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 a 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?

 

[HeadLiceHatty]

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.

Yeah this small sample size will easily say what they’re gonna be over their careers lmao. So if Michkov has a 4 point night and Celebrini doesn’t score for 4 games then we swap back? Am I doing this right? Bedard has been struggling, I’d never take Celebrini over Bedard to build a franchise.

 

[Shark Finn]

Aki Berg.

 

[CanadienShark]

Oh look what a surprise you only went for offensive stats

Matthews& Laine had clearly better rookie seasons than Bedard as well if you want to go by offense. They were legit impact players

If you watched him at all you’d say his overall game looked abysmal, even team Canada had to admit they can’t play him because he was so raw

Bedard had good but nothing special rookie season for where he was drafted

Celebrinis overall game wipes the floor with Bedards and that’s extemely valuable and impressive

Bedard probably has the highest ceiling but he has the most work to do to get there

The last line is a great way to put it. The more I see of Celebrini, the less I want to compare the two. I'm blown away by Celebrini; far exceeding expectations thus far. I'll concede that Bedard possibly has a higher ceiling, but he's far from there right now.

 

[dirtydanglez]

bedard ez. celebrini has been incredible for the sharks.

 

[StrawHatEklund]

Yeah this small sample size will easily say what they’re gonna be over their careers lmao. So if Michkov has a 4 point night and Celebrini doesn’t score for 4 games then we swap back? Am I doing this right? Bedard has been struggling, I’d never take Celebrini over Bedard to build a franchise.

I didn’t realize Michkov’s small sample size of 22 games was enough to deduce what he will be over his career whereas Celebrini’s 13 points in 14 games was not. The fact that you even had to create a hypothetical where Michkov has a 4 point game and Celebrini goes pointless for 4 games shows that you aren’t relying on any current statistical metric to show Michkov is better. So, what you are doing right is being a condescending hater with no data to back your opinion. Note, I’m not suggesting Celebrini will be better than Bedard or even Michkov. All I’m pointing out is you don’t really have any statistical metric (as far as NHL data) to suggest Bedard will be significantly better let alone Michkov. All 3 will be elite. That’s for certain. As of now, what I can say is that Michkov is heavily reliant on PP, 6 vs 5 and 4 vs 4/3 vs 3 points. That could change but he currently depends on it. Regarding Bedard, he is struggling somewhat in terms of goals and he will get out of the slump but even after he does , some people will still prefer Celebrini over Bedard in terms of a 2 way center to build their team around.

 

[Regal]

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/

Proof? Or you just decided to make something up?

GAR numbers suggest that he hasn’t been putrid defensively, that’s the only thing I was pointing out, not that he’s been great. And I used Bedard only as an example of what putrid would be.

As for teammates, I’m not talking about the Sharks being bad in themselves, I’m talking specifically about players on the ice. In a small sample, what other players do can affect your relative numbers as well. So you saying “microstats are great but we have a more complete picture that shows him to be the problem” isn’t really true. We have stats after 8 games that show the team does worse defensively with him than not on the ice in a small sample. Over such a small sample I’d argue the microstats paint a better picture of how things will balance out over a larger sample.

Indeed, now that he’s played 14 games, the numbers are normalizing. His relative shots against are now better than the team without him on the ice (-0.79 SA/60) and his xGA has dramatically reduced to +0.13. In the 6 games since the numbers you posted, he’s allowing 1.65 fewer shots per 60 than his team without him on the ice and 0.56 fewer expected goals against per 60 relative to his team. Given what the micro stats tell us, I imagine these continue to improve, and his relative numbers will actually be solid soon enough.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

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

There are two sets of metrics that people are looking at: On-ice and individual. They paint very different pictures. You are referring to on-ice metrics, but most people are referring to his individual metrics.

The biggest reason for Celebrini's rough on-ice two-way metrics is that Celebrini was out when Jake Walman - SJ's true MVP this season - was in the lineup, and then Celebrini returned right around the time that Walman got hurt. If you look at the WOWY, it still does not look great for Celebrini, but it paints a much more neutral picture - the team with and without Celebrini on-ice is basically the same once you adjust for the presence of Walman.

This is not good, considering SJ is quite a bad team, but I think putrid is clearly an overstatement. Now, the biggest reason that his on-ice metrics are still not "good" even after accounting for the context is, IMO, puck and shift length management. Celebrini frequently makes hope plays that feed the opposition rush; by no coincidence he leads the team in giveaway rate. He also frequently takes extended shifts and gets hemmed in at the end of them. These habits are already improving and should be ironed out by season's end.

On the flip side, Celebrini's elite individual two-way metrics speak clearly to his abilities, and are much more projectable long-term than on-ice Corsi or xGF over a 14 game sample. There is a very good chance that Celebrini will have strong on-ice Corsi and xGF in his prime; what are the chances that Michkov or Bedard will ever lead the NHL in puck battles won per game, even over a small sample? Quite low. And players who dominate in puck battles tend to be strong two-way players; 5 of the other 9 players on this list have been finalists for the Selke trophy, and Bergeron was usually near the top of the league in puck battles when he was still playing.

It is perfectly reasonable to cite Celebrini's projectable defensive skills as a reason to take him over Bedard and Michkov. (Especially considering the other two also have less than stellar on-ice two-way metrics.)

 

[Sasso09]

Celebrini is already playing a 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.

The one where Celebrini being a 200ft player is a myth, proven by advanced stats. Also the one where Michkov is extremely unlucky 5v5 and should have 6 more points than he does and Celebrini extremely lucky and 3 over his expected.

