Everyone is a FA. Where do you draft Backstrom?
by JSchon on Sep 2, 2010 12:34 PM EDT
Email
PrintSo Backstrom is better than any defenseman in the NHL? Sorry … not buying it.
This quote prompted me to post this. If everyone in the NHL was a free agent, and all 30 teams had to start over from scratch, how would the draft pan out. Salary is not part of the criteria but age, potential and production are. My argument stems from an article on "From the Rink", saying that Mike Green wasn't one of their top 5 defensemen for the Norris, and that part of the reason was that Green isn't considered the best player on his own team, a team that has Ovechkin, Backstrom and Semin on it.
The quote from FTR was in response to my quote saying that any of the said defensemen (Chara, Lidstrom, Keith, Weber and Doughty) would be at best the 3rd best player on the Capitals behind Ovechkin and Backstrom.
So the question is where do you draft Nicklas Backstrom in an entire league draft? And are there any defensemen that you'd take before Backstrom?
People around the NHL all think Backstrom is a really good player, but most of us here recognize how important and special Backstrom is as a player to our team. This isn't homerism, this is the truth. Backstrom is a force, not in the same way as Ovechkin but a player who has tremendous vision, balanced, calm, unflinching, strong on and off the puck, quiet moxie, hands as good as any and is the straw that stirs the 1st line when its working the way it should. Backstrom is very important to us, but more so to the point of the FanPost the guy is an amazing talent.
So here are the top players in the league based on position, age, production and potential.
C - Crosby/Backstrom/Toews/Sedin/Datysuk
LW - Ovechkin/Kovalchuk/Nash/Heatley/Zetterberg
RW - Kane/St Louis/Hossa/Perry/Iginla
D - Weber/Chara/Keith/Green/Doughty/Lidstrom - for the sake of keeping the story consistent, I used the defensemen that are being debated
G - Miller/Vukoun/Lundqvist/Luongo/Backstrom
Do your draft. Here is mine.
1. Ovechkin LW
2. Crosby C
3. Miller G
4. Toews C
5. Backstrom C
6. Datysuk C
7. Kane RW
8. Doughty D
9. Keith D
10. Green D
11. Lundqvist G
12. Luongo G
13. Sedin C
14. Nash LW
15. Vukoun G
16. Kovalchuk LW
17. Malkin C
My point is that I'd take Backstrom ahead of Doughty, Keith and Green. In fact I'd go off of the table of players listed and draft C's ahead of lots of the remaining players because of the importance of that position. I took Toews ahead of Backstrom because of his leadership skills and superior defensive and faceoff skills.
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
171 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I seem to recall Backstrom playing pretty good D on a 5 on 3.
What percentage of NHL defensemen are on a 5-on-3 PK unit to start with?
For clarity, you couldn’t draft all these players like this in any draft obviously. So this is your pre-draft ranking? i.e. if Ovi and Crosby were taken your first choice would be a goalie?
Just trying to understand the context for discussion per the rankings
"Tikkanen's miss was not as dramatic as the penalty shot Joe Juneau missed in Washington's quadruple-overtime playoff loss to Pittsburgh two years [previous]." - Washington Post game recap 6/12/98
It’d be like GM’s who use the philosophy of drafting based on skill vs need. K
Incidentally between 2000 and 2003, the top pick chosen in the draft twice actually was a goalie…
"Tikkanen's miss was not as dramatic as the penalty shot Joe Juneau missed in Washington's quadruple-overtime playoff loss to Pittsburgh two years [previous]." - Washington Post game recap 6/12/98
It’s tough, for sure. I’ll get rid of Vokoun, Lidstrom, St. Louis, Hossa, Iginla, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Henrik Sedin, Heatley, Chara, Luongo, Niklas Backstrom (Finn), Miller out right off the bat (most due to age, some durability, some playoff performance, some are simply not proven enough at an elite level). I’ll throw in Tuukka Rask, Eric Staal, Marc Staal, Evgeni Malkin, Mike Richards, Steven Stamkos, Ryan Getzlaf, Zach Parise, Jonas Hiller, and Ryan Kesler too. I ranked by position and did overall until I got to Backstrom.
Center:
Crosby—center
Evgeni Malkin—he’s still young and very very good, on average
Backstrom—um, he’s good
Steven Stamkos—50 goals before age 20: Stamkos, Gretzky, I think one other guy, anyone else?
Mike Richards—heavy lifter and top-line center. Not that skilled but plays with his heart on his sleeve.
Toews—Solid all around player with more offensive upside, plus leadership (at least, that’s what we all hear)
Mikko Koivu—an outstanding defensive forward and pretty good counting stats too
Eric Staal—plays tough minutes and puts up decent counting stats
Getzlaf—like Perry, but a center, more skilled, bigger, stronger, and a better playmaker
Kesler—only 26 and a great two-way forward. His great counting stats sometimes get overlooked, including by yours truly for a while.
Paul Stastny—if he didn’t get hurt somewhat often, he’d get more MSM coverage for sure. He’s really good offensively
Wing:
Ovechkin—winger
Nash—scores a lot with less help than Crosby and is capable of heavy lifting and PK work too
Parise—works 110% all the time and plays bigger than his size. Not that skilled but gets the goals and points.
Kane—gifted playmaker, but defensive game needs work and can’t compensate with overwhelming offensive game like Ovechkin or Crosby
Kovalchuk—hasn’t shown Corsi or heavy lifting ability that the others have, but an extremely gifted scorer
Perry—I don’t know, I like him a lot. He’s big, skilled, and in-your-face.
Defense:
Doughty—young stud D (this pick is a little risky, but high reward too)
Green—Two active players have back to back 70 pt season before age 25. I think you know one.
Keith—just great and has a lot of years left. Skating Dmen age well.
Weber—just great. Not as dynamic offensively as others but plays the traditional puck passing and blasting D role well
Marc Staal—plays the toughest (by QualComp plus-minus based, not Corsi) minutes and puts up decent counting stats with almost no power play time
Goalie:
Rask—young, risky because of his short career to date, but he has put up excellent numbers in that span of three years. He’s only 23, too.
Lundqvist—he’s only 28 and already has 5 30-win, better than .910 sv%, and under 2.50 GAA seasons. In fact, those came in five tries.
Hiller—he’s been getting results in Anaheim, at least personal results. He’s been one of the best goalies over the past few years.
Overall:
Crosby, Ovechkin, Doughty, Malkin, Green, Backstrom. I really want to see more dominance from Backstrom before I put him tied with Doughty.
Guys who you know some GM will feel the need to draft high-risk high-reward, forgetting that they’re guaranteed a great player if they pick someone else, in no particular order:
Jonathan Tavares—you break a Gretzky record, you’re good.
Semyon Varlamov—the issue I see here is going DiPietro—great, but only when healthy
Carey Price—Is he even 22? May need a change of scenery to achieve his high upside
PK Subban—A very risky but confident puck mover.
John Carlson—His exploits are already the stuff of legend and he’s only 20.
Alex Pietrangelo—THN and HF’s top prospect in hockey. He’s torn up juniors
Oliver Ekman-Larsson—great defensive prospect. His skating and smarts make him potentially a perennial all-star, or so I read.
Jonathan Bernier—great AHL goalie, will get his first good chance at an NHL job in a few weeks.
If we are talking about importance of position
we have to start with D men. Why do teams with Chris Pronger on them keep going to the Stanley Cup finals I wonder? Not to mention the Norris trophy winner being on the SCF winning team this past season. Drew Doughty is a Norris finalist and is what? 20? 21? He may just be my first overall pick maybe not but he is certainly ahead of Backstrom. As are Weber and Keith.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 2, 2010 2:27 PM EDT reply actions
There is no way that Doughty is the #1 pick overall in the league. No way.
I’d be stunned to see him go in the top 5.
4th Floor, is next, swimvare, undervare, Eric Fehr...
Stunned? Really?
A GM can pick any player in the league to build his team and he isn’t going to take a 21 year old D man who is already arguably the top D man in the league? It would be like being able to take Nik Lidstrom when he was 21 except Doughty is better now than Lidstrom was at that age. What would be stunning about that? I think maybe being in the East you don’t realize just how good Doughty is.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 2, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, since the origin of the discussion was a quote about current ability, I think the hypothetical draft is going with a one-year time frame, and under those circumstances, I Doughty’s not a slam dunk top five.
Yeah, a two-year player with one strong season is a bit of a risk.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think he’s a risk at all. I think he’s even less of a risk going into this season than Backstrom was going into last season.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Don’t you feel it’s a bit of a leap of faith? I know you think Doughty is the real deal, but it’s hard to know unless the guy has been playing at a high level for several years (Backstrom is a bit of a leap of faith as well). And when you have another great player you can take instead of Doughty, it becomes legitimate to ask whether Doughty is worth the risk.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2010 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Doughty was very good as a rookie, continually developing all season. Then he continued that same trajectory the entire last season. I don’t think it’s a fluke; I think he’s got tremendous skill and a great head for the game. I only see him getting better. I felt the same way about Backstrom last off-season (and there are plenty of arguments where I make basically this same case). Young necessarily means unproven to some degree, but when you find a guy with elite talent that is already putting it together it’s a safe bet that they’ll keep developing. One good year maybe I’m weary of, but 2 good years is more reliable for these type of players.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
He was also Canada's best D man
for most of the Olympics bar the final game when Niedermayer really stepped up.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 2, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
True?
