Confirmed with Link: Canucks Sign Pius Suter - 2-years @ $1.6M AAV

[JohnHodgson]

But the user who threw out the term defined it. He defined 5C as someone who should only play C in a pinch. We don't have to guess what it means. I think ou're conflating what you think is an ideal player to play the position with a player who has successfully played the position. Suter has spent a substantial (I would say majority) of his time as a C in the NHL. He's listed as a C. I think most of us think management signed him to play the C position for the Canucks.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with thinking Suter should only play C in a pinch. But are you saying that the Canucks signed a bottom 6 winger with the intention of slotting him in as a bottom 6 winger? For some reason you don't seem to want to answer this question.



Is Yanni Gourde a tweener and does it matter? I get that you like having an old school top 6 bottom 6 but that doesn't take away from the fact that Suter is, at this point, a proven NHL C. It doesn't matter if Gaudette is stylistically similar. A generation of players model their game after [insert start player] and that means nothing.

And you left a key difference here. Gaudette's failure at C was his inability to defend. Suter defends well and coaches trust him to play in a variety of situations and on different lines.

Your stopgap argument is also irrelevant. Cole is a stopgap due to his age too that doesn't mean he's not expected to be a top 4 Dman. The Canucks targeted Suter and Blueger for their ability to play C, defend, PK, chip in offensively, and because they could be economical signings. Nothing wrong with having "stop gaps" when you don't have the ability to acquire a long-term solution.



The takeaway stat was in the context of posters claiming Aman is some sort of ferocious forechecker. By definition, you're forechecking because your team doesn't have the puck.

And we're not talking about comparing a player with 29 takeaways vs 34 or something like that. 9 takeaways is an glaringly low stat that catches attention.



Your post is way too long for me to respond to everything. But your opinion above is fine. Then your opinion is that the Canucks signed a bottom 6 winger who really should fill in at C in a pinch?

Great points.

People are trying too hard to "be different" with their opinions.

Suter's been a C for 85-90% of his NHL career. He's shown ability to score, be defensively responsible, play PK and win faceoffs at a decent clip. He's a proven NHL C at this point with some offensive upside... making him, what should project as an adequate 3C for us.

For some reason, people want to ignore facts and go with their own narratives... the 5C, he's a winger that shouldn't play center talk is just a ridiculous notion. He's literally had the most success in 21-22 as a full time center.

 

[MS]

Great points.

People are trying too hard to "be different" with their opinions.

Suter's been a C for 85-90% of his NHL career. He's shown ability to score, be defensively responsible, play PK and win faceoffs at a decent clip. He's a proven NHL C at this point with some offensive upside... making him, what should project as an adequate 3C for us.

For some reason, people want to ignore facts and go with their own narratives... the 5C, he's a winger that shouldn't play center talk is just a ridiculous notion. He's literally had the most success in 21-22 as a full time center.

When has he shown he can have success as a 3C playing hard minutes against quality opposition?

Again, the fact that he was used as a bad top-6 C on bad teams doesn't have anything to do with whether he can be a good high-leverage defensive C.

Chicago liked him at C so much they didn't qualify him. Detroit liked him at C so much that they replaced him with Andrew Copp and shifted him mostly to wing.

 

[F A N]

When has he shown he can have success as a 3C playing hard minutes against quality opposition?

Again, the fact that he was used as a bad top-6 C on bad teams doesn't have anything to do with whether he can be a good high-leverage defensive C.

His underlying numbers suggest he's been good defensively relative to others on his team. If he's not capable of filling the 3C role maybe he'll be the team's 4C. He's a legitimate NHL C either way. It's not like Blueger has proven success season after season as a 3C playing hard minutes against quality opposition either. If a team gets what they pay for, we shouldn't expect a 3C successfully playing hard minutes against quality opposition from a $1.6M UFA.

Chicago liked him at C so much they didn't qualify him. Detroit liked him at C so much that they replaced him with Andrew Copp and shifted him mostly to wing.

Strawman. Chicago was afraid of the arbitration ruling. The fact that Detroit signed him to the contract that they did means something. And Detroit signed Copp to be a 2C for 5x$5.625M. Suter failed to establish himself as a 2C. He was also not "shifted... mostly to wing." Lots of information coming from you here.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Your example is taking the single best FO guy in the NHL (Bergeron) against the single worst (Hughes). And yes, as I said, if you could stack 4 insanely good faceoff Cs on your team and win 65% of your faceoffs over a full season, maybe you're driving a small advantage.

