"Debunking" the 11-12 team's dominance and Nash Trade woes

[Tawnos]

The season before that, Dubinsky was switched to the wing

I agree with this whole post except for one thing. Dubinsky took a bunch of faceoffs, but after the draw, he played primarily on the wing for us the season he led the team in points. That wasn't the cause of his sudden inability to score.

 

[BlaqICE]

1) Apparently that team was a "winning team". First of all what did they win? They made the ECF in the easiest draw I can remember a team having in a while and then got curb stomped by the worst SC finalist since the 06 Oilers. No offense to the very solid Kings, but if the team couldn't win the cup THAT year they can't win any other year. Look at the caliber of teams in SC Finals usually. Look at last year. The elite of the elite.

The number one (president's trophy winners), two, and three seeds in the west and the Devils in the finals lost to the worst stanley cup finalist EVER (a team that lost more games than they won during the regular season), so I guess all those teams really weren't good teams.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Great post. I never understood the Dubinsky hate, it's nice to see he's still appreciated by some of the fanbase.

Who hates Dubinsky? People are just saying he's overrated.

People around here act like he's a first line player. He's a very useful third liner.

And i don't care what he was "on pace for." Dubinsky was notorious for going on extremely long droughts. Maybe he'll have a season where that doesn't happen, but he played in 29 games last year.

Remember in 2010 when he started of super hot and was leading the league in like every category. He then fell off the face of the earth and didn't score a point for like 20+ games.

Fact is, the guy has cracked 50 points ONCE in his career. and that was centering Jaromir Jagr.

He is a fantastic role player. But he makes to much money and is basically a glorified third liner. And you can say he was "on the same pace" as callahan last year but lets look at there real stats instead of a 29 game sample.

In 405 games, Ryan Callahan has 121 goals.
In 424 games, Brandon Dubinsky has 83 goals

Ryan Callahan has 40 power play goals.
Dubinsky has....15

Callahan has 934 hits
Dubinsky has 548

The only place where Dubinsky beats Callahan is assists and faceoffs. Callahan is the superior offensive player.

If you had asked me after their first couple years in the league who i thought the better player would be, i would have said Dubinsky by a mile, but it's clear as day Callahan is not only a superior player but a better leader as well.

Faceoffs are important and are highlighted on this team because a lot of our guys suck at them, but they are usually an easy aspect to replace. Keeping Dubinsky because of faceoffs is moronic.

Again, very useful player, but nothing more than a third liner. I don't care if he's "playing on columbus' first line" right now. He played on our first line plenty....never made him a "first line player."

He's a great third liner that can slot in on the 2nd line here and there.

 

[Tawnos]

Fact is, the guy has cracked 50 points ONCE in his career. and that was centering Jaromir Jagr.

Dubinsky hit 50 points with Anisimov and Callahan. Jagr was long gone by then.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Dubinsky hit 50 points with Anisimov and Callahan. Jagr was long gone by then.

You're correct.....i was mistaken. forgot his rookie years were with Jags.

Regardless, doesn't invalidate the points. He's not a top line player.

And i haven't ever seen one person say they hate him on these boards. He gave it his all here, but he's so overrated. Not quite Sean Avery bad, but it's getting up there.

 

[smoneil]

You're correct.....i was mistaken. forgot his rookie years were with Jags.

Regardless, doesn't invalidate the points. He's not a top line player.

And i haven't ever seen one person say they hate him on these boards. He gave it his all here, but he's so overrated. Not quite Sean Avery bad, but it's getting up there.

You made a bunch of points to disprove an argument that nobody was making (you complain about not seeing anyone claim that they hate him, but then you argue against a claim that he's a 1st liner--where has anyone made such a claim? I think I'm the only one who has stated a "line" for him, and I clearly said 2nd). You also tossed out factually incorrect information (ironically leading it with "the fact is") in your attempt to do so. Finally, you offered a series of stats that only prove one thing: That Dubinsky is not as good of a goal scorer as Callahan.

That is why people think you (and others) hate on Dubinsky. You bring him up only to tear him down by looking at only some of the stats/facts. You insist on judging a player who has ALWAYS been a playmaker by his goal totals. That's like judging Messier on how he combs his hair.

The argument people make about Dubinsky is this:

He is an above-average second liner (just like Callahan). He does all the little things a team needs to win (including hitting, PKing, and winning faceoffs). He brought out the best in people put on his line (not only Callahan. You brought up Jagr. Dubi centered Jagr not as a gift to a young kid, but because neither Gomez nor Drury--neither of whom had fallen off the planet in skill yet--didn't work well with him. He won that role, and people try to use it against him).

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You clearly don't get my point and i really can't make it any clearer, so let's just agree to disagree.

No worries, you just have to remember, everyone wants the team to succeed in their own twisted way. If someones offensive, just block em.

I still don't know that it was CK or AA. I think it was one of CK, JT, MDZ and then we flipped that into Erixon instead. I think AA was always part of the deal. Regardless, it's something we'll have to wait and see. I still think moving AA, regardless of what happens with CK was the right move.

He's a very solid player, but putting up points over a series of games doesn't mean he produced like a first line player. It just means he had hot streaks. We can point to Boyle during his 20 goal season and say he produced like a second liner during that year, but producing and playing like one are completey different. AA is a solid solid player, but you have to give to get. I don't think there is one Rangers fan that isn't dissapointed with CK not maknig the team, but he's only 22, he has a LOT o things to learn. I think he'll be fine.