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh you know I’m on your side on this one, but I also think Doughty is incredible.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
No doubt, and Doughty’s one of two defenseman I’d take over Shea when starting a team. The other is not Mike Green.
You can't really go wrong with any of
Doughty, Keith and Weber. It’s nice that all 3 are Canadian.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
So under the radar. I’m not convinced Weber is better than Suter.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
You wouldn’t believe the amount of times Suter compensates for a Weber gaffe.
Weber is considered better because he’s the flashiest defenseman in the league. I think its too close to call.
I've seen every game
of that tournament at least 3 times (apparently our sports stations have nothing else to show) and Doughty for me was the best D man on the ice for most of our games. There were a lot of good players though and I am sure other people would say Keith or Weber had better tournaments. But what I saw and what I like to see from D men Doughty was the best.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Then how are you ranking Rask as the top goalie?
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 3, 2010 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
3 yrs > 2, Rask is far younger than any other goalie that comes to mind, and I’m much more convinced that there are defensemen who’ll be able to perform at a high level for a long time than goalies.
by red army line on Sep 3, 2010 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
You can’t seriously be giving Rask credit for 3 years in the NHL. He has 50 games in the NHL, 45 of them in this past season. That’s 11 fewer games in his career than Steve Mason played when he won the Calder.
And you are right that the developmental curves of defensemen are more stable. That’s why 163 games from Doughty > 50 games from Rask.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 3, 2010 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
He showed me that he can play at a high level in three different seasons, which is one aspect. He took the starting job not just as a 23 year old, but from the reigning Vezina winner too, and it’s not like Thomas was bad at all.
I think I’m also applying a bit of a different standard since goalies in my mind don’t enter the conversation until around #20, if not later. With the first few picks you just have to “not miss” and Doughty is the one most likely to be the “miss” of that group, even if it is very very unlikely. At some point in the draft upside outweighs safeness, and in my opinion that doesn’t come until late first round, if not later.
I’m much more convinced that there are defensemen who’ll be able to perform at a high level for a long time than goalies.
My point was that among the “certain” goalies like Lundqvist, Luongo, etc, you basically only have 5-7 more years of solid play. Rask, possibly another 10 or 11, so we could be looking at 100% more. Doughty, maybe 16 or more, and with Keith maybe another 10, it’s 50% higher.
I think the discussion originated around Section 312’s comment that basically Doughty is slam-dunk #1. I had him #3 behind the two best skaters—it’s not that big of a deal, really. Crosby and AO are just a little farther ahead of their peers on offense than Doughty is on defense, I think. That’s it.
by red army line on Sep 4, 2010 3:58 AM EDT up reply actions
How exactly are you giving Rask 3 solid years of performance in the NHL? And saying that he’s less of a risk than a player that actually has multiple years of experience in the NHL?
The guy is Peter Schumpmaker. Lord knows what a schump is, but you can bet your bippy his ancestors made them. What he's doing is far worse than crafting fine schumps.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Sep 4, 2010 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
He showed me that he can play at a high level in three different seasons,
is distinct from
How exactly are you giving Rask 3 solid years of performance in the NHL?
For me, at least, that almost eliminates the “one year wonder” aspect, though it doesn’t eliminate “small sample.”
At some point in the draft upside outweighs safeness, and in my opinion that doesn’t come until late first round, if not later.
…which is the absolute earliest spot I’d draft a goalie. Again, I had Doughty #3 behind Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin.
And saying that he’s less of a risk than a player that actually has multiple years of experience in the NHL?
That’s not what I said. In my mind there are only two guys who are absolute locks to keep playing at the same level for the next 7-10 years and at a very high level for the 3-5 after that. Doughty is not one of those players yet.
by red army line on Sep 4, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Not to come off as a jerk
but if that’s what you think on Doughty you are flat out wrong. He is one of those players now and is only going to get better.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 4, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The point isn’t about where you rank Doughty relative to Rask. It’s that you are punishing Doughty for inexperience while pretty much ignoring inexperience for Rask, despite the fact that when predicting future performance a small sample size is much more of a problem for goalies than defensemen. The development of goalies is way more unpredictable.
He showed me that he can play at a high level in three different seasons
That’s quite generous. He’s played 4 games, 1 game and 45 games. To me those first two seasons are pretty much worthless in predicting his ability as a starter – playing at a high level for a goalie necessarily involves many games because a high level involves consistency. Plus, even if you think that 4 games means anything, his stats for that season were .886 and 3.26 – hardly elite numbers.
Rask has played 50 games in his career. I think it is foolish to think that the fact that 5 of them came in two other seasons says anything about him being a one hit wonder. Jim Carey played 28 games, then won the Vezina playing 71 games. Steve Mason played 61 games and won the Calder. Andrew Raycroft played 57 games and won the Calder (and his Bruins didn’t have Chara, Wideman and the Julien system in front of him).
You are right that proven goalies have fewer years left in them – that’s because it takes longer for goalies to break in and prove themselves. This is all connected to the unpredictability of goalies and it’s why so few goalies go high in the draft. Potential does outweigh safeness at some point, but that point is way different for goalies. That’s why even the best goalie prospects have little trade value – potential means a lot less when you don’t have a good idea who is likely to meet that potential or not.
In sum, Doughty has played more games and proven more (he was a top-3 Dman in the league – Rask wasn’t even the top rookie goalie, much less a top-3 goalie overall) at a position whose developmental curve is easier to predict. So I don’t see how you can treat Rask as though he were a lock but consider Doughty a risk. I’d take the almost definite 5-7 years (minimum) of great goaltending from Lundqvist, Miller, or Luongo (and then find another goalie) over the gamble that Rask will put up the same kinds of numbers for the next decade. Rask needs to have at least one great season as a full time starter before he’s in the best goalie conversation.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 5, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The point isn’t about where you rank Doughty relative to Rask. It’s that you are punishing Doughty for inexperience while pretty much ignoring inexperience for Rask,
I do punish Rask—it just doesn’t show as well. Like you say, it’s tough to judge goalies.
For Doughty, well, we’re talking Alex Ovechkin versus Sidney Crosby versus Drew Doughty. I really don’t see why it’s so bad to rate Doughty, at this point, lower than two lock HOFers (as lock-y as you can get for players under 25 years old). Is Doughty in that class? I wouldn’t say so, not yet.
I don’t see the same young generational talents among goalies like I do among skaters—sure, there’s Brodeur, but he may only have a couple of more years left. Luongo, maybe four. Lundqvist comes closer, but even he doesn’t have all that many and I don’t know if he’ll age as well as Vokoun or not (which would give him 7-8 years). Carey Price, in terms of season-to-season performance, has been all over the place, so I count him out (though Price should, I think, go pretty high, maybe early 3rd round).
Even though the difference in years between Rask and the closest goalies (3-4 years) is the same as the difference between Doughty and the skaters near him (3 years Sid, 4 years AO), Rask has the edge there when you factor in goalie years. It really strikes me as such a big difference (~50% more career for the younger starters, versus ~25% more career for Doughty) that at some point I’ll take that risk.
I also think that 1C is more important than 1D (no SCC without a strong 1C comes to mind quickly, and on top of that Crosby will go down as one of top centers ever) and when you have a 1W like Ovechkin, he has to take precedence as well (C/W importance be damned, your brother thinks Ovechkin is one of the best two pure goal scorers to ever play in the NHL, and I tend to agree).
Potential does outweigh safeness at some point, but that point is way different for goalies.
I think we just differ on this. I feel that it’s impossible to hit a home run with a top-3 pick. Doughty strikes me as trying to hit a home run; Doughty could be the next Lidstrom or Pronger or whoever, but he could also be the next, say, so there is no point in taking Doughty who could end up anywhere from Lidstrom to Phaneuf, versus someone like Sid or AO who’s virtually a lock to be like Francis or Yzerman or Bossy. With a pick in the 20s you could possibly pick someone up (especially goalies like Rask, Varly, Neuvirth, and Price, but also some skaters like Hedman and Tavares and Pietrangelo) who nearly reaches the level of the top-5 picks. I think we just disagree when that point is. I’m sure I’d draft Varly, Neuvirth, Price, and other young goalies before you too.
Rask wasn’t even the top rookie goalie, much less a top-3 goalie overall)
Really? He and Halak were the only goalies close to Vokoun.
by red army line on Sep 5, 2010 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Using a single qualified statistic. Looking at all the stats as a whole, including games played, and also team context I don’t think Rask (or Halak for that matter) were even top 5 goalies. I place a high value on a goalie being able to do their thing consistently while being a clear starter. A goalie who doesn’t even start half of their team’s games takes a big hit in the rankings for me. Cristobal Huet has some awesome half season stats. Thus I was more impressed with Howard than with Rask.
Rask’s numbers are better, but do you really think that means he deserved to be a Vezina finalist over Bryzgalov, Brodeur or Miller? I think all three finalists were better than Rask, as were Vokoun, Lundqvist, Kipper, and Anderson just to start. Rask may fall in the bottom of the top-10 last season, but he definitely was not a top-3 goalie in my mind.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 5, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Looking at all the stats as a whole, including games played, and also team context I don’t think Rask (or Halak for that matter) were even top 5 goalies.
