the-offensive-zone, or a Richards who could barely skate at an NHL level last season. Our LW depth was and is pretty meh and so there weren't any competent LWs who were able to create an offensive threat so that pretty much left only Hagelin. Basically, putting that seafood Paella together, Hagelin-Stepan-Nash wasn't magical at all. It was just good complimentary skill sets.

Nash's playoff performance was ten degrees of meh but considering he had to deal with the top defensive pairings that had the same goal as McDonagh when it came to OVechkin, it's not entirely his fault. When you look like a guy with Ovi who uses that explosiveness to create space and needs just a sliver of time to get a shot through, McDonagh was a good match on defense for us. His skating and sound positioning negates a lot of Ovi's strengths and it ended up being Ovi's linemates that did the bulk of the scoring on that top line.

When the intensity picks up in the PO and you're playing against a top 16 team every game and a top 16 top defensive pairing where strategies of matching lineups are so crucial, the fault isn't entirely with the player who was shutdown.

During the RS and in the PO especially OT, the transition game of Ottawa that left many of us mouthing off Torts for his complete incompetence to adjust to Walrus's speedy transition game executed by speedy young forwards is a part of why our top players always disappear during the playoffs. Our top guys are shut down and Torts didn't have a response. There isn't always a perfect way to counter being shut down but his style of not getting the defense involved and keeping the bottom six to largely defensive roles killed us in some ways. In 11-12, aside from Brad Richards, our defense did most of the important work. GWG in wins 9 and 10: Girardi & Girardi. GWG in win 8: Michael Del Zotto (opening goal BR), GWG in win 7 Staal, GWG in win 6 a rare Gaborik appearance set up by BR, GWG in win 5, a rookie Kreider, GWG in win 4, Girardi (other Ranger goal from Staal), GWG in win 3, Kreider's 1st NHL goal, win 2 Brian Boyle in a game where we won 1-0, game 1: Richards.

It's too easy for the top players like Nash, Gaborik, Stepan, and even a Callahan to be shut down in the PO. We need a few of the bottom 6 guys to be able to contribute offensively and not only provide offense but also allow for greater flexibility in terms of line ups and match ups. The defense need to become a part of the offense in a dramatic way at times to take the pressure off the forwards who are going to be facing powerhouses during the playoffs. There's no doubt in my mind that we have a lot more depth than last year and certainly a lot more scoring in our bottom six with the new additions and our center depth. If AV is able to convert on the top 9 and bottom 3 "energy line", then I think we will see a lot more production out of Nash and co during the playoffs.

His useless goals reflects his ability to work with time and space as a goal scorer and the lineups has a lot to do with how much time and space he has.
absolutely awesome post. Thanks for pulling all of that information.

Padded goals are meh, but every player has them. Boyle had, what, 4 goals last year? 1 empty net and one off his ass... Richards had 5-7, including one off of Dan Ellis' skate from the board, and one off of a Sabres Defensemen. These goals happen, I don't think a regular 30+ goal scorer would even have the luck to have 80-90% of their goals to be "padding goals"...

hell, if they were, this guy doesn't have luck, it just goes to show that some players know their position on the ice in specific situations, and are able to read the game in front of them.... It shows their awareness, regardless of those goals being "meaningful" or not. Chicago displayed this immensely last season. There were games that they looked like they were sure to lose (especially during their win streak in the beginning of the season), and yet you could watch them claw back from a 2-1 loss to a 4-2 win in a matter of 6-8 game minutes.. Luck? Maybe, but they CREATED that luck, and thats really where the hockey mind shines

Just my opinion.

azaloum90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 08:52 PM
  #25
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,706
vCash: 500
The entirety of Brad Richards' only NHL hat trick didn't even make sense. **** happens sometimes when it comes to goals. But goals is goals as far as I'm concerned, some just matter more than others

JohnC 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 10:38 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.