But doing that isn't realistic and in actuality like 95% of NHL Cs hang out in that 47-53% range and vary from season to season.

And yes, you can draw up situations where obviously winning a faceoff is a big deal. But it just isn't consistently replicable and you're going to lose that big faceoff basically just as often no matter who your C group is and no matter what your anecdotal evidence is.

Again, in the end you're talking about a very small number of possession changes in a sport where there are hundreds of possession changes in a game. This one type of possession change, though, is quantifiable so it gets over-analyzed and overrated in terms of impact. Being 5th in the NHL instead of 20th might buy you 1 or 2 goals over the course of a season. And we can see that there is statistically very little correlation between being a good faceoff team and winning games (outside of rebuilding teams that are very young at C and bad at faceoffs because most young Cs are bad at faceoffs, but the losing isn't because of the faceoffs).

I just couldn't disagree more if you think that faceoff proficiency leads to a 1 or 2 goal swing across the season.

Faceoffs (particularly offensive zone and defensive zone) are one of the few examples where teams can draw up plays.

Think of the difference between winning a faceoff with a 6th attacker and 58 seconds left versus losing.

I'm going to invoke some wrath by saying if you've played a decently high level you know the absolute importance of faceoffs and it's not as random as you think by looking at stats which, as I said, don't have the intricacy to capture a whole lot of nuance.

 

[Nick Lang]

I just couldn't disagree more if you think that faceoff proficiency leads to a 1 or 2 goal swing across the season.

Faceoffs (particularly offensive zone and defensive zone) are one of the few examples where teams can draw up plays.

Think of the difference between winning a faceoff with a 6th attacker and 58 seconds left versus losing.

I'm going to invoke some wrath by saying if you've played a decently high level you know the absolute importance of faceoffs and it's not as random as you think by looking at stats which, as I said, don't have the intricacy to capture a whole lot of nuance.

We've all seen those goals where the draw is cleanly won and bang bang the puck is in the back of the net. The announcers commonly remark that the goal was the direct result of being cleanly beaten on the draw. It certainly helps when you are dominating the face-off circle. It's hard to quantify as you say but it is important. Bo, Miller, Beagle, Kesler, Malhotra. We've certainly had some good ones.

 

[RobertKron]

I just couldn't disagree more if you think that faceoff proficiency leads to a 1 or 2 goal swing across the season.

Faceoffs (particularly offensive zone and defensive zone) are one of the few examples where teams can draw up plays.

Think of the difference between winning a faceoff with a 6th attacker and 58 seconds left versus losing.

I'm going to invoke some wrath by saying if you've played a decently high level you know the absolute importance of faceoffs and it's not as random as you think by looking at stats which, as I said, don't have the intricacy to capture a whole lot of nuance.

I think you're kind of both right. Faceoffs are likely not the biggest deal in the macro sense, and sometimes couldn't possibly be more important in the micro.

Like, your specific examples are huge, but teams are pretty likely to have specific guys that they put out there in those situations. To claim that some whole No Fear T-Shirt scenario is the reason why faceoffs are so important is obviously true, but how likely is it that Pius Suter or Nils Aman or whoever is going to be the one out there taking that draw? Having some dependable face-off guys can be crucial, but realistically it's not necessarily something that should be a dealbreaker for everyone down the lineup.

 

[credulous]

if winning faceoffs was strongly correlated with scoring it would show up in the stats. this isn't subjective at all. the sample size is enormous and there's at best a very weak correlation

 

[biturbo19]

Depth players are really feeling the squeeze on the cap crunch.

In a normal year, I think Suter would be looking at a multi-year deal at 2.5M+


I'll keep the receipts fam.

I'll bring this up in a year.

The reality is...his previous team didn't seem to think he was worth even a 2-year deal at his $1.6M. Despite being one of the few teams that actually has quite a bit of cap flexibility right now. That should tell you something.

Not so much the value of the contract, or the realities of a flat cap world. But that the team with the absolute most insight and in depth experience with the player on and off the ice, where he supposedly played so well...didn't think he was worth a multi-year $1.6M deal. Even though they've got millions in cap space to work with. Detroit are one of the handful of teams not really in a current cap crunch. Heck, they're even out there acquiring players like Petry who ensures that they're going to be parking $3M+ in the press box every night on defence and don't seem to care. They didn't think hanging onto Suter was worth it.

You know, this comes up a lot, and it's going off on a bit of a tangent, but I don't think I agree with the logic that terms necessarily need to be or should be used based on what "technically qualifies," at least in the context of evaluating what you want/have, the end goal being as close to a strong team as you can approach.