He had to wrestle the job from 2009 Vezina winner Tim Thomas, who actually did play halfway decently. He posted a per-game GVT that is better than a young Roy and likely comparable to Hasek at the same age (Hasek only made the jump to NA at a later age, I think). It was better than Miller, Nabokov, and anyone else in the league who played at least 40 games. He was the leader in GAA by a full quarter of a goal. He led the league in sv% and co-led in ESsv%.
Cristobal Huet has some awesome half season stats.
What are you talking about? Only things that are even at a minimum mediocre halfway decent are his GAA and win%.
Thus I was more impressed with Howard than with Rask.
Osgood might have been even worse than Huet. Not the first time Osgood lost the starting job recently, either—IIRC Conklin won it as well.
but he definitely was not a top-3 goalie in my mind.
Color me unimpressed with Brodeur, but Vokoun definitely jumps ahead.
by red army line on Sep 5, 2010 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I wasn’t talking about Huet this year. I’m talking about years like 05-06 where he put up a .929 and 2.20 in 36 games. Half season stats are far less impressive than those of full time starters.
Who cares if Rask beat out Thomas (who had a career year at 34 – who woulda thought that wouldn’t be the norm?) and Howard only beat out Osgood? Howard had clear #1 duties and put up only slightly worse numbers than Rask while keeping an injury ravaged team in playoff contention. There respective backup goalies is just a ruse, I only care about what they do on the ice, and what Howard did was better than what Rask did, despite the numbers.
Regardless, even if Rask was absolutely the best goalie in the league this year, anyone who pays attention to the development of young goalies would know that 39 starts aren’t even close to enough to get a clear idea on how Rask will turn out. I think Rask is good and probably won’t flop, but his upside isn’t so high to justify taking him now over proven goalies. It’s a big gamble that isn’t justified just because he’s a little younger (for the reasons I said above)
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 5, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you honestly believe comparing GVT from today, the ’90s, and the ’80s is really valuable?
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Not very valuable, but if my understanding is correct it’s adjusted to 120 total per team, so it isn’t complete trash.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think GVT passes the sniff test if you compare across teams in the same year (How many good players have lower GVT than Flash?), there isn’t a chance in hell I’m buying any purported GVT evaluation/comparison from the ’80s.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
If Goals Versus Threshold is adjusted to 120 goals per team, aren’t all teams then equal? We’d expect to see outscoring teams with higher GVT and outscored teams with lower GVT, would we not?
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
It does help in assessing value to a team (well, offensively at least). I think it’d just give lower values for players on good teams and inflated values for good players on bad teams.
Not successful yet in pulling up a link, though.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
And goalie years only matter if a goalie plays well in those years. There is too much uncertainty for Rask to say that he will be awesome in those extra 5 years. By placing so heavy on an emphasis on age you are implicitly suggesting that Rask is not much of a risk to fall off.
Plus, who says you can’t get replace Miller, Lundqvist, etc. when they do get old? It’s not like Rask is so incredible you’ll never find a similar talent. If I am starting a team I’d rather get the sure thing in goal for 5-7 years and work on developing a replacement when that is needed and thus use two guys to get 15+ years of solid goaltending as opposed to gambling that one unproven guy will be able to give me 10+ great years. You need good goaltending over the long term but it doesn’t matter how many goalies you use to get it. Rask might delay the need to find a new goalie, but is finding a new goalie really so hard that it is worth the risk involved with Rask?
I don’t get what you are saying about it being impossible to hit a home run with a top-3 pick. And disregarding our differences of opinion on Doughty, you can say the same thing about Rask regarding potential: Why take Rask who could be anywhere from Raycroft to Brodeur when you can take Miller who is a virtual lock to be Miller? I think the lack of young studs is a better argument to not take a goalie in the first round, not a good argument to take Rask over any other goalie.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 5, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m probably under-valuing the current round of top goalies, then. Still, the only guy I’d move ahead at this point is Lundqvist. Is he in the Crosby/AO class of HHOF lock? (Honest question; the only HHOF lock goalies I’ve known are Brodeur, Hasek, and Roy, so I don’t exactly have a great vantage point) If he is then I could shift him ahead of Rask and probably all the goalies down some more.
It’s not like Rask is so incredible you’ll never find a similar talent.
I’m really not convinced on this.
I don’t get what you are saying about it being impossible to hit a home run with a top-3 pick.
The delta between Doughty and whoever else you can take instead is not big. He isn’t Bobby Orr. You can make a better pick, but it’s not possible for it to be significantly better than the alternative, unless something unforeseeable happens.
by red army line on Sep 5, 2010 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Rask’s numbers are inflated by being in a strong defensive system like Boston’s. If you look at the next two goalies on the GAA list, they faced 1948 and 1836 shots to Rask’s 1137. Miller, who was 2nd in both GAA and save %, faced over 28 shots per game to Rask’s 25. If Rask can have a similar season this year, then he might be worth what you’re saying. But for now, he hasn’t proven himself.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
I mistated a stat above – those numbers were saves made. The shots for Miller and Brodeur were 2098 and 2004 to 1221 for Rask. Miller faced 30.4 shots/game to Rask’s 27.1.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
Miller’s stats are inflated by his crazy high PK sv%. Rask and Brodeur didn’t need that. Rask’s play, or at least his results, in other situations then was far superior to Miller’s.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
You mean the PK save% that raised his save% by .001 over his ES save%? He was .928 at ES, .929 overall. Rask was .009 better at ES (.937), and .028 WORSE (.891 vs. .919) when his team was on the PP. So your statements simply do not hold true.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
by timmyv38 on Sep 6, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“Inflated” probably wasn’t the right word…more like “failed to hurt like it hurts basically every other goalie in overall save percentage.” If you didn’t notice it’s not actually possible for Miller to have a better sv% than ESSv% after factoring in a lower PKsv%.
Both those goalies faced roughly 5 times as many shots at evens than on the PK. Hence, the higher weighting, which makes sense considering how team-driven PK results—intuitively even, most would agree—tend to be. Both teams had strong PKs. It just came down to Miller, this season in particular, being able to stop the shots. A .919 ranks 11th here.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not like Rask is so incredible you’ll never find a similar talent.
I’m really not convinced on this.
Man, you are putting a crazy amount of stock in half a seasons worth of starts. Look back at the past several sv% leaders. They are always right around .930 and they are almost never by the long term stud goalies. They often are goalies that split time as well: Kipper in 38 games, Huet in 36, Ellis in 44, Backstrom in 41. Those are the last 4 before Thomas and Rask who, shockingly, played in the same lockdown defensive system. In fact, you have to go all the way back to Theo in 2001-2002 to find a goalie who led in sv% while playing in more than 55 games.
So what has Rask done that has you convinced he’s this generational talent in goal? You talk about the delta between Doughty and other Dmen. Well shit, what about the delta between Rask and other goalies? It’s not likely to be very large (even if it is positive). The difference between the best goalies and average goalies just isn’t as large nowadays.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 5, 2010 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m probably under-valuing the current round of top goalies, then. Still, the only guy I’d move ahead at this point is Lundqvist. Is he in the Crosby/AO class of HHOF lock? (Honest question; the only HHOF lock goalies I’ve known are Brodeur, Hasek, and Roy, so I don’t exactly have a great vantage point) If he is then I could shift him ahead of Rask and probably all the goalies down some more.
I wasn’t talking about Huet this year. I’m talking about years like 05-06 where he put up a .929 and 2.20 in 36 games. Half season stats are far less impressive than those of full time starters.
In my mind there’s a difference between simply not sucking as much as the incumbent and outplaying the incumbent.
Theodore started more games that year than Huet and Huet was 31 as well.
Who cares if Rask beat out Thomas (who had a career year at 34 – who woulda thought that wouldn’t be the norm?)
He’s had high sv% before—he just didn’t have the special teams work out like that. He didn’t have his Boston Bruins team suddenly put it all together.
and Howard only beat out Osgood? Howard had clear #1 duties and put up only slightly worse numbers than Rask while keeping an injury ravaged team in playoff contention. There respective backup goalies is just a ruse, I only care about what they do on the ice, and what Howard did was better than what Rask did, despite the numbers.
Detroit’s injuries are a bit overblown. They didn’t lose any of their four core guys. Aside from Franzen—the one really injured for a long time—and aside from Holmstrom, Filppula, and Kronwall, who were all injured for shorter stretches, the injured guys were all bottom 6 forward or bottom pair D types.
Meanwhile, you have a team that isn’t deep anywhere except goalie lose its entire offense in Savard and Lucic (especially Savard), and have little continuity on the blueline aside from Chara, Wideman, and Hunwick. Factor in that Boston was a weaker team on paper than Detroit right from the start, and Boston was last in goals scored, and what Rask did was quite important.
Howard started playing regularly in late October. Detroit was still playing badly into January. Howard doesn’t deserve a ton of credit for Detroit’s success this season.
Regardless, even if Rask was absolutely the best goalie in the league this year, anyone who pays attention to the development of young goalies would know that 39 starts aren’t even close to enough to get a clear idea on how Rask will turn out.
