Brassard

[AWall THE CLAW]

As one of my favorite Rangers, the namesake of my current road jersey, and having found his buddy in Zucc, I'm going to go with a lot of optimism for Brassard in 2014-15. He's only 27, he's perfectly capable of having a more impressive "breakout" year. And, for what it's worth, only 7 pts in his first 20gp last year, and then a much better 38 over his last 61 (a 50pt pace).

82gp, 25g, 37a, 62pts

A second full year in the AV system should allow for a bit of improvement. Hopefully they can find a good LW to compliment that line.

 

[slipknottin]

What are you basing this on?

Is this a serious question? Lol

 

[Baby Punisher]

Some combination of 60 points would be ideal. I think with Zucc feeding him he could hit 25 goals.

 

[AWall THE CLAW]

Some combination of 60 points would be ideal. I think with Zucc feeding him he could hit 25 goals.

He can if he shoots more. His shot % is good. I hope AV is telling him to fire away all year.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

What year will the polar ice caps completely melt?

 

[NYR Viper]

I don't think he ever hits 60 points. Not consistent enough. 50 would be a good step. 55 would be ideal for this team. 60 is a stretch IMO.

 

[NYRCSKA*]

What year will the polar ice caps completely melt?

Current scientific trends point to 2050. We're boned.

 

[Thirty One]

Is this a serious question? Lol

Yes.

If all other player comparables are irrelevant because Thornton is unique like a snowflake, what is the assumption that he's going to regress as he ages based on?

 

[Tawnos]

Yes.

If all other player comparables are irrelevant because Thornton is unique like a snowflake, what is the assumption that he's going to regress as he ages based on?

The data is well established about physical decline of athletes in their 30s. The peak ability comes somewhere between 25 and 35. Fast twitch muscles decline earlier than slow twitch muscles, which reduces reaction time. VO2 levels peak in a person's 20s and decreases after. Heart efficiency decreases too. Metabolic changes. This is just human physiology.

For the discussion on acquiring Thornton, it's not an assumption so much as an acknowledgement that the risk of any athlete declining increases as he moves through his 30s. When you weigh that risk against the assets we would be giving up, it's all a matter of opinion on whether or not the risk is worth it. For me and some others, it isn't. I'd rather have Brassard, who is just moving into what should be his peak years, and the other assets in the deal, than worry about the risk of Thornton's decline.

That being said, if MSL weren't on this team, I might be thinking differently. Having two players in that situation, rather than one, doubles the risk that you have an important offensive player on decline. One is enough for any team.

 

[Thirty One]

The data is well established about physical decline of athletes in their 30s. The peak ability comes somewhere between 25 and 35. Fast twitch muscles decline earlier than slow twitch muscles, which reduces reaction time. VO2 levels peak in a person's 20s and decreases after. Heart efficiency decreases too. Metabolic changes. This is just human physiology.

For the discussion on acquiring Thornton, it's not an assumption so much as an acknowledgement that the risk of any athlete declining increases as he moves through his 30s. When you weigh that risk against the assets we would be giving up, it's all a matter of opinion on whether or not the risk is worth it. For me and some others, it isn't. I'd rather have Brassard, who is just moving into what should be his peak years, and the other assets in the deal, than worry about the risk of Thornton's decline.

That being said, if MSL weren't on this team, I might be thinking differently. Having two players in that situation, rather than one, doubles the risk that you have an important offensive player on decline. One is enough for any team.

So we can compare Thornton to the entire population of athletes, but not the most skilled athletes -- the group to which he belongs?

With every player there is risk of decline. Average peak age for point production in hockey players is just above 25 (source).

The Rangers have a window. Their $8.5M goalie will turn 33 this season. I'm ok with taking risk on acquiring elite talent to capitalize on that window.