When someone says 1C or 2C or 3C, it's implied that they mean a serviceable/normal example of one, not a bare minimum example of one. It's not even about having impossible standards and expecting to get an "ideal" one, it's more that when you imagine one, you imagine a middle-of-the-pack one (when you talk about getting/having a #1 center, it's implied that you're referring to a proper one, which wouldn't be the 30th best center in the league, it'd be the 15th best).

People like to correct that, but it seems fair enough to me. Makes more sense to me that when you're referring to a bare minimum and above one, you'd have to include the qualifier "technically a 1C/2C/3C" instead of needing a qualifier when you're referring to an average one.

Also, the phrase "Literal Swiss Army Knife utility player" is interesting.

I agree with this. The league doesn't have anything resembling the kind of rigid parity for this manner of roster conceptualization useful.

Pius Suter technically played like an even strength #1C for Chicago. But did anyone in Detroit genuinely believe they were getting a real #1C? He technically played like a #2C for Detroit for a year and a bit off and on...but do we really believe we're getting a #2C?

Deployment and context are king to thoughtful roster consideration.



As to the literal Swiss Army Knife utility player comment...what's so interesting about that?

Tongue in cheek, he's literally Swiss. And he's very much like a Swiss Army Knife. Kind of almost serviceable in a pinch at a lot of different things and better than nothing, but not actually good at anything. He got replaced in Detroit by a veritable Leatherman in Copp. Who is also versatile...but a far more robust multi-tool that can actually handle serious work in a variety of roles. Albeit, at a steep price.

His underlying numbers suggest he's been good defensively relative to others on his team. If he's not capable of filling the 3C role maybe he'll be the team's 4C. He's a legitimate NHL C either way. It's not like Blueger has proven success season after season as a 3C playing hard minutes against quality opposition either. If a team gets what they pay for, we shouldn't expect a 3C successfully playing hard minutes against quality opposition from a $1.6M UFA.



Strawman. Chicago was afraid of the arbitration ruling. The fact that Detroit signed him to the contract that they did means something. And Detroit signed Copp to be a 2C for 5x$5.625M. Suter failed to establish himself as a 2C. He was also not "shifted... mostly to wing." Lots of information coming from you here.

This is the thing where you're taking a very simplistic videogame conception of how real hockey works. Players have roles. It's not just some hierarchy of "highest rating" or "best JFresh chart" or whatever. Roles require context, and when you actually examine the context of Suter's results, it's not directly translatable to a completely different role like "hard minutes 3C" or "limited minutes 4C".

We haven't actually seen him play the specific role he's been ascribed here. It's pure projection. What we have seen...is that two teams have now dumped him. His latest team preferred to ditch him, rather than giving him a 2-year $1.6M contract to be their "good 3C or 4C". Which isn't even pressured by their salary cap situation which is plenty comfortable with room to burn. Their assessment was clearly that he's not worth hanging onto in a role where he's pushed down their depth chart. Not to say that's an infallible assessment or anything...but it jives with the reality of how Suter has been deployed and valued as a player by two different teams now.

 

[Shareefruck]

As to the literal Swiss Army Knife utility player comment...what's so interesting about that?

Tongue in cheek, he's literally Swiss. And he's very much like a Swiss Army Knife. Kind of almost serviceable in a pinch at a lot of different things and better than nothing, but not actually good at anything. He got replaced in Detroit by a veritable Leatherman in Copp. Who is also versatile...but a far more robust multi-tool that can actually handle serious work in a variety of roles. Albeit, at a steep price.

Interesting because he's not literally a "Swiss Army Knife", which is what it sounds like, and you need the comma if you mean he's a "literally Swiss, army knife of a utility player" ( ). Plus, whether or not a "utility player" can even be described as "literal" is tripping me up.

 

[biturbo19]

Interesting because he's not literally a "Swiss Army Knife", which is what it sounds like, and you need the comma if you mean he's a "literally Swiss, army knife of a utility player" ( ). Plus, whether or not a "utility player" can even be described as "literal" is tripping me up.

You can't move the comma like that though, because Swiss Army Knife doesn't have a comma in it. So it would also significantly alter the meaning.

Swiss, Army Knife has an entirely different meaning. If i were going to write it properly, i would've said, "literally Swiss, Swiss Army Knife of a player". But that sounds dumb as f***, it was an cheeky oberservational joke, and it's a message board not a formal writing environment. So...Weird thing to get tripped up by.

 

[Shareefruck]

You can't move the comma like that though, because Swiss Army Knife doesn't have a comma in it. So it would also significantly alter the meaning.