Again, my perception may be wrong on this, but it seems to me that although Rask could turn into Raycroft, he could also be really, really special. For me, that’s worth the risk. I really can’t find as young and raw a goalie having as great a season.
I think Rask is good and probably won’t flop, but his upside isn’t so high to justify taking him now over proven goalies. It’s a big gamble that isn’t justified just because he’s a little younger (for the reasons I said above)
I think this is the root of the disagreement. In my mind, Rask has a significantly higher upside than anyone else. There isn’t a particularly impressive lock first ballot HOF goalie right now who’s not already past 30 (Brodeur, Hasek). Maybe I’m undervaluing a guy like Lundqvist—in which case the whole delta point in my mind doesn’t hold and Rask slips, since that point hinges on the fact that there isn’t any relatively young first ballot HOF goalie, but there are at least two such skaters—but if I’m not that could potentially be a huge difference.
So what has Rask done that has you convinced he’s this generational talent in goal?
I never said that. But if keeps a semblance of what he’s done thus far, he will be (see H-R link above). So will Doughty, but Rask isn’t competing against two young generational skaters.
You talk about the delta between Doughty and other Dmen.
Between Doughty and two skaters named Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby. Between Doughty and other defensemen, there might be two within twenty thousand leagues, and those are the other 2010 Norris finalists.
The difference between the best goalies and average goalies just isn’t as large nowadays.
It really is. Luongo, Brodeur, Lundqvist, Vokoun are clearly head and shoulders better than everyone else, to the tune of around 10 goals per 1000 shots season in and season out, so like a goal every three games, the difference between AO and Backstrom in terms of goal scoring. And if you have a guy like that who’s under 25 and can hold onto him—I don’t think that’s a problem in today’s NHL, especially for an Original Six franchise—you’re basically set like the post-’94 Devils.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2010 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Huet and Theo were never on the Caps at the same time. It was Huet and Kolzig and Huet did not just “suck less than the incumbent”, he was flat out dominant for that half season and then took a huge drop off.
And that list you linked to isn’t exactly great support. Numbers 4 and 5 alone should make you rethink, and then there are more lower down.
The difference in goalies really isn’t that big. You can say that the elite goals let up one fewer goal every 3 games, but that’s not a huge difference and you’re ignoring the playoffs. (You also say that you could be set in goal like the post-’94 Devils, but overlook that the best team in the league since ’94 has gone with a rotating staff of goalies, none of whom are elite (no, Hasek was no longer elite when he played for DET).)
Ultimately, I just don’t see any evidence to think that Rask is any more of a lock than Varlamov. He’s less of a lock than Steve Mason. He’s less proven than many other goalies that have fallen into the abyss. I’m with you that Doughty doesn’t jump ahead of AO/Crosby, but I totally disagree with your entire stance on Rask and I don’t understand how you could possibly use experience to knock Doughty while you prop up Rask as the next Brodeur.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Sep 6, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Huet and Theo were never on the Caps at the same time. It was Huet and Kolzig and Huet did not just "suck less than the incumbent", he was flat out dominant for that half season and then took a huge drop off.
We’re talking 2005-2006, not 2007-2008.
And that list you linked to isn’t exactly great support. Numbers 4 and 5 alone should make you rethink, and then there are more lower down.
Aebischer and Raycroft fell a full 7 points short of the lead. I don’t think any of the others led the league, which is kind of my point.
The difference in goalies really isn’t that big. You can say that the elite goals let up one fewer goal every 3 games, but that’s not a huge difference and you’re ignoring the playoffs.
I get a feeling that it’s deceptively big. It’s AO versus Alex Frolov in terms of goals scored.
As for the playoffs, certainly the salary cap changes dynamics (going from 1990 to the lockout only Detroit off the top of my head didn’t have an elite goalie playing great hockey), but RFA years give you a degree of cost-control.
while you prop up Rask as the next Brodeur.
Seriously, if Rask is the next Brodeur, he should be top-5, not 20+ at the absolute earliest as I said earlier. I thought I knocked him a lot for inexperience. Do I need to knock him another 20+ spots?
by red army line on Sep 6, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I get a feeling that it’s deceptively big. It’s AO versus Alex Frolov in terms of goals scored.
But you have to factor in ice time. A goalie plays the full 60. AO and Frolov play 20-25. 1 goal difference in 180 minutes played isn’t that big. On a more basic level, if two different teams play 3 games and their GA differential is only 1 there isn’t any reason to think the goalies are that different.
I’m not focusing on when you are picking him, I’m focusing on the fact that you have him as the top goalie. Where you’d pick the top goalie is subjective and based on team building philosophy; that you have Rask in that top elite group is not. I have a problem with putting Rask in the top elite group. Rask is no more elite than Varlamov, Mason, Letinen, Quick, etc.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Theodore started more games that year than Huet and Huet was 31 as well.
And Thomas started more games than Rask this year. I don’t know what your point is. Sure, Huet is older, but my point was that several goalies, many of them very average goalies, were able to put up elite sv% stats in a half season’s worth of starts. A half season of awesome stats doesn’t mean much down the line.
Howard started playing regularly in late October. Detroit was still playing badly into January. Howard doesn’t deserve a ton of credit for Detroit’s success this season.
Right. Detroit played poorly most of the season yet they were still in a playoff spot because Howard was playing out of his mind. Detroit got to the 5th seed on a hot streak (after they got healthy), but they were in the position to make that run because of Howard.
You can say that the injuries didn’t do much (even though you named 3 top-6 forwards and a top-3 D on the injury list), but the stats don’t agree. DET dropped from 1st to 14th in goals per game and from 2nd to 9th in shots against per game. They clearly were not as good of a team. While Boston’s offense did suck, their D actually went from 21st to 14th in shots against. Julien locked down his system even more with his offense struggling. Boston clearly is a less talented team, but they also played a defensive system to reduce the effects of the talent gap (they allowed more shots, but just from watching the teams my eyes saw extremely few good chances in Bruins games) and Boston also played in the very weak Eastern Conference while Detroit was in the West.
there isn’t any relatively young first ballot HOF goalie
That’s the problem with goalies: it’s almost impossible to determine who will be a first ballot HOFer early in their careers. Plus, I still don’t see how a goalie is only a better option if they are a first ballot HOFer. We sure don’t know that Rask is one, so why do more proven goalies have to clear that hurdle?
I really think you are undervaluing the benefit of having your goaltending situation set for that 5-7 year period where guys like Miller and Lundqvist are still on their games. Predicting goalies is hard enough in the short term, much less for a decade long period. I don’t think that having the possibility of having a goalie who can play for 10+ years provides all that much extra value. All it does is delay the search for another goalie, but 5-7 years is enough to find or develop a new goalie anyway so a few extra years doesn’t really make it much easier. If all things are equal regarding talent and risk, then sure, take the younger guy. But all things aren’t equal here and the benefit of a few extra years to find a new goalie isn’t worth the risk of potentially hitching your goaltending success to the next Raycroft.
Release the Mackan!
by Killer_Carlson on Sep 6, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Plus, I still don’t see how a goalie is only a better option if they are a first ballot HOFer.
It’s my proxy for sort of differentiating between players. The next step up in my mind from 1st ballot HOFer is the Gretzky/Orr/Hasek class. I don’t think Doughty is in that class, so he “falls” to the AO-Sid 1st ballot class.
If there are goalies that are that good, then I stand corrected. But it seems to me like the only guy that good—Vokoun—has too few years left. Again, I might be undervaluing Lundqvist (I’m not a believer in Miller over Luongo, Lundqvist, and Vokoun yet), but if Doughty isn’t a step up on anyone, and Rask potentially is, who do you choose (at 1/~20-25 respectively)?
We sure don’t know that Rask is one, so why do more proven goalies have to clear that hurdle?
Rask has better numbers in his short career. What I’m trying to ask is this: what is realistically feasible for a lock-HOF goalie? Is it a perennial .920 sv% (in which case Rask is playing over his head) or is it a .930 sv% (in which case he may not be)? Realistically I can’t see Doughty outplaying Sid and AO—all three at best are performing at shoo-in HOF level, so there’s really zero difference. If it’s realistic in today’s NHL for a goalie to, year in and year out, post a .930 sv%, and considering we don’t have anyone under 30 who has that save maybe one goalie, then at some point that goalie’s upside is worth the risk.
by red army line on Sep 6, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions
The next step up in my mind from 1st ballot HOFer is the Gretzky/Orr/Hasek class. I don’t think Doughty is in that class, so he "falls" to the AO-Sid 1st ballot class.
Does this mean you don’t think Sid/AO are First ballot HOFers already? I’d say they are.
but if Doughty isn’t a step up on anyone, and Rask potentially is
What? So Rask potentially is a step up on anyone, but Doughty isn’t? If either of those guys is a step up on “anyone” then it’s Doughty.
How are you a believer in Rask but not Lundqvist or Miller?
Rask’s career is so short his numbers are essentially meaningless. Notwithstanding your assertion that he has three great seasons, he hasn’t proven anything in terms of goaltending, other than he has the skill. Plenty of goalies have put up better numbers over more games and then crapped out. You can’t just keep relying on Rask’s numbers over 50 games because the entire point K_C and I are making is that goalie numbers can change so drastically. You are going to need to resort to some sort of qualitative analysis that explains why Rask’s numbers are more meaningful than Raycroft’s numbers, or Carey’s numbers, or Steve Mason’s numbers, etc. What is the difference between Rask and Varlamov?
