Triumph
Registered User
- Oct 2, 2007
- 13,503
- 16,268
I have opinions and even opinions on this, but my opinion that it is over the top to try and "correct" everyone who says "bottom 6" instead of 4th line outweighs the need to tell you are wrong about that in the first place. But...
My opinion- it is perfectly acceptable to say bottom 6 because I can't think of a single player who has played solely the 4th line and not been tried on the third for a few games here and there. If he makes it into the league and becomes a staple on the 4th line, odds are he will be put on the 3rd line from time to time, effectively making him a "bottom 6." If he is a scratch and/or spends most of his time in Utica only to come up for random games when needed to fill in on the 4th line, he is then not a 4th liner or bottom 6er, he is a tweener/AHL player getting his cup of coffee.
Second opinion- you don't need to try and "remind" every person who says bottom 6 that its not called that anymore, because odds are very good that they saw you say it before but just don't agree with you.
This is because we are at cross-purposes here - of course almost every '4th line' player eventually plays up because of injury or benchings or what have you, but we're trying to talk about future value to the team and that player's future role. We're trying to draw relatively broad strokes because we're speaking of the future.
The reason why I think 'top 6' and 'bottom 6' have had such staying power is that in the days of 3 forward power plays, ostensibly your top 6 forwards would play on the power play and the other guys wouldn't. So that's an easy dividing line, even if sometimes players from the other 2 lines might play there regularly and a 'bottom 6' forward is shorthand for one with enough ability to play in the NHL but not enough ability to play on the power play. Now that most teams run with 7 or 8 forward power plays, that's all out the window. We saw Bastian be on PP1 despite playing on the 4th line last year and Noesen did that for Carolina this year as well. So we need new criteria.
Some players will frequently go between the 3rd and 4th line, but most do not. We saw this here last year with Sharangovich and Boqvist, who were often healthy scratches but usually played farther up in the lineup when they got in there. The 4th line has a certain meaning in the NHL, and it's looked at differently - 4th lines dump the puck in more, they tend to play in the corners more, it's where some teams are still willing to play forwards with limited offensive ability if they can do other things.
If you plotted forwards ice time distributions with one another on a team-wide basis, you would probably see what I am talking about - that most of the top 9 forwards would have played with one another significantly more than they played with the 4th liners, who would mostly play with another. This doesn't quite work with the Devils because of how they use McLeod.
Chase Stillman has yet to show the kind of offensive ability that suggests that he can play in an NHL top 9 for any length of time. Players who have this kind of D+2 in the CHL almost never go on to have an NHL career, and even less often do they play up in the top 9 regularly. Perhaps he will someday, and maybe he will make that offensive jump at the NHL level - it won't be the first time it's happened. It's just very unlikely and when discussing prospects, I prefer to discuss the more likely outcomes.