Swiss, Army Knife has an entirely different meaning. If i were going to write it properly, i would've said, "literally Swiss, Swiss Army Knife of a player". But that sounds dumb as f***, it was an cheeky oberservational joke, and it's a message board not a formal writing environment. So...Weird thing to get tripped up by.

True, it'd have to be "literally swiss, swiss army knife" or something, I stand corrected. The fact that there's no good way to use "literal" in that sentence without it sounding dumb or not making sense is what made it "interesting" to me, and I'm using words like "interesting" and "tripped up" rather than dismissive/mocking words precisely because I agree that it's not a big deal.

The incorrectness just made me go "Huh. I don't think that's how that word works," that's all.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I think you're kind of both right. Faceoffs are likely not the biggest deal in the macro sense, and sometimes couldn't possibly be more important in the micro.

Like, your specific examples are huge, but teams are pretty likely to have specific guys that they put out there in those situations. To claim that some whole No Fear T-Shirt scenario is the reason why faceoffs are so important is obviously true, but how likely is it that Pius Suter or Nils Aman or whoever is going to be the one out there taking that draw? Having some dependable face-off guys can be crucial, but realistically it's not necessarily something that should be a dealbreaker for everyone down the lineup.

No, and to be clear I'm not arguing that we should 86 any center who isn't good on the draw.

I just take great umbrage with the sentiment that I've seen prevalent on this site that faceoffs are generally of minimal importance.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

if winning faceoffs was strongly correlated with scoring it would show up in the stats. this isn't subjective at all. the sample size is enormous and there's at best a very weak correlation

Just because it's not immediately directly a massive corollary using blunt force statistics across an entire season for 32 teams doesn't mean it isn't entirely relevant in a way that isn't being directly measured.

Sometimes stats are entirely misleading.

Did you know that as ice-cream sales go up so do crime rates?

Someone better get on those evil ice cream sales people because surely there's no more context needed for that statistic either, right?

 

[credulous]

Just because it's not immediately directly a massive corollary using blunt force statistics across an entire season for 32 teams doesn't mean it isn't entirely relevant in a way that isn't being directly measured.

Sometimes stats are entirely misleading.

Did you know that as ice-cream sales go up so do crime rates?

Someone better get on those evil ice cream sales people because surely there's no more context needed for that statistic either, right?

okay so what's your thesis? i'm happy to help test whatever it is

 

[MS]

I just couldn't disagree more if you think that faceoff proficiency leads to a 1 or 2 goal swing across the season.

Faceoffs (particularly offensive zone and defensive zone) are one of the few examples where teams can draw up plays.

Think of the difference between winning a faceoff with a 6th attacker and 58 seconds left versus losing.

I'm going to invoke some wrath by saying if you've played a decently high level you know the absolute importance of faceoffs and it's not as random as you think by looking at stats which, as I said, don't have the intricacy to capture a whole lot of nuance.

Yes, you can draw up plays.

But the other team can as well, and you simply can’t get enough of a statistical advantage to move the needle. If you could win that last-minute faceoff 80% of the time that would matter. But you can’t, and nobody does. It’s a few percent off being a coin flip.

Nobody is scoring way more faceoff goals than any other team. The amount of extra faceoffs you’d have to win to generate a 10-goal swing or something would be absurd, and doesn’t happen.

I played hockey for a long time, too. And your ‘I played hockey’ doesn’t mean shit and all it’s doing is sucking you into the argument from anecdote fallacy.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Yes, you can draw up plays.

But the other team can as well, and you simply can’t get enough of a statistical advantage to move the needle. If you could win that last-minute faceoff 80% of the time that would matter. But you can’t, and nobody does. It’s a few percent off being a coin flip.

Nobody is scoring way more faceoff goals than any other team. The amount of extra faceoffs you’d have to win to generate a 10-goal swing or something would be absurd, and doesn’t happen.

I played hockey for a long time, too. And your ‘I played hockey’ doesn’t mean shit and all it’s doing is sucking you into the argument from anecdote fallacy.

I have a master's in the social sciences so yes, I'm aware of the anecdote fallacy.
It also doesn't follow that ALL personal experience is useless either.

My point is, when does a win/goal stop being related to faceoffs?

I've played teams with big centers who were better on the draw/stronger than I was and who had D who were quick at moving the puck and it feels like your team literally never touches the puck.

You need to understand that in hockey everything that occurs is somewhat impacted by the occurrences prior and often in a way that isn't discrete enough to be captured by 'advanced stats'.