If it’s realistic in today’s NHL for a goalie to, year in and year out, post a .930 sv%, and considering we don’t have anyone under 30 who has that save maybe one goalie, then at some point that goalie’s upside is worth the risk.
It’s not realistic, and the “maybe one goalie” you identify is just you crafting an argument. There is literally zero reason to think that Rask is going to be the guy to annually put up .930 instead of any of the other young, promising goalies. Likely none of them will do it, but if one of them does there’s no reason to assume it will be Rask. You’ve put Rask on some pedestal and now you’re just trying to justify it.
At the end of the day goalies, especially young ones, are just incredibly unpredictable and you can’t extrapolate a full career based on a 50 game sample. That’s the fundamental point you continue to overlook. And vis a vis Doughty, the respective sample sizes and positions have to lead you to conclude that Doughty is a safer bet than Rask. Doughty may not be above AO/Crosby, but he is far, far ahead of Rask and the other 23 year old goalies.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Sep 6, 2010 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does this mean you don’t think Sid/AO are First ballot HOFers already? I’d say they are.
Of course I think they are. That was my point—that the only way you can really get significantly better than Sid or AO is by being basically the top player at your position ever. Doughty looks in the same class as AO or Sid at this point, and I knock him for 2 seasons versus 5.
but if Doughty isn’t a step up on anyone, and Rask potentially is
How are you a believer in Rask but not Lundqvist or Miller?
My whole argument revolves around younger age. It falls apart when, like you mentioned, it’s not feasible to put up such high numbers consistently. I thought it was possible, but you say it isn’t, so I’m dropping this, since when you drop off the .930 sv% level you get to everyone else and there’s zero reason to take a risk on a young goalie versus a proven goalie since the upside is the same.
Doughty may not be above AO/Crosby, but he is far, far ahead of Rask and the other 23 year old goalies.
I never disputed this. I had DD 3rd.
by red army line on Sep 7, 2010 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, talk about a little oversight in the original post.
Funny how Malkin has one bad season (by his standards), and he is almost completely written off by several media outlets.
When he is on his game (he of course has his lapses), he is an underrated defensive zone player. He had two great years before last season, won an Art Ross and a Conn Smythe, and is almost flying under the radar entering this season.
I’d put the top 4 as Ovie/Crosby and the Backstrom/Malkin. Last year was really up for Backis and really down for Malkin. We’ll see how this year goes. I would bet my left nut that Crosby does not score 50 again, that’s for sure.
Toews, sorry, he’s not nearly the talent that Backstrom is. He’s a solid 60-70 point guy who I’d love to have as my #2C. Hopefully this won’t be a debate in a year or two.
Choking since 1985.
Toews has a better goal-scoring track record and is probably a better defensive player. I’d give Backstrom the not, but Toews is an elite talent, imo.
I’m not sold on his offensive ability. Backstrom is quite a bit ahead, it looks like.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
If you throw out rookie years, their goal scoring ability seems to be on par. Over the long run I’d guess that Toews scores slightly more goals….maybe.
Toews is a very good player – I’m not saying he’s not a #1C – he is on most teams. Just not on the team with Backstrom.
Choking since 1985.
I would take Toews
every time over Backstrom. Backstrom is a phenomenal player with immense talent. But Toews is young, a quality leader, and a proven winner. And he has room to grow. Anyone who has seen him play a lot, and I am one of those people, know that he has a lot more potential for scoring. I expect him to settle in around the 90 point mark for his prime years and he is an elite defensive center as well.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 2, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Anyone who has seen [Backstrom] play a lot, and I am one of those people, knows that he has a lot more potential for scoring, defense, and flat-out domination on the puck.
I can understand your argument, and the blockquote was just messing around a bit, but Backstrom’s D is generally underrated (he finished 10th in Selke voting, for what it’s worth). I think the philosophy we generally have around these parts is that Backstrom is quite far ahead of Toews offensively and more than capable defensively, and thus on the whole a bit better while both have roughly the same theoretical room for growth (Toews a bit more since he’s several months younger). I mean, Toews is reaching his prime years for offense and has yet to break 70 points. It’s hard for me to look past that. If he breaks 80 this season I’ll reconsider.
by red army line on Sep 2, 2010 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not sure I agree
on the reaching prime years part. Neither guy is anywhere near their prime years yet. That’s what makes them both so impressive. But Toews IS an elite defensive player with the potential to be an elite scorer and Backstrom IS an elite offensive guy with the potential to be an elite defensive player. So it’s pretty even as far as I am concerned. I have no doubts about how good Toews will be offensively as he gets better. I just think the extras like physical play and leadership and being a born winner just nudge Toews ahead.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 2, 2010 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Backstrom is a reasonably physical player, it just flies under the radar. He’s magnificent at protecting the puck and getting it out of corners.
As far as offensive primes go, they’re in it right now. From about age 25 onward, there’s a long, slow decline to about age 35 and then a sharp fall off after that. They may take one more step up, but it’s not likely to go any further than that. Now, they may have years where everything breaks right and they set new highs, but the trend is going to be downward after about age 25.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 2, 2010 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Almost everything you say about Toews applies to Backstrom. The only area where Toews really has an advantage is in the leadership category. Proven winner means basically nothing to me considering the teams he was on when he won, but as a fan of his I’d still be pumped about it.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
The teams he was on
won everything. Olympics, Stanley Cup, World Juniors, Under 18s and he captained all of them car the Olympic team. He was also Canada’s best forward at the Olympics. I mean it’s an argument that no one can win both guys are incredible. And it pains me as a Canuck fan to be pumping for Toews but the guy is the total package. He has everything. And anyone who doubts his offensive ability is going to be made to look foolish in the next couple years.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 2, 2010 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, the Cup team was filled with non-Toews talent and you can’t tell me that the Juniors and Olympics squads would have been colossal failures if they’d lost considering the difference in quality between the Canadian side and everyone else.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 2, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Rather, that they wouldn’t have been colossal failures.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 2, 2010 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. Those teams were all incredibly stacked and would have been HUGE favorites even without Toews. The only exception might be CHI, but that team was as stacked as you can be in the cap era because of some fortuitous timing and some contract shenanigans. We’re watching how that is playing out now, but you can’t really deny that CHI was “artificially” loaded last year. The Team Canada Olympic and WJC teams were insanely loaded, so I’m not buying this argument. In fact, I buy the “Toews carried teams to championships” even less than I buy the same argument for Crosby.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Who said anything about Toews
carrying anybody? All I said was he is a proven winner.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Right, but “proven winner” on historically loaded teams doesn’t mean a whole lot. The vast majority of those “proven wins” were just a function of being Canadian, nothing inherent in Toews.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
The same could be said of Phil Jackson
having Jordan and then Kobe but yet he still wins.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
So now we’re comparing apples to frisbees? I’m not even sure how this is relevant at all. Different sport, non-player, different argument entirely.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Sep 3, 2010 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Um wrong
I am simply saying that while what you are saying about Toews being on loaded teams may be true Toews is still on those teams and winning with those teams. Maybe he should be winning but he still is and that says something about him as a player.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure thing. Michael Nylander couldn’t have done a better job putting together a circle.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Sep 3, 2010 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe he should be winning but he still is and that says something about him as a player.
That he’s played for good teams?
by David Getz on Sep 3, 2010 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
a
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
We could argue who goes where forever… The point is not where I take Miller… The point is where you take Backstrom and if there is a defenseman that you’d take before him.
4th Floor, is next, swimvare, undervare, Eric Fehr...
The point kind of is where you take Miller since you take him ahead of Backstrom. So not only do I disagree with that but with any list where Miller is in the Top 10.
Choking since 1985.
Can you get past Miller?
The question of the FanPost is where do you take Backstrom?
4th Floor, is next, swimvare, undervare, Eric Fehr...
And who is the first defensemen you take and where?
4th Floor, is next, swimvare, undervare, Eric Fehr...
I’ve already answered that up a few comments. The Miller/G was just a footnote since you had him so high in your draft.
The defenseman question is a lot harder to answer I think. Depends how much you weigh on right now vs. potential. For just this season I’d love to have Pronger. But I’ve always loved him. Future-wise, I guess Doughty, but I’m really intrigued by Hedman.
Choking since 1985.
Drafting you look at raw talent and leadership first. Which goes without saying Ovechkin and Crosby are 1 and 2, in w/e order. Beyond those first 2 teams everyone else has a pretty decent sized pool of elite players to choose to build a team around.
I personally wouldn’t build a team around a defenseman or a goalie. But they would be my 2-4rth picks depending on the draft.
I probably would choose Backstrom as my first pick. So my answer to the question is backstrom could definitely grace top 5 in draft but definitely should be in top 10.
Where’s my nhl11? I want to go fantasy draft lol
Bruce Boudreau when asked about Brooks Laich's return to the lineup, he said: "He just adds another dimension to our team. If it was puzzle, he just fits that thing. He completes us."
Brooks Laich completing everything from teams to tires and everything in between.
