Bedard, Michkov, or Celebrini: Who would you build around?

[bleedgreen]

I’m normally against small sample sizes and recency bias but I’m leaning towards Celebrini. I actually wasn’t that high on him (as an elite NHL’er) watching him in college. He was clearly the cream of the crop there but I wasnt sure how he’d do in the NHL. It’s so hard to judge when they’re in that kind of league. I’m impressed but when doing the comparison I’m trying to think long term. I think Bedard is a sniper and will be a scorer, I think Michkov will be a high end winger like Kaprizov. I think Celebrini could be the best center and therefore will control the play the most. I like his skating and playmaking sense which I think may outdo Bedard in the end. The OP’s question is who do you build a team around? Michkov is out for me as a wing as I’d always build a team down the middle so it’s between Bedard and Celebrini….Im taking Celebrini as of today. Absolutely could be wrong as all of them are barely defined as players, even Bedard.

 

[bossram]

Between Bedard and Michkov, really close, Michkov by a hair, but Celebrini is clearly #3 for me.

still think bedard and Michkov are in a different tier

Yeah, this is it for me. Don’t know how Celebrini is leading. Maybe he’s in the same tier. I don’t think so, but it’s not so impossible. What I don’t agree with is him leading this poll. He’s third.

Gotta know puck. There is no reason at all to have Celebrini in a clear lower tier. I think Macklin goes on to have the most overall impact for his team, even if Bedard/Michkov have higher-end point totals.

Celebrini is a complete player. His two-way habits are already top notch. Some of the private data has him near the top of the league (already!) in puck battles won %, rush chances, and zone entries/exits for his team. This is phenomenal. He was already the best player in college hockey at age 17. That is a much more significant accomplishment than what Bedard produced in junior.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Gotta know puck. There is no reason at all to have Celebrini in a clear lower tier. I think Macklin goes on to have the most overall impact for his team, even if Bedard/Michkov have higher-end point totals.

Celebrini is a complete player. His two-way habits are already top notch. Some of the private data has him near the top of the league (already!) in puck battles won %, rush chances, and zone entries/exits for his team. This is phenomenal. He was already the best player in college hockey at age 17. That is a much more significant accomplishment than what Bedard produced in junior.

So what about the public analytics that have his two-way play as rather putrid?

 

[Regal]

So what about the public analytics that have his two-way play as rather putrid?

They’re not putrid

Bedard’s last year were putrid

Some relative numbers aren’t great but it’s also one of those things where it’s tough to get a proper read on a poor team and even if you’re doing things well, others guys might not be and the variance in small numbers doesn’t always account for that.

Micro stats like puck battles are also one of those things where the overall defensive game might not be there yet but they show that the building blocks are there for it. Matthews was pretty similar as a rookie where you could tell he was going to be a strong defensive player but the underlying numbers didn’t quite back it up until a few years later. I’d argue Celebrini looks like the most complete rookie forward to enter the league since Matthews.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

So what about the public analytics that have his two-way play as rather putrid?

This is a lie.

 

[bossram]

So what about the public analytics that have his two-way play as rather putrid?

I thought you didn't like or believe in "analytics"?

He's on a bad team. The raw xG% is going to be bad. Also his numbers are considerably worse when on the ice with Cody Ceci, and that's the single player he's shared the ice most with. That's probably doing a lot of work there.

When he's on the ice with Walman or Liljegren (someone that has some modicum of puck-moving capacity), he's above breakeven. That's impressive for the Sharks.

 

[Crow]

Useful enough that you felt the need to reply. So to you my opinion is actually very important. Thanks!

I mean come on “big gap”? You have to be trolling/looking for a reaction with crap like that. You are begging for a reply. Or you have the worst case of recency bias I’ve ever seen.

 

[StrawHatEklund]

You’re validating your opinion from other human beings, hey man I respect it, sit on that opinion, I take what I see from a hockey standpoint and say what I think, I could be wrong but I don’t let other people decide that for me, let see what the next decade says. If we followed every “gm” opinion, haha yikes.

Celebrini is already playing an elite 200 foot game and currently scoring at a higher rate than both Michkov and Bedard. He also has an equal amount of goals with more 5 vs 5 points than Michkov in 8 less games. I’m not sure by what metric you have Michkov as the better player.

 

[Fatass]

I mean come on “big gap”? You have to be trolling/looking for a reaction with crap like that. You are begging for a reply. Or you have the worst case of recency bias I’ve ever seen.

IMO Bedard is a winger who is being pushed into a centre role he’s not ready for. Celebrini is a centre who is performing well in that role. Michkov is leading his club already after only being over here for a few months.

 

[Ignatius]

IMO Bedard is a winger who is being pushed into a centre role he’s not ready for. Celebrini is a centre who is performing well in that role. Michkov is leading his club already after only being over here for a few months.