Like if you spend an entire period chasing the puck but play kitty-bar the door and then give up 3 goals in the 2nd period then you can be damn sure that the fact that you're never starting with possession played a non-trivial part in that but JFresh (whom I know you're not big on either) can't 'measure' that so it becomes discarded in the public forum.

Also, the whole, 'the fact you actually played moderately high levels of hockey doesn't mean shit' is just embarrassing and on some level you must know that.

HFboards has lost basically all of its cache (remember when Bob McKenzie and his ilk thought it was worthy of posting?) and a big part of that is because it's a bunch of bitter 'never did it' types arguing that reading a spreadsheet is the same as doing the thing.

To be clear, I'm not saying people should bow to me and tell me how great I am because I played. And people are allowed to disagree.

But to act like it's irrelevant? Are we really at that level of naval gazing in society?

Like, I like baseball and I follow it. But I never played it so I carry my opinions more gently and am open to knowledge from those who actually know what it is to try to go from hitting a 90+ fastball to a 78mph knee buckler.

Me reading stats doesn't make up for the lack of experience and baseball is inarguably far easier to quantify through quantitative statistics than hockey is and it's not remotely close.

So if you don't know what it is to try to figure out how to win faceoffs with semi high stakes and experiencing the fallout then I'm not sure how one can think that publicly available blunt force statistics (which most front office types laugh at btw) is a replacement for that experience.

I have had this argument before and people have said that my experience means nothing when it comes to building a team and I respectfully disagree but can entertain that opinion.

But to say that dealing with the granular aspects of the actual experience of playing the sport doesn't offer any weight to ones opinion on said granular aspects is just objectively out of touch with reality.

okay so what's your thesis? i'm happy to help test whatever it is

Refer to my post above (not the part about me playing, but about how we delineate goals that are related to draws and those that aren't).

 

[F A N]

The reality is...his previous team didn't seem to think he was worth even a 2-year deal at his $1.6M. Despite being one of the few teams that actually has quite a bit of cap flexibility right now. That should tell you something.

Not so much the value of the contract, or the realities of a flat cap world. But that the team with the absolute most insight and in depth experience with the player on and off the ice, where he supposedly played so well...didn't think he was worth a multi-year $1.6M deal. Even though they've got millions in cap space to work with. Detroit are one of the handful of teams not really in a current cap crunch. Heck, they're even out there acquiring players like Petry who ensures that they're going to be parking $3M+ in the press box every night on defence and don't seem to care. They didn't think hanging onto Suter was worth it.

I think you're misrepresenting the truth a bit here. Detroit reportedly offered Suter a 1 year deal (for an undisclosed amount) prior to July 1st which he rejected. Detroit then turned around and signed Compher. We don't know if Detroit circled back to Suter, but I don't think it matters. I also don't think it matters that Detroit is unwilling to offer Suter term. They don't see a longer term fit and it's not about their cap space. It's the nature of the business. Most UFA/pending UFA signings don't involve players who signed for the same term and money with a new team.

I don't think Petry is going to be in the press box. What makes you think that?

Pius Suter technically played like an even strength #1C for Chicago. But did anyone in Detroit genuinely believe they were getting a real #1C? He technically played like a #2C for Detroit for a year and a bit off and on...but do we really believe we're getting a #2C?

Deployment and context are king to thoughtful roster consideration.

That's not true either. From what I have read, it's no secret that Detroit gave Suter a chance to be the team's 2C and he failed to fill that role. But he's certainly a capable NHL C. I think most of us expect Suter to compete for the 3C spot but at the very least should be able to fill the 4C spot.

As to the literal Swiss Army Knife utility player comment...what's so interesting about that?

Tongue in cheek, he's literally Swiss. And he's very much like a Swiss Army Knife. Kind of almost serviceable in a pinch at a lot of different things and better than nothing, but not actually good at anything. He got replaced in Detroit by a veritable Leatherman in Copp. Who is also versatile...but a far more robust multi-tool that can actually handle serious work in a variety of roles. Albeit, at a steep price.

But it's a choice. The "Swiss Army Knife" was/is a standard issue to Swiss Army soldiers. One can carry a swiss army knife instead of multiple tools. Many generations of people have carried it as an EDC knife. Hardly something you use in a pinch.

And in a cap world, on this team, do you prefer Copp or Suter? None of this takes away from the fact that Suter is a legitimate NHL centre.

This is the thing where you're taking a very simplistic videogame conception of how real hockey works. Players have roles. It's not just some hierarchy of "highest rating" or "best JFresh chart" or whatever. Roles require context, and when you actually examine the context of Suter's results, it's not directly translatable to a completely different role like "hard minutes 3C" or "limited minutes 4C".