If we’re drafting on a one-year timeline:
1) Crosby
Is he the best player in the league? No. But the difference between AO and Crosby is small enough that Crosby playing a position that has more impact on the ice is enough for me to tip the scale in his favor for drafting a team for next season. If I want the Cup next season, Crosby’s the pick.
2) Keith
Keith was a monster last season, both during the season and during the playoffs (I feel he should have won the Smythe). Again, AO is a better player, but Keith plays a more important position and is close enough to merit taking first.
3) Ovechkin
League’s best player, league’s least important position. Simple as that.
4) Datsyuk
Datsyuk is still a premiere offensive player when the team around him isn’t shot to hell-and-gone with injuries, in addition to being an absolute stud in his own end. If Toews rates highly for his defense and two-way game, Datsyuk does all of that, but better. Maybe Toews takes a step forward next season and Datsyuk takes a step back, but I’m willing to chalk it up to the Wings injuries and the quality of the Blackhawks.
5) Pronger
For next season, I think Pronger’s still got a lot left in the tank, especially when the playoffs roll around. Seasons after that? Maybe not, but he’s strong as hell and gets into fantastic positions. He makes marvelous first passes out of the zone and is a very effective special teams player. He can get burned by agile, skilled forwards in space one-on-one situations, but it’s a rare defender that doesn’t. The rest of what he does makes up for it, in my mind.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 2, 2010 6:49 PM EDT reply actions
the difference between AO and Crosby is small enough that Crosby playing a position that has more impact on the ice is enough for me to tip the scale in his favor for drafting a team for next season.
That’s the wrong angle of analysis. It’s not whether AO or Crosby is better, it’s whether the drop from AO to the next wing or Crosby to the next C is greater. I think it would be much easier to replace Crosby with another elite C later in the draft than it would be to replace AO. The next best wing is probably Parise, but that’s a significant drop from AO, and the drop from Parise is even steeper. The entire NHL is stacked with Cs right now so even if you miss out on Crosby you still have quite a few chances to pick up an elite C.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
You could take that route, but you’d probably lose when it counts.
The teams that win are usually the teams with the best centers, not the best wingers. It’s been proven you can win with Crosby/Malkin/Staal and spare parts. However you take a team with easily two of the best wingers in the game (Ovechkin/Semin/Green*) and…Well, you know.
Sure AO is head and shoulders the best winger, while there are many quality centers, but if you could have the best center in the game or the best winger, I’d err to the center every time.
*kidding…Go Flyers!
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
The problem isn’t having AO, it’s the money going to Semin. If you swap Semin for another almost-elite C I think the Caps are in great shape. Backstrom and AO is a better combination than the Pens are ever going to get on their top line. Building around wings is a bad idea, but getting the best wing and then stocking up on high end C/D is completely viable, IMO.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Oh of course. Backstrom/Ovechkin is enviable as a combo that natural centers obviously can’t achieve, and I didn’t mean to point out the Caps, just as an exercise in roster composition.
I’d take the best center (rather than the best winger) and then fill out where possible from there. It’s true that there’s a bigger step down from AO to the 2nd best winger than there is to the other centers from Crosby, but to me that’s manageable.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
Obviously if you have either player you’re doing fine. I’m just saying if you can get AO and then know that in this hypothetical draft you’ll still be able to get 2-3 high quality Cs just because of how many there are it makes sense to get the best scorer in the league and then fill out with high quality Cs even if you don’t have the very best. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the Canadian youth development system, but there are just a ton more quality Cs than quality Ws in the league right now.
As much as you love your C depth, and you have every right to, at some point you have to look at the flotsam you’ve been putting on the wings and wish you had a true impact player there. Crosby and AO can each carry a line with mediocre talent around them, and both have done so, but at some point it’s nice to pair talent with talent to get more out of your players. We don’t know for sure how it’ll play out yet, but we’ve heard a lot about PIT moving either Staal or Malkin to the wing; doesn’t that at least partially corroborate my position?
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Sep 3, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rick Nash
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Nash is probably third but he’s right up there. I’d take Parise over Nash but after AO, Parise, Nash then you have an aging Iginla, a one-dimensional Kovalchuk, and then guys like Corey Perry. The elite Ws are far more rare than elite Cs.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
That is true
but no love for Daniel Sedin? His PPG last year were up there but he was hurt for basically the first time in his career.
For me Parise and Nash are pretty much a coin flip. I think they are both incredible players. Nash I think is a lot better than many realize simply because he has literally no one else on his team that is good. To score 79 points when you are the only player on the team that defenses are paying attention to is pretty good.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Not much love for either Sedin. Those guys were lotto picks and took almost a decade to look like it. They are older than most of the guys being discussed and have basically reached their ceiling. Most of the young guys being talked about, AO, Parise, Nash (and the D and C above) have more growing to do. I don’t see it with those guys. I probably don’t even have H. Sedin in my top 5 Cs (though maybe I would if we are looking at a one year scenario).
I know Nash has no help, and he’s great on the PK as well. But how is that different from Parise? Stud on D, restrictive system, very well rounded. I just think Parise is a tad bit better than Nash looking at everything.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Nash has size though
and uses it well. He has sick hands and can dangle at high speed and can also drive hard to the front of the net with power. Maybe I haven’t seen enough of Parise cause he plays out East and we see more Western teams out here.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Oooh. A size queen here. It’s like you are specifically targeting all my pet peeves. Yeah, so… Parise is smaller, with less NHL experience, and yet has two seasons of more points than Nash has ever reached. I think Parise is more explosive, more clutch, and more American.
I’m not knocking Nash. He’s a stud. I just don’t think he can do all the things Parise can do as well as Parise can do them.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
If Nash had a center half as good
as Zajac he would be getting more points. But like I said maybe I just haven’t seen enough of Parise to put him ahead of Nash. I think they are pretty much even as I said.
And Parise is barely American. His dad is a Canadian Hockey legend and he just happened to be born in the states. You guys just got lucky to have him.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
American enough to wear this
And this…
And win the tournament MVP at the 2004 WJC after an epic USA comeback in the gold medal game. I say he passes.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Sep 3, 2010 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm just bitter
He should have followed in this man’s footsteps and played for the right country. ;)
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
He did play for the right country.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
JP Parise
has some move star good looks.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm surprised you would bring that up
I mean if I was American I would hate this goal.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Why so the game would end in regulation without even putting up a fight?
The result of the game takes away a lot of this goal’s glory, but it happening > it not happening for America.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
Maybe
there was a goal Matt Cooke scored for us in the playoffs once that put a game into OT with like 5 seconds left in the third. We then lost in OT to the Flames and I can’t watch the Cooke goal. Just reminds me of what is coming.
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 3, 2010 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
The rest of the game wasn’t as big a blow to you as it was to us, but I still agree that I prefer that goal be scored. What a moment. I really fucked my throat up screaming for that goal.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I take offense to that. I wasn’t happy Crosby scored.
Granted, it’s a lot more palatable for me that he scored and not, say, Corey Perry or Mike Richards, but it still sucked.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
Look, I’m not saying you were happy about it. But from a Caps fan’s perspective Crosby was literally the worst guy to score that goal. If Iginla had scored it we would be on relatively the same footing. You had that tiny silver lining that you had another arrow in your quiver for the next AO v. Sid debate. We knew we just had years of seeing the highlights and listening to the Sid slurping from the Canadian media. It would have been pretty bad if Richards had scored the goal as well, except that at least Pierre McGuire’s head would have exploded and he’d finally be off the air.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I could have lived with Mike Richards scoring the goal because something positive would have come from it.
Watching the O’s try to use strategy is like watching Mike Green trying to figure out the difference between "your" and "you’re"--Terpgrrl
Donation info for SAVES FOR KIDS 2010!! Make a difference.
That’s an interesting way of going about it, but I view 8, 87, and 2 as the class of the league by fairly wide margins at the moment.
I think the better comparison is the dropoff between the quality of players at 1 versus 31 than the first and second or third best at each position. Most of the elite C’s are gone by that point, but there’s still very good quality to be had at all three skating positions.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe most elite Cs are gone at 31, but there are far more elite Cs than any other position. My point is that I’d rather have AO and Backstrom and Getzlaf than Crosby, Malkin, Staal. You don’t need to have the very best C in the league because 2-15 are still studs. Are there more than 5 stud wings in the league? If you focus on C right off the bat and collect Crosby and Malkin, you still need someone to play them with. Pens fans will tell you they don’t need wings, ad nauseum, but for some reason Shero keeps looking for someone to play with them and is considering moving one of those guys out of the C.
I guess I’m just not sure why you focus on the respective drop from 1-31 instead of looking at depth by position. If there are more quality players at one position, then the quality players in the less deep position become more valuable just based on scarcity.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I guess I’m just not sure why you focus on the respective drop from 1-31 instead of looking at depth by position. If there are more quality players at one position, then the quality players in the less deep position become more valuable just based on scarcity.