Bedard may have been playing center simply because the Blackhawks have had such awful depth at all positions, especially during his rookie season. His play kinda reminded me of the year Chicago tried Kane at center and it just didn't work out because frankly the expectations simply don't coincide with the game he plays best.

Bedard's game is probably better suited for a winger in a sniper type role but until they get someone who can competently center him he may be stuck as a center.

Michkov is interesting because he was seen as being so "risky" to draft and now a lot of those naysayers want to ride on his bandwagon.

 

[Fatass]

Bedard may have been playing center simply because the Blackhawks have had such awful depth at all positions, especially during his rookie season. His play kinda reminded me of the year Chicago tried Kane at center and it just didn't work out because frankly the expectations simply don't coincide with the game he plays best.

Bedard's game is probably better suited for a winger in a sniper type role but until they get someone who can competently center him he may be stuck as a center.

Michkov is interesting because he was seen as being so "risky" to draft and now a lot of those naysayers want to ride on his bandwagon.

I like Bedard, but see him as a winger who could score a lot of goal. I just don’t see him as a guy to build a team around. Celebrini is a natural centre who could lead a team. Michkov is a phenom and will lead a team from the wing. As a Canadian of course I cheer for Bedard, but I just don’t see him as a cornerstone like the other two. IMO Bedard is a support player.

 

[Ghetty Green]

Hmm, no Reinbacher option?

Why bother? He's clearly better than these 3 bums

 

[wetcoast]

I'd probably think about taking Bedard to build around, and then swerve at the last moment and go with my gut on Celebrini. He's also super talented, but the way he plays the game just seems like the type of thing you can build a "winner" around. Bedard could certainly get there too, but i think his size is always going to be a disadvantage, and i'm not entirely sure he'll ever be able to get to that same level of all-around, two-way play that i think Celebrini will be able to hit.

And Michkov...well he's a winger, and i don't believe in building around wingers.

Came here to say something like this and didn't vote as it's way too early but I'll just say that the guy from North Vancouver is the winner.

I like Bedard, but see him as a winger who could score a lot of goal. I just don’t see him as a guy to build a team around. Celebrini is a natural centre who could lead a team. Michkov is a phenom and will lead a team from the wing. As a Canadian of course I cheer for Bedard, but I just don’t see him as a cornerstone like the other two. IMO Bedard is a support player.

You see Michkov as a cornerstone player?

Bedard is going to be one of those support players that like leads his team in scoring for the first 10 season of his career......so okay.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

They’re not putrid

View attachment 937350

Bedard’s last year were putrid

View attachment 937352

Some relative numbers aren’t great but it’s also one of those things where it’s tough to get a proper read on a poor team and even if you’re doing things well, others guys might not be and the variance in small numbers doesn’t always account for that.

Micro stats like puck battles are also one of those things where the overall defensive game might not be there yet but they show that the building blocks are there for it. Matthews was pretty similar as a rookie where you could tell he was going to be a strong defensive player but the underlying numbers didn’t quite back it up until a few years later. I’d argue Celebrini looks like the most complete rookie forward to enter the league since Matthews.

Don't think I made any argument for Bedard's defensive ability at any point. I'm talking about Celebrini's two-way play (which people use as a synonym for defensive play). I would not say Celebrini's been good defensively by the metrics. We can get into semantics if he's been putrid or not, but the stats don't paint it favorably. That's the main point here.

And yes, I agree that playing for the Sharks doesn't make things easy and part of his weaker analytics might be the environment, but that's also not necessarily what I'm responding to and I think the more optimistic framing would be to cite the excuses instead of trying to claim something that isn't necessarily showing up in the numbers.

Micro stats are nice and all, but they also seem a little bit of a hollow thing to cite when you have much more complete data that paints the picture as Celebrini being the problem compared to teammates. I'm not even stating I think that's the case, but it's probably a little more of a "they are both the problem and he has good two-way potential but isn't there yet" than believing that the micro-stats prove his two-way play is good and the analytics are wrong because the team sucks and it doesn't matter that they show him as the problem defensively relative to teammates.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5935834/2024/11/21/nhl-stats-connor-bedard-blackhawks-rangers/

To his credit, Celebrini has four goals and five points in eight games to start his career, but like Bedard’s rookie campaign, there’s a lot to be desired defensively. Right now Celebrini ranks as one of the worst Sharks forwards in his on-ice chance and shot rates and that stems entirely from his work in his own zone. Relative to teammates, the Sharks are allowing 7.5 more shot attempts and 0.69 more expected goals against with Celebrini on the ice so far.

I thought you didn't like or believe in "analytics"?

Proof? Or you just decided to make something up?