We haven't actually seen him play the specific role he's been ascribed here. It's pure projection. What we have seen...is that two teams have now dumped him. His latest team preferred to ditch him, rather than giving him a 2-year $1.6M contract to be their "good 3C or 4C". Which isn't even pressured by their salary cap situation which is plenty comfortable with room to burn. Their assessment was clearly that he's not worth hanging onto in a role where he's pushed down their depth chart. Not to say that's an infallible assessment or anything...but it jives with the reality of how Suter has been deployed and valued as a player by two different teams now.

Chicago was worried about what Suter could get at arbitration. Detroit signed him to a 2x$3.25M contract. That's too rich for a player like Suter but Detroit did offer Suter a one year deal.

But again that means absolutely nothing. Teams are free to make their decisions. That doesn't mean they make the correct one. St. Louis chose Faulk and Krug over Pietrangelo and Dunn. Penguins dealt McCann because they weren't going to protect him over Blueger and Kapanen. Sometimes it isn't an indictment on the player.

 

[Nick Lang]

I have a master's in the social sciences so yes, I'm aware of the anecdote fallacy.
It also doesn't follow that ALL personal experience is useless either.

My point is, when does a win/goal stop being related to faceoffs?

I've played teams with big centers who were better on the draw/stronger than I was and who had D who were quick at moving the puck and it feels like your team literally never touches the puck.

You need to understand that in hockey everything that occurs is somewhat impacted by the occurrences prior and often in a way that isn't discrete enough to be captured by 'advanced stats'.

Like if you spend an entire period chasing the puck but play kitty-bar the door and then give up 3 goals in the 2nd period then you can be damn sure that the fact that you're never starting with possession played a non-trivial part in that but JFresh (whom I know you're not big on either) can't 'measure' that so it becomes discarded in the public forum.

Also, the whole, 'the fact you actually played moderately high levels of hockey doesn't mean shit' is just embarrassing and on some level you must know that.

HFboards has lost basically all of its cache (remember when Bob McKenzie and his ilk thought it was worthy of posting?) and a big part of that is because it's a bunch of bitter 'never did it' types arguing that reading a spreadsheet is the same as doing the thing.

To be clear, I'm not saying people should bow to me and tell me how great I am because I played. And people are allowed to disagree.

But to act like it's irrelevant? Are we really at that level of naval gazing in society?

Like, I like baseball and I follow it. But I never played it so I carry my opinions more gently and am open to knowledge from those who actually know what it is to try to go from hitting a 90+ fastball to a 78mph knee buckler.

Me reading stats doesn't make up for the lack of experience and baseball is inarguably far easier to quantify through quantitative statistics than hockey is and it's not remotely close.

So if you don't know what it is to try to figure out how to win faceoffs with semi high stakes and experiencing the fallout then I'm not sure how one can think that publicly available blunt force statistics (which most front office types laugh at btw) is a replacement for that experience.

I have had this argument before and people have said that my experience means nothing when it comes to building a team and I respectfully disagree but can entertain that opinion.

But to say that dealing with the granular aspects of the actual experience of playing the sport doesn't offer any weight to ones opinion on said granular aspects is just objectively out of touch with reality.


Refer to my post above (not the part about me playing, but about how we delineate goals that are related to draws and those that aren't).

Agree whole heartedly with the sentiment here. There are absolutely nuances that playing 1000's of games over decades provides specific knowledge that you just don't fully comprehend by simply watching the same number of games or reading the stats. Really it sounds like an absurd statement even when I read it out to myself.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

When you appeal to your own personal authority, the content of your post becomes fart noises

 

[Peen]

The monthly authority discussion is back I see

It never fails

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

The monthly authority discussion is back I see

It never fails

I play NHL 23, which simulates real NHL hockey as opposed to playing against some scrubs who weren’t good enough to be drafted by NHL teams. My authority on the subject is over 9,000

 

[Peen]

I play NHL 23, which simulates real NHL hockey as opposed to playing against some scrubs who weren’t good enough to be drafted by NHL teams. My authority on the subject is over 9,000

I was a top 100 NHL 21 player and played against Byram.

I destroyed him. It’s clearly because I process the game at a better level than him, which means I am very intelligent

 

[4th line culture]

I have a master's in the social sciences so yes, I'm aware of the anecdote fallacy.
It also doesn't follow that ALL personal experience is useless either.

My point is, when does a win/goal stop being related to faceoffs?