This is true in the general sense, but we’re looking at teams making discrete jumps of 30 positions at a time and overall draft order. It’s not the delta between AO and the next wing, it’s the sum of the deltas between AO, Keith, or Crosby at #1 given the leverage of their positions and the delta between the same decision shifted downwards 30 positions and reapplied until the draft is finished. I believe it behaves differently in a discrete system than a continuous one, but if someone has proof to the contrary, I’ll gladly revise my position with new knowledge.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I understand your point, and I’d love to hear how actual GMs approach these problems. I look at it like this: With your first pick you have any elite player you want. If you project 30 spots away, there will still be a decent sized handful of elite Cs, a few elite D, and at most 1 elite W. How you draft goalies depends entirely on how you value the position, so let’s just leave those out right now. (If you are a “build from the net out” guy then you’re taking a goalie in the first round regardless of the rest of this argument regarding skaters.) Since you know that you can get an elite C regardless of how you use that first pick, it makes sense to look at W or D because you have a much lower chance at getting an elite player at that position with the 31st pick. I think W are even more rare than D, so that makes the Ws more valuable (counterpoint: D is a much more valuable position so it’s not worth risking losing a D just to get a W).
I guess you’d have to let the draft play out in real life to know for sure, but I think C is by far the deepest position in the league so you don’t need to rush out of the gates to make sure you get that C. I understand that absolute drop in talent, regardless of the position, but I’d rather have Brad Richards and Alex Ovechkin than Sidney Crosby and the Brad Richards equivalent on the W depth chart.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Tangentially, who’s on your list of elite wingers?
I’ve got (in no particular order) AO, Kane, Hossa, Kovalchuk, Gaborik, Hemsky, Parise, Nash, Heatley, St. Louis, and I could be convinced to go either way on Bobby Ryan (an advanced stat monster).
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d remove Hemsky because he’s too floaty and one dimensional. He’s also injury prone. Gaborik is definitely elite, but I’m not convinced he’s over the injuries. I like the rest of those guys, some of them a lot, but a lot of them have big holes. St. Louis isn’t going to maintain this level much longer, Heater and Kovy are pretty bad defensively, Kane still has some consistency issues and can be floaty. AO, Nash, Parise, and Hossa is probably my short list; guys that don’t have any glaring liabilities and can essentially carry a line. Hossa doesn’t have much time left there, but right now he’s a beast.
I could be persuaded on Ryan, probably, but he should show me more first (and sign a deal). Do I take it from this list you think Iggy is over the hill?
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
He still has an elite release and he’s still an all-around excellent player, but his best days are definitely behind him.
I find it hard to get a read on him; before this year he was still putting up big numbers, both by counting and by rate. It could be that he’s still an elite player, but not sufficiently elite to carry a 1st line in the Western Conference without support. CGY is getting worse by the year.
He’s in the Bobby Ryan category for me: I could be talked into either direction, but while Ryan is entering his prime, Iggy is leaving it. I think it’s more likely that Ryan is elite next season than Iginla for that reason.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, they are on opposite trajectories but Ryan would be lucky to ever reach Iggy’s peak. I definitely agree that Iggy is hard to read because Sutter is just dismantling the team around him. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like he’ll ever get the help he needs, but thanks to the Olympics people won’t hit him with “he hasn’t won a Cup.”
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Iginla in his prime was one of the dominant couple of players in the NHL and I don’t think that Ryan has that in him, so I agree with your conclusion. Of the players in the league, I’d peg AO, Crosby, Lidstrom, Doughty and Pronger as having had more dominating primes (or potential primes) than Iggy. You can certainly fall short of his peak and still crack the elite barrier (I know you know that, just expounding).
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Zetterberg is a part-time W too, I think.
Semin with a strong season could make that jump too—I don’t think he’s too far off.
The Sedin twins are pretty good advanced stat players, correct? I’m not sure how you can separate them, but Daniel Sedin may be worth a look.
by red army line on Sep 7, 2010 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I still consider Hank a C, but he does play a lot of W because of how Babcock does the lines (and their C depth). Semin could get on the elite list as well, but he’d be in that lower, “flawed” group.
I’m just not that sold on the Sedins. They are already smack in their prime and have one season where they actually look like first line threats. If they continue this then maybe I’ll buy them, but so far I just see two guys that took a decade to even sniff their pre-draft hype.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
That’s fair and I’d love to see how real GMs approach this.
I think there’s far too much uncertainty with respect to goalies to go picking one with a 1st overall selection. The earliest you could talk me into considering one would be late teens, early 20s and even then…eh.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Question for you guys
Where does Ryan Kesler fit on this list? Elite Selke finalist defensive center, great face off guy, leadership and potentially a point a game guy or more depending on line mates who is just hitting his prime and plays the position you seem to think is the most important. Where would he end up? If Datsyuk is a top 5 or 10 guy Kesler must be lingering around the 20-25 range maybe?
"We love them, We mourn for them, Unlucky boys of Red" - Morrissey
"Giggs gets past Viera, past Dixon, who comes back at him, it's a wonderful run from GIGGS!!!" - Martin Tyler
"He's got a man deep..wait, no that IS Mandeep!!" - Don Taylor
by Section 312 on Sep 2, 2010 8:38 PM EDT reply actions
I love Kesler but I don’t think he’s in that top elite group (which you didn’t put him in). I haven’t written out my entire list, but I’d say 20-25 would be the early end of where he is. I don’t think I’d have him in the top 10 centers in the league, then there are the elite D I’d take before him, and then factor in goalies. He’s a great checking C but I don’t think he has much more offensive upside (he has some, just not a lot) but early in a draft I’m looking for forwards that are going to put the puck in the net.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I’d put Ovie, Crosby, then Backstrom as the top 3. Toews is great, but Backstrom is better. He will make a difference on either end of the ice every time he’s on, and I don’t think there’s a dman in the NHL with as much value.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
Ranking Backstrom in the top 3 in the league among centers might be defensible, but top 3 among all players is pretty homeriffic.
Nick is a very good player, but he’s not at that level. We’re talking about a middle-class man’s Peter Forsberg, but not Foppa himself.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 2, 2010 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s arguably the 2nd best center, and I’d say the only winger better than him is Ovie. Maybe a goalie could be considered better, but an elite center has more value to me than an elite goalie. I could see using the original ranking with just switching Backs and Toews.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
That is very arguably. There’s little doubt Ovechkin gives him a bit of a boost, and once you factor that in he comes down to levels of guys like Datsyuk and Zetterberg (prior to 2009-2010) and Richards and Malkin.
by red army line on Sep 3, 2010 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
If he’s not top 2 among centers, he’s certainly top 3. Backstrom carried the team when Ovie was out this past season. He does get a boost from Ovie, but he does just as well when Ovie is out – although I don’t think that would be the case if it was long-term. The only one of those 4 you mentioned who is particularly close is Datsyuk. Malkin gets the numbers he does facing lesser competition than Backstrom (due to Crosby), Richards (I assume you mean Mike) is nowhere near being the setup man Backstrom is (while producing similar goal amounts), and Zetterberg is no longer at that level, which eliminates him from this argument.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
I think it’s premature to rule Zetterberg out, since he’s actually younger than Datsyuk and is also only a year removed from a strong offensive season and a Selke-esque season on defense. He might be the best shutdown center/wing in the league. Richards is also in that conversation, and actually gets line-matched for tough competition, unlike Backstrom.
And we know the deal with the Pens and wingers. Malkin is a much better goal scorer than he’s given credit for and I think he’s able to be more of a game changer than Backstrom. Backstrom is good, but not that good, not yet.
by red army line on Sep 3, 2010 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Backstrom is a game changer on both ends of the ice. Whether it’s one of the great defensive plays we have seen from him, a fantastic pass to set up a breakaway, or simply an incredible shot, he can take control at any moment. Malkin is a good goal scorer, better than Backstrom, but not as good in most other aspects. Backstrom is a much better passer, skater, and defender. Whilte both are sub-par on faceoffs, Backstrom is significantly better – although that says more about Malkin’s lack of skill there than anything else. If I had to take one, it’s no question – Backstrom. He’s a much more complete player than Malkin.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
I’m sorry, with Malone and Sykora on his wings he won the Ross and was in the Selke discussion. Backstrom didn’t really come all that close with both wings better than either of Malkin’s wings. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
by red army line on Sep 3, 2010 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
That was Backstrom’s second year. This debate is about currently. Let’s stay on topic.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
Or Backstrom’s third. Or fourth, I bet.
by red army line on Sep 3, 2010 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Here’s the other thing with Malkin… he’s a great forward, but not a great center. If the Pens moved him to the wing, it wouldn’t hurt them very much, it at all. In 2008-9 (I’m not looking at last season due to the injuries Malkin suffered which majorly decreased his effectiveness) he had 41 of his 113 points on the PP – as a winger. That included 14 of his 35 goals. He’s a highly skilled forward, but is lacking in both passing and faceoffs – both of which are important for a center.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
FO? Granted as lacking.
However, 78 assists oin a season doesn’t indicate a lack of passing chops, nor has any season in his career.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 3, 2010 12:04 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I think we should stop thinking about Malkin taking a step back, which he did, but concentrate on the players that took a step forward, which Backstrom did.
Malkin is an immense talent, but there lots of richly talented C’s in the league.
4th Floor, is next, swimvare, undervare, Eric Fehr...
Being the 5th or 6th best C in the entire league isn’t small potatoes.
4th Floor, is next, swimvare, undervare, Eric Fehr...