There will never be a season where Celebrini scores more points than Michkov, the skill level is very noticable, Michkov already established dominance head to head on the scoreboard and physically as well.

Michkov is force to play defense on a bottom 6 role most of the season, Celebrini has been force fed top line minutes with Sharks best players.

Celebrini is the clear 3rd place finisher here and recency bias is hilarious



Michkov
Bedard

Celebrini

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.

This chart is cute AF based around 14 games.

By seasons end he will not have had as good a season as Bedard's rookie season.

 

[Sasso09]

I didn’t realize Michkov’s small sample size of 22 games was enough to deduce what he will be over his career whereas Celebrini’s 13 points in 14 games was not. The fact that you even had to create a hypothetical where Michkov has a 4 point game and Celebrini goes pointless for 4 games shows that you aren’t relying on any current statistical metric to show Michkov is better. So, what you are doing right is being a condescending hater with no data to back your opinion. Note, I’m not suggesting Celebrini will be better than Bedard or even Michkov. All I’m pointing out is you don’t really have any statistical metric (as far as NHL data) to suggest Bedard will be significantly better let alone Michkov. All 3 will be elite. That’s for certain. As of now, what I can say is that Michkov is heavily reliant on PP, 6 vs 5 and 4 vs 4/3 vs 3 points. That could change but he currently depends on it. Regarding Bedard, he is struggling somewhat in terms of goals and he will get out of the slump but even after he does , some people will still prefer Celebrini over Bedard in terms of a 2 way center to build their team around.

You do realize Michov had 13 points his first 14 games too right?

While playing 17 mins a night on the 3rd line plus PP, not 20 minutes plus PP on the 1st line.

I'll bet my life savings (more than your parents have) that Michkov ends up the far better player. Celebrini just doesn't have the high end IQ and skill Bedard and Michkov have. His point production isn't sustainable at all and he's having incredible puck luck compared to the other two..

Then there's the biggest issue, he's not good defensively but he's already getting the Barkov treatment and reputation as this 200 ft beast. I guess if enough people say it, it doesn't have to be true.

 

[StrawHatEklund]

The one where Celebrini being a 200ft player is a myth, proven by advanced stats. Also the one where Michkov is extremely unlucky 5v5 and should have 6 more points than he does and Celebrini extremely lucky and 3 over his expected.

There will never be a season where Celebrini scores more points than Michkov, the skill level is very noticable, Michkov already established dominance head to head on the scoreboard and physically as well.

Michkov is force to play defense on a bottom 6 role most of the season, Celebrini has been force fed top line minutes with Sharks best players.

Celebrini is the clear 3rd place finisher here and recency bias is hilarious



Michkov
Bedard

Celebrini


This chart is cute AF based around 14 games.

By seasons end he will not have had as good a season as Bedard's rookie season.

Oh you mean the stats that don't account for the fact he's one of the worst teams in the league and yet show that his defensive stats are still "okay" unlike Bedard's which are beyond putrid?

And now you're using expected stats because the actual stats don't support your argument right? I rather look at the actual numbers than rely on their "expected" numbers. And luck? Isn't it strange how the best players and best teams always seem to have the most luck?

The amount of patronizing in your comment is nauseating. You mock a chart for only using 14 games while using expected goal data for Michkov that is based around 22 games. To make it worse, you have already declared an ultimatium there will never be a season where Celebrini scores more points than Michkov based off 22 games when Michkov is already playing on a better team and Celebrini is closer to a point per game on a worse team. Not to mention Celebrini leads the league in controlled zone entries and was recently leading the league in puck battle wins per game. Bedard and Michkov are nowhere to be found.

How about we let the season play out? Because right now, Bedard isn't anywhere good as Celebrini and we are nearly 1/3 through the season yet you are here acting like Bedard is McDavid and Celebrini might not even be on par with great prospects like Fantilli and Carlsson.

 

[StrawHatEklund]

You do realize Michov had 13 points his first 14 games too right?

While playing 17 mins a night on the 3rd line plus PP, not 20 minutes plus PP on the 1st line.

I'll bet my life savings (more than your parents have) that Michkov ends up the far better player. Celebrini just doesn't have the high end IQ and skill Bedard and Michkov have. His point production isn't sustainable at all and he's having incredible puck luck compared to the other two..

Then there's the biggest issue, he's not good defensively but he's already getting the Barkov treatment and reputation as this 200 ft beast. I guess if enough people say it, it doesn't have to be true.

How many of those 13 points were 5 vs. 5? Yeah, those numbers don't look so great without a man advantage or open ice on the 4 vs. 4/3 vs. 3?

Celebrini hasn't played on the 1st line every game. Do you even watch Sharks games? He's been mixed in with the 2nd and 3rd lines (with Smith and Goodrow) too for a few games each. We've shuffled lines multiple times. He also earns his ice time. Effort on both ends of the ice. He even had a diving block/deflection on an empty goal that allowed use to scored on the 6 vs. 5 to force overtime.

Now, we're talking about my family's personal wealth? I guarantee you it's more than 10x your net worth. But even if it wasn't, the fact you're bringing it up to convey a point is absurd. It's not relevant. I'm sorry but not only do you come across as condescending, the amount of cope in your post is unbelievable. Celebrini has incredible luck? Have you even watched him play? He hasn't had very many lucky bounces. Even his tap-in goals were about excellent positioning and being ready for the pass.

Celebrini is among the leaders in the NHL for league in controlled zone entries and was recently leading the league in puck battle wins per game. Bedard/Michkov nowhere to be found on those lists. Do you realize you can't be a defensive maestro in terms of advanced stats on one of the worst teams in the league? Yet, he still manages to put up okay numbers unlike Bedard.