I've played teams with big centers who were better on the draw/stronger than I was and who had D who were quick at moving the puck and it feels like your team literally never touches the puck.

You need to understand that in hockey everything that occurs is somewhat impacted by the occurrences prior and often in a way that isn't discrete enough to be captured by 'advanced stats'.

Like if you spend an entire period chasing the puck but play kitty-bar the door and then give up 3 goals in the 2nd period then you can be damn sure that the fact that you're never starting with possession played a non-trivial part in that but JFresh (whom I know you're not big on either) can't 'measure' that so it becomes discarded in the public forum.

Also, the whole, 'the fact you actually played moderately high levels of hockey doesn't mean shit' is just embarrassing and on some level you must know that.

HFboards has lost basically all of its cache (remember when Bob McKenzie and his ilk thought it was worthy of posting?) and a big part of that is because it's a bunch of bitter 'never did it' types arguing that reading a spreadsheet is the same as doing the thing.

To be clear, I'm not saying people should bow to me and tell me how great I am because I played. And people are allowed to disagree.

But to act like it's irrelevant? Are we really at that level of naval gazing in society?

Like, I like baseball and I follow it. But I never played it so I carry my opinions more gently and am open to knowledge from those who actually know what it is to try to go from hitting a 90+ fastball to a 78mph knee buckler.

Me reading stats doesn't make up for the lack of experience and baseball is inarguably far easier to quantify through quantitative statistics than hockey is and it's not remotely close.

So if you don't know what it is to try to figure out how to win faceoffs with semi high stakes and experiencing the fallout then I'm not sure how one can think that publicly available blunt force statistics (which most front office types laugh at btw) is a replacement for that experience.

I have had this argument before and people have said that my experience means nothing when it comes to building a team and I respectfully disagree but can entertain that opinion.

But to say that dealing with the granular aspects of the actual experience of playing the sport doesn't offer any weight to ones opinion on said granular aspects is just objectively out of touch with reality.


Refer to my post above (not the part about me playing, but about how we delineate goals that are related to draws and those that aren't).

May I ask sir, what level of hockey did you play?

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

I have a master's in the social sciences so yes, I'm aware of the anecdote fallacy.
It also doesn't follow that ALL personal experience is useless either.

My point is, when does a win/goal stop being related to faceoffs?

I've played teams with big centers who were better on the draw/stronger than I was and who had D who were quick at moving the puck and it feels like your team literally never touches the puck.

You need to understand that in hockey everything that occurs is somewhat impacted by the occurrences prior and often in a way that isn't discrete enough to be captured by 'advanced stats'.

Like if you spend an entire period chasing the puck but play kitty-bar the door and then give up 3 goals in the 2nd period then you can be damn sure that the fact that you're never starting with possession played a non-trivial part in that but JFresh (whom I know you're not big on either) can't 'measure' that so it becomes discarded in the public forum.

Also, the whole, 'the fact you actually played moderately high levels of hockey doesn't mean shit' is just embarrassing and on some level you must know that.

HFboards has lost basically all of its cache (remember when Bob McKenzie and his ilk thought it was worthy of posting?) and a big part of that is because it's a bunch of bitter 'never did it' types arguing that reading a spreadsheet is the same as doing the thing.

To be clear, I'm not saying people should bow to me and tell me how great I am because I played. And people are allowed to disagree.

But to act like it's irrelevant? Are we really at that level of naval gazing in society?

Like, I like baseball and I follow it. But I never played it so I carry my opinions more gently and am open to knowledge from those who actually know what it is to try to go from hitting a 90+ fastball to a 78mph knee buckler.

Me reading stats doesn't make up for the lack of experience and baseball is inarguably far easier to quantify through quantitative statistics than hockey is and it's not remotely close.

So if you don't know what it is to try to figure out how to win faceoffs with semi high stakes and experiencing the fallout then I'm not sure how one can think that publicly available blunt force statistics (which most front office types laugh at btw) is a replacement for that experience.

I have had this argument before and people have said that my experience means nothing when it comes to building a team and I respectfully disagree but can entertain that opinion.

But to say that dealing with the granular aspects of the actual experience of playing the sport doesn't offer any weight to ones opinion on said granular aspects is just objectively out of touch with reality.


Refer to my post above (not the part about me playing, but about how we delineate goals that are related to draws and those that aren't).

Does a master's in social sciences mean having a TikTok account?

Asking for a friend...