If I’m picking a player to center a 1st line, there are 6 I can think of right away who I would pick above Malkin, due to having more of the skills that a center needs. Specifically, Crosby, Backstrom, Datsyul, Sedin, Toews, and Richards. However, if I am picking players for a top line regardless of position, Malkin is certainly top 5.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
Then we have the concept of regression to the mean. If Malkin was 110 points or better for two seasons in a row, do we think his season after a down year is likely to be better or worse?
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 3, 2010 12:57 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Assists aren’t the same as passing. With the exception of ‘08-’09, Malkin has had roughly the same amount of assists as Ovie, who isn’t a talented passer. When you take into account that 27 of Malkin’s 78 assists in ‘08-’09 came on the PP with Crosby in front of the net, it reduces how much passing skill he needs for that.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
Maybe you just need to watch Malkin a little more.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
by Rob Parker on Sep 3, 2010 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Backstrom is a better defender. I’m not sold (at all) on passer or skater. They’re both excellent at shielding the puck and neither one has elite acceleration or speed. They’re both great at weaving through traffic and small spaces, that’s a wash.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I think Backstrom is a much better skater than Malkin. Maybe not straight away but as far as strength on his skates and tight-spaces balance I’ll take Backstrom. Malkin has a little bit of the Semin slip’n’slide to his stride.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Toews, Getzlaf, Malkin, Datsyuk, Richards, and Zetterberg are all in the conversation for me.
You’re seriously underrating Mike Richards’ setup skill and giving Backstrom more credit for goal scoring prowess than we’ve seen for more than one season.
Zetterberg may still be at that level and is certainly still a shutdown player with considerable offensive upside. One season of less than stellar offensive numbers doesn’t do enough to convince me that he’s not the player he once was.
As far as Backstrom carrying the team, let’s be real; they played the dregs of the SE, a Flyers team in disarray and the Devils twice (both losses). The Caps, even without Ovechkin on the ice, basically did what they should have done against those squads.
Malkin’s had three consecutive years of 1.15+ ppg production, two years of 1.3+ ppg production. Even if he is facing second pairings and shutdown lines, that’s pretty damn good. It’s certainly not enough to write Backstrom in as automatically better because of the QoC – Backstrom also has significantly higher QoT.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a decent list. I think we are overrating Backstrom a little, personally. I’m not sure I would take him before Doughty if we’re looking at career potential. Weber would also be higher on my list than any goalie. If I’m a GM, the only D I’m taking before Weber are Doughty and Keith (again, if we’re doing future careers, not just for one season). Green might be next. Maybe.
I know there’s Malkin talk above, but if this is a blank slate one-year deal, there’s no way in the world he lasts until pick #17, as the initial rankings are in this post.
I mean, think pick 10. You have no one on the roster. You’d pick Green over Malkin? I don’t think many neutral hockey people would do that. And no one would take Rick Nash over Malkin. Nash is a fine player, with little to work with, but his career high is 79 points. Malkin’s career low is 77. Add in that Nash plays wing and Malkin’s a center and the gap grows.
As far as Backstrom vs. defensemen, I’d definitely take Doughty like top 2 or 3 if this was a permanent exercise. Based on ages, I’d say Keith v. Backstrom is about a toss-up around the 6 pick, in my estimation.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
Malkin is definitely being punished by the “what have you done lately” crowd. I admit Malkin has dropped a bit in my eyes after this season. He’s like a higher end Semin. When he’s on he looks like the best player in the world but when he’s not he just seems invisible. Some guys are giving you something every night even if it’s not on the score sheet. Other guys don’t. I have Malkin in the latter group right now and until he shows a little more consistency playing as the guy he can be I’m just a little skeptical. But yeah, 17 is ridiculously low.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
Agreed, there is a quick attention span. This time last year Malkin was considered better than Crosby.
I think the high-end Semin comparison is valid; both can dazzle and dominate at a moment’s notice. But then they can appear lazy, take ridiculous hooking/slashing/tripping penalties that make a fan scream the very next shift.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
This time last year Malkin was considered better than Crosby.
Only by some people.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 6, 2010 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Malkin is greatly helped by the fact that he plays behind Crosby. He rarely faces the level of defensemen that others in this debate do. I would put him ahead of Green and Kovalchuk though, and maybe Nash. Nash hasn’t been in a good system that would let him score much, so I don’t think his lower points are something that can be held against him.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
Malkin can take games over like few players in the league. Despite your assertions he’s and excellent passer and shooter. When he’s on his game he’s more well-rounded than either AO or Crosby as far as being a pure offensive threat. You can point to things that AO and Crosby do that make them stand out from Malkin (face offs, physical play, skating) but I think it boils down to consistency. When Malkin is engaged he dominates; when he floats he’s much less of a player. You can say that he plays against weaker competition, and I agree that he does, but he has dominated and shown his skill level against great teams that had the defensive depth to defend both Sid and Malkin. Further, when Crosby has gone down and Malkin has been facing top competition Malkin has really turned it on.
Lockout talk makes me want to go out and choke an old lady - Elliotte Friedman
I don’t think many neutral hockey people would do that. And no one would take Rick Nash over Malkin. Nash is a fine player, with little to work with, but his career high is 79 points. Malkin’s career low is 77
…and if Nash had been playing on the Penguins and Malkin had been playing on the Blue Jackets?
I think Malkin’s a very, very good player, but I also don’t think taking Nash over him is indefensible.
Malkin played ES with Fedotenko (11 goals), Talbot (7 points) and Ponikarovsky last season. With Vermette and Huselius you could argue that Nash has better talent in that regard. (Which I know leaves out the PP, where that argument flys out the window.
I guess the case could be made for taking Nash over Malkin, but what would a poll of NHL GM’s, starting a team from scratch, be like given the choice of one? I’m guessing at least 25 votes for Malkin.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
Malkin played ES with Fedotenko (11 goals), Talbot (7 points) and Ponikarovsky last season. With Vermette and Huselius you could argue that Nash has better talent in that regard.
But he also played on the second line, drawing weaker opponents.
I guess the case could be made for taking Nash over Malkin, but what would a poll of NHL GM’s, starting a team from scratch, be like given the choice of one? I’m guessing at least 25 votes for Malkin.
Starting a team from scratch, I think Malkin wins handily, but as for who to have for one year? I’m not so sure.
But he also played on the second line, drawing weaker opponents
The difference, if you’re inclined to buy what BtN is selling, is in favor of Malkin’s case though.
QoC
Rick Nash: 0.050
Malkin: 0.000
Starting a team from scratch, I think Malkin wins handily, but as for who to have for one year? I’m not so sure.
Don’t understand your train of thought, if you’re drafting all the players in the league (even for one year), why not take Malkin? Nash has proved, as a center piece of a franchise he isn’t going to lead anywhere. Malkin, while banged up most of the year and with terrible support, still put up 1.15 points/game.
I realize that last statement is a bit unfair, since Malkin’s never totally in Nash’s position. Still believe Malkin is by far a superior player, for 1 year or 10.
"Game's the same. Just got more fierce."
Quality of competition and teammates stuff only gets you so far, especially in this conversation because (1) we went from point production to goal differential and (2) it’s hard to compare across teams given the differences in opponents and all that.
If you look at is by team, only Adams and Rupp faced weaker competition than Malkin, and no one on Columbus faced tougher competition than Nash, which suggests what you’d expect: Malkin’s drawing second tier defenders because shutting down Crosby is the primary goal for Pens opponents, whereas a team facing Columbus worries about shutting down Nash above all else.
Don’t understand your train of thought, if you’re drafting all the players in the league (even for one year), why not take Malkin?
You can make the case the drop off between Malkin and what you’d expect to get with a center down the road is lower than the difference between Nash and what you’d expect to see in later rounds.
Nash has proved, as a center piece of a franchise he isn’t going to lead anywhere.
That’s a ridiculous statement, and you know it. The fact that Columbus is terrible has everything to do with their front office and very little, if anything, to do with Nash, who’s an elite player anyone would be happy to build around.
Still believe Malkin is by far a superior player, for 1 year or 10.
“Superior player” comes in to play a lot more over ten years than one; for one year, and in the context it’s being put forth, availability and quality of replacements takes precedence.
Nash is an incredible offensive talent stuck in a defensive system, with very little talent around him, who faces top defensemen every game. Only 6 players on his team had double digits in goals. Malkin is a slightly lesser offensive talent who benefits from facing worse defensemen at ES and has one of the best players in the world as his linemate on PP. Until Nash gets to play on a good team and Malkin takes top line minutes, the two can’t really be compared.
Never underrate the power of the hissy-cow.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
55 | 27 | 17 | 11 | 65 |
|
Washington
|
55 | 28 | 22 | 5 | 61 |
|
Winnipeg
|
57 | 26 | 25 | 6 | 58 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
55 | 24 | 25 | 6 | 54 |
|
Carolina
|
56 | 20 | 25 | 11 | 51 |
(updated 2.12.2012 at 10:06 PM EST)
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Sunday’s Three Stars: Perry tricks Blue Jackets; another shutout for Halak
- Shut up about asterisks and Red Wings’ NHL home wins record chase
- The Phoenix Coyotes continue to complicate everything by winning
- As West playoff race gets tighter, Kings’ scoring woes far from disappearing
- Evan Trupp scores behind the net goal, stuns Las Vegas in ECHL (Video)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