 

[Fletch]

The data is well established about physical decline of athletes in their 30s. The peak ability comes somewhere between 25 and 35. Fast twitch muscles decline earlier than slow twitch muscles, which reduces reaction time. VO2 levels peak in a person's 20s and decreases after. Heart efficiency decreases too. Metabolic changes. This is just human physiology.

For the discussion on acquiring Thornton, it's not an assumption so much as an acknowledgement that the risk of any athlete declining increases as he moves through his 30s. When you weigh that risk against the assets we would be giving up, it's all a matter of opinion on whether or not the risk is worth it. For me and some others, it isn't. I'd rather have Brassard, who is just moving into what should be his peak years, and the other assets in the deal, than worry about the risk of Thornton's decline.

That being said, if MSL weren't on this team, I might be thinking differently. Having two players in that situation, rather than one, doubles the risk that you have an important offensive player on decline. One is enough for any team.

Are MSL and Thornton really in the same situation of decline? I consider decline, and believe it's a real fear, but I couple that with contract. MSL's is up this season, so we're looking for one more good season out of MSL. Given where he ended last season, it's not unreasonable to expect 25 goals and 25 points and hope for more. Thornton? I agree there will/could be decline from here, but would not be afraid of him and MSL declining together because MSL will be gone in the interim, if need be. The question to be answered, though, is a declining Thornton better than a Brassard who may be a a steady peak, albeit being in his best years? I mean, he scored 76 points last year, more on a PPG basis than the prior year and more in both an absolute and PPG basis the year before, so his production has actually improved the last couple seasons. So even if he declines, he probably would be a fair amount greater, points-wise and presence-wise while going against the top defensive pairings when compared with Brassard. I don't think those two are comparable. I'm not arguing to sign Thornton, I'm saying it's not the right time for many reasons, but I'd much rather have him than Brassard and would not be scared of him playing with MSL. Actually, that would be kind of exciting.

 

[Tawnos]

So we can compare Thornton to the entire population of athletes, but not the most skilled athletes -- the group to which he belongs?

With every player there is risk of decline. Average peak age for point production in hockey players is just above 25 (source).

The Rangers have a window. Their $8.5M goalie will turn 33 this season. I'm ok with taking risk on acquiring elite talent to capitalize on that window.

You aren't comparing him to the most skilled athletes. You're comparing him to the athletes that happen to not have hit their decline by Thornton's age. And besides, I'm not comparing him to anything. I'm saying that this is part of the aging process of humans.

That article is interesting. Somewhat arbitrary decision on the value of minor league points. It doesn't include players over 29 or under 21. And no data after 1979. Beyond that, using the last 5 years of the expansion era skews the data somewhat too. AHL/IHL points are worth 45% of NHL points, but after 1967, there were twice as many NHL jobs available. Players who would have been capable of playing in a 12 team NHL in 1965 instead were playing in a league where the points had less value. Honestly, the methodology there makes the study itself not particularly interesting. There are enough players to give a large enough sample for an across the board study. If 25 was the peak age from the end of the O6 era until the beginning of the high-flying 80s, what exactly does that mean for players today? Very little. A better study would be of strictly NHL players, at all ages, from 2000 to present.

I understand your point about Hank's age. I just don't agree with it.

 

[Thirty One]

You aren't comparing him to the most skilled athletes. You're comparing him to the athletes that happen to not have hit their decline by Thornton's age.

OK. And how is that not the most relevant to Thornton going forward?

That article is interesting. Somewhat arbitrary decision on the value of minor league points. It doesn't include players over 29 or under 21. And no data after 1979. Beyond that, using the last 5 years of the expansion era skews the data somewhat too. AHL/IHL points are worth 45% of NHL points, but after 1967, there were twice as many NHL jobs available. Players who would have been capable of playing in a 12 team NHL in 1965 instead were playing in a league where the points had less value. Honestly, the methodology there makes the study itself not particularly interesting. There are enough players to give a large enough sample for an across the board study. If 25 was the peak age from the end of the O6 era until the beginning of the high-flying 80s, what exactly does that mean for players today? Very little. A better study would be of strictly NHL players, at all ages, from 2000 to present.