 

[biturbo19]

But the user who threw out the term defined it. He defined 5C as someone who should only play C in a pinch. We don't have to guess what it means. I think ou're conflating what you think is an ideal player to play the position with a player who has successfully played the position. Suter has spent a substantial (I would say majority) of his time as a C in the NHL. He's listed as a C. I think most of us think management signed him to play the C position for the Canucks.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with thinking Suter should only play C in a pinch. But are you saying that the Canucks signed a bottom 6 winger with the intention of slotting him in as a bottom 6 winger? For some reason you don't seem to want to answer this question.

I don't think Suter is a winger per se. I think he's a Center who is an odd fit there without a clear "role". He's basically a very low quality Top-6C. Not good enough to actually want as a Top-6C but not well suited to a conventional bottom-6 role as a C either. Which makes him a better fit as a winger where you can insulate a guy better.

I almost look at it as basically the opposite of what you're suggesting here. He's a "natural Center" who just happens to be in want of a "natural role" there at the NHL level.

Is Yanni Gourde a tweener and does it matter? I get that you like having an old school top 6 bottom 6 but that doesn't take away from the fact that Suter is, at this point, a proven NHL C. It doesn't matter if Gaudette is stylistically similar. A generation of players model their game after [insert start player] and that means nothing.

And you left a key difference here. Gaudette's failure at C was his inability to defend. Suter defends well and coaches trust him to play in a variety of situations and on different lines.

Your stopgap argument is also irrelevant. Cole is a stopgap due to his age too that doesn't mean he's not expected to be a top 4 Dman. The Canucks targeted Suter and Blueger for their ability to play C, defend, PK, chip in offensively, and because they could be economical signings. Nothing wrong with having "stop gaps" when you don't have the ability to acquire a long-term solution.

Gourde isn't a "tweener" at all. He's a #3C with upward mobility. Despite his small stature, he's a guy who can thrive in defensive/matchup situations. He's one of those guys like Pageau, Copp, Coyle, Staal who are really solid ideally suited #3Cs who can "play Top-6C in a pinch"...but should probably be shuffled to the wing if they're playing up the lineup due to their mediocre offensive and puck distributing punch.

The flip side of Suter. Who is naturally a "Top-6C" but still not a guy that you'd want playing there over those other guys. It's the downward mobility into "tougher defensive minutes" that he's lacking. That's what makes him a "tweener" whereas the other guys are 3C's with middle six upward mobility.


I think maybe part of this is that you seem to be overrating Suter's defensive prowess. He's not bad defensively in the appropriate role with proper insulation. But he's not really particularly good either. He's not a mess like Gaudette (who is an AHL/NHL tweener) obviously. However, his defensive acumen hasn't shown that it scales up to the toughest matchup minutes the way someone like Gourde (Pageau, Copp, Staal, etc) does.

The takeaway stat was in the context of posters claiming Aman is some sort of ferocious forechecker. By definition, you're forechecking because your team doesn't have the puck.

And we're not talking about comparing a player with 29 takeaways vs 34 or something like that. 9 takeaways is an glaringly low stat that catches attention.

I don't necessarily think Aman is a defensive beast either. But i also just don't put a lot of stock in the takeaways stat to tell me that. Heck, minimizing Giveaways is probably a more relevant stat, especially for a 4th liner that you want playing a simple, straightforward, safe game with good responsible puck management. Aman has solid numbers there, meaning...confirming the eye test, he's not risky or irresponsible with the puck. Which is good.

He's also not a ferocious forechecker...but there are obviously different calibers of player when it comes to making those intelligent, retrievable dump-ins vs throwing the puck away. There are obvious differences in players who have a feel for controlling lanes and outlets on the forecheck and steering opposing players into potential turnover situations. Aman shows some promise in that, though mostly seemed to defer to a very conservative posture, letting/depending on his wingers to make good on the forecheck.

Your post is way too long for me to respond to everything. But your opinion above is fine. Then your opinion is that the Canucks signed a bottom 6 winger who really should fill in at C in a pinch?

That's not my opinion...at all.

I think the Canucks signed basically a #2F Center to play an unconventional niche role Centering a "3rd Scoring line" as basically a really poor man's 2nd Line with all the surplus offensive Wingers we have.

Suter also just happens to be a guy who has some utility as a fill-in Top-6 Winger.

I don't like Suter in large part because i don't think he's very well suited to any particular role in a strong, conventional bottom-6 at all. He could be okay in a 3W role where he's got a bit less on his plate defensively. But he's not really a Bottom-6 player at all to me.

That's where 5C seems apt enough to me. But call it what you will...He's like a spare Top-6 Center, who can also offer some scoring line ability as a Winger.