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/13/5500522/nhl-scoring-stats-rates-age-analysis

This one from 2007-08 to present suggests around 24 is the peak.

 

[Tawnos]

OK. And how is that not the most relevant to Thornton going forward?

Again, because Thornton isn't one of the people contributing to that set of statistics. Those numbers have no influence on what Thornton will do. General human physiology does, though. He's more likely to be influenced by the same things that the majority of human beings are influenced by than he is by 38 other individuals with wildly different genetics, injury history, total games played in their careers to that point, mental makeup, etc, etc, etc.

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/13/5500522/nhl-scoring-stats-rates-age-analysis

This one from 2007-08 to present suggests around 24 is the peak.

Which, believe it or not, actually agrees with my sense of things. I think the number is skewed slightly by the general trend of the truly high end scorers to put up better numbers early in their careers. The author does make the same point I always think of, which is that a player might score more earlier in his career, but that doesn't make him a better hockey player than later in his career. For one thing, a player in his early-mid-20s might be a streakier player, while the late-20s player might score less, but be more consistent shift-to-shift or game-to-game.

 

[Fletch]

Again, because Thornton isn't one of the people contributing to that set of statistics. Those numbers have no influence on what Thornton will do. General human physiology does, though. He's more likely to be influenced by the same things that the majority of human beings are influenced by than he is by 38 other individuals with wildly different genetics, injury history, total games played in their careers to that point, mental makeup, etc, etc, etc.



Which, believe it or not, actually agrees with my sense of things. I think the number is skewed slightly by the general trend of the truly high end scorers to put up better numbers early in their careers. The author does make the same point I always think of, which is that a player might score more earlier in his career, but that doesn't make him a better hockey player than later in his career. For one thing, a player in his early-mid-20s might be a streakier player, while the late-20s player might score less, but be more consistent shift-to-shift or game-to-game.

In other words, Thornton may not decline in the next few years because he isn't part of the subject group, or he may decline just like them. So, how does one sit there and realistically determine whether or not they acquire a 35 year old? Give him a physical? OK, he's in good health. Look at how he's held up the last few years? Very durable, often playing 82 games, which, of course, can be a negative because it's more wear and tear, or it's a positive because he's just durable. How has his numbers been? Actually on the increase, not the decrease. Whatever that would mean.

I don't sit here and try to pretend I can predict when a player will begin his decline. It's like treating diseases. You do your studies. Double-blinded, randomized, and all that jazz. You do your statistics, you get a p value, and administer based on that. Of course you cannot 100% predict the outcome because that patient was not part of the control group of the study, and it was only effective in 72% of the patients, but at the end of the day you still need to choose a course of action because standing still...well, that's not a real option. So, you do the best you can to get data that is relevant and make your decision. Same with Thornton. We know players decline at a certain age. Some players may actually do better in their mid-30s, then decline, but by and large it's a decline. Ok. But how much and what can he bring today, next season and the season after compared to what you're giving up, and what can replace what's being given up, and is it worth it and affordable. Not all 35 year olds are going to decline from 76 points to 50 points in one season.

 

[Thirty One]

Again, because Thornton isn't one of the people contributing to that set of statistics. Those numbers have no influence on what Thornton will do. General human physiology does, though. He's more likely to be influenced by the same things that the majority of human beings are influenced by than he is by 38 other individuals with wildly different genetics, injury history, total games played in their careers to that point, mental makeup, etc, etc, etc.

The entire general population has wildly different genetics, injury history and mental makeup. Why would comparing him the 78 people from that extremely diverse population who most closely resemble what he is as a hockey player at his current age be fruitless?

PECOTA has been doing similar exercises in baseball successfully for years.

 

[Thirty One]

In other words, Thornton may not decline in the next few years because he isn't part of the subject group, or he may decline just like them. So, how does one sit there and realistically determine whether or not they acquire a 35 year old?

Just assume they're all going to fall off a cliff at 35.

 

[Tawnos]

In other words, Thornton may not decline in the next few years because he isn't part of the subject group, or he may decline just like them. So, how does one sit there and realistically determine whether or not they acquire a 35 year old? Give him a physical? OK, he's in good health. Look at how he's held up the last few years? Very durable, often playing 82 games, which, of course, can be a negative because it's more wear and tear, or it's a positive because he's just durable. How has his numbers been? Actually on the increase, not the decrease. Whatever that would mean.

I don't sit here and try to pretend I can predict when a player will begin his decline. It's like treating diseases. You do your studies. Double-blinded, randomized, and all that jazz. You do your statistics, you get a p value, and administer based on that. Of course you cannot 100% predict the outcome because that patient was not part of the control group of the study, and it was only effective in 72% of the patients, but at the end of the day you still need to choose a course of action because standing still...well, that's not a real option. So, you do the best you can to get data that is relevant and make your decision. Same with Thornton. We know players decline at a certain age. Some players may actually do better in their mid-30s, then decline, but by and large it's a decline. Ok. But how much and what can he bring today, next season and the season after compared to what you're giving up, and what can replace what's being given up, and is it worth it and affordable. Not all 35 year olds are going to decline from 76 points to 50 points in one season.

The point is that, for a player at his age, it's unpredictable and inherently risky.

 

[Fletch]

The point is that, for a player at his age, it's unpredictable and inherently risky.

I do understand and don't totally disagree. Of course, the Rangers traded last season for MSL. That was unpredictable and inherently risky. Sometimes you do take gambles. This Rangers team can take on more gambles than, say, the Rangers teams of 98-03 because it has a more stable base. Again, I cannot accurately predict what anyone's production will be, including Thornton's. I can feel good about saying Thornton will be more productive than Brassard for the next three seasons, when Thornton's contract runs out. I can't remember if there was a straight-up argument. Think I've gotten totally lost in the few threads that are kind of active during these waning days of Summer.

 

[Zil]

The point is that, for a player at his age, it's unpredictable and inherently risky.

It's only risky if you're passing on a better option. Brassard is nowhere close to Thornton either as a scorer or as an all around player. Even with some decline, Thornton's still going to be an upgrade. Flipping Brassard and spare pieces for Thornton would be a godsend.

 

[Thirty One]

It's only risky if you're passing on a better option. Brassard is nowhere close to Thornton either as a scorer or as an all around player. Even with some decline, Thornton's still going to be an upgrade.

I did some data crunching on this. Thornton was 0.927 Pts/GP last season, Brassard 0.555 Pts/GP. So he'd be above Brassard if he keeps 0.58 of his scoring pace. How many from the sample acheived this through 35-37:

 

[Thirty One]

27 Y/O Thornton > 34 Y/O Thornton > 27 Y/O Brassard

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

I agree that Brassard's production could go way up if he shot more. He has a fantastic shot. He has all the tools to be a 60+ point player. He needs to find the consistency to play at his highest level every shift.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

I agree that Brassard's production could go way up if he shot more. He has a fantastic shot. He has all the tools to be a 60+ point player. He needs to find the consistency to play at his highest level every shift.

I'm hoping that familiarity with Zuccarello and hopefully chemistry with Nash on his line (most likely to start the season) will help him do so.

 

[Zuccarello Awesome*]

The top 6 to start the season is going to be either

Kreider Stepan St. Louis
Nash Brassard Zuccarello

or

Nash Stepan St. Louis
Kreider Brassard Zuccarello


Either way, Brassard will be playing with players who should help him play at a very high level. I have very high hopes for him this season and beyond. He's still 26 years old. Some players don't put it all together and hit their prime until around his age. 27-32 is a prime for many players in this league, production-wise. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he continues to improve and find that consistency that he's been lacking.