Again, I don't think AA was a negotiable. I think he was always going. I'm pretty sure, if i recall correctly it wasn't CK or AA.

CK was a great college player. I don't really know where people are getting off saying he wasn't good. He didn't put up a crazy amount of points because his coach there stressed his defensive side of the game and wanted him out there against other teams to shut them down. He was pretty clearly the best player on those teams and showed it in the tournaments when he won MVP.

CK may never be a defensive stalwart, but a power forward....the guy hits like a truck.

Ask Seidenberg, who came out publicly after playing against him last year and said how hard Kreider hits. Problem is, he doesn't bring that every single shift. If you recall, Callahan was the same way (except less of a skillset imo). he came up and had glimpses where he played very well, but he wasn't doing it shift in shift out and it caused him to be sent pack to the AHL, twice, i believe, before he fully stuck with the team.

Kreider needs to learn to play every single shift like it's your last. Go hard after the puck, hit every player when you get the chance. He is extremely big, way bigger then cally, he's extremely fast and has a very good shot. He just has to learn to do it all consistently.

It's not a matter of IF he's capable, because we've seen him play at that level in the NHL, it's a matter of can he SUSTAIN that level of play.

He had a great PO so the team was high on him and didn't want to trade him. Is this not your point? If it was your point then I am saying that a great PO is inconsequential bc despite those PO's he could still bust or fail miserably to reach his potential.

That may be so but I'm just expressing a worry that we may lament that we couldn't trade CK instead of AA. If Ck busts for instance and we COULD have moved him instead of AA then in this hypo0thetical it would have been a mistake to move AA but obviously that's an extreme hypothetical. Also as you said it may not have even been a one or the other proposition.

Too many players fit the tool but no toolbox model. I just don't think much about the few highlights when compared to the consistent lowlights he's had. I also think too much leeway is given to him from his college career. He looked disengaged and unaware too often and it had nothing to do with Defense. He's continued that as a NYR so far.

When Callahan came up for his cups of coffee I came away so impressed. I saw him throwing hits at every opportunity and just running all over the ice. I never saw him gassed or disengaged. I've seen both froM CK multiple times. It's just very very worrying. When Cally c ame up it was a completely different team and coaching staff though so perhaps this was important

In the end AA is gone and CK is here and I do drool over the highlights although I try to evaluate the whole package of what I've seen. I am excited as hell hoping he shows up this year and starts knocking guys off their skates. I don'[t care if he scores he just needs to be involved and the rest will start to come

 

[16 To Stanley*]

You made a bunch of points to disprove an argument that nobody was making (you complain about not seeing anyone claim that they hate him, but then you argue against a claim that he's a 1st liner--where has anyone made such a claim? I think I'm the only one who has stated a "line" for him, and I clearly said 2nd). You also tossed out factually incorrect information (ironically leading it with "the fact is") in your attempt to do so. Finally, you offered a series of stats that only prove one thing: That Dubinsky is not as good of a goal scorer as Callahan.

That is why people think you (and others) hate on Dubinsky. You bring him up only to tear him down by looking at only some of the stats/facts. You insist on judging a player who has ALWAYS been a playmaker by his goal totals. That's like judging Messier on how he combs his hair.

The argument people make about Dubinsky is this:

He is an above-average second liner (just like Callahan). He does all the little things a team needs to win (including hitting, PKing, and winning faceoffs). He brought out the best in people put on his line (not only Callahan. You brought up Jagr. Dubi centered Jagr not as a gift to a young kid, but because neither Gomez nor Drury--neither of whom had fallen off the planet in skill yet--didn't work well with him. He won that role, and people try to use it against him).

I completely disagree with him being an above average second liner, when he has only performed at that level over one full season.

He was a fringe second liner and a great third liner at best while here. The jury is still out on his tenure in Columbus as I'm not going to judge him based on the 31 games he's played in that uniform.

He may very well prove to be a great second liner over the course of his prime. But he hasn't yet and using a sample size of 29 games to argue that he is on a level playing field with Callahan is asinine.

Again, anyone who watched him in his time here saw flashes of brilliance, even for extended periods of time, such as the beginning of the year during his 24 goal season. But during the second half, he fell off the face of the planet and completely stopped producing.

I have no doubt Dubinsky is capable of going on streaks where he plays like a first line player, but he has never shown he can sustain that level of play. He had one season where he sustained the play of a great second line player. Outside of that he has been a fringe 2nd liner/great third line player.

The only reason he gets "hate" around here, from myself and others, is because people act as if he is the key to a cup winning team. He's a solid player, but he's not a savior and with the depth the Rangers seemed to have at the time, he became expendable, specifically for a player of Nash's caliber.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Dubs in his last two years with the team was not doing all the things that made him successful. His game had really fallen off and I think he needed to be traded. Being "the guy" in CB may get him back to his game a bit more though. Production in assists is good but not if that's all he's doing simply bc there are no other guys to get minutes on that team which may be what's happening. Hope he finds his game again...probably in a contrac tyear

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The number one (president's trophy winners), two, and three seeds in the west and the Devils in the finals lost to the worst stanley cup finalist EVER (a team that lost more games than they won during the regular season), so I guess all those teams really weren't good teams.

The Kings were a much better team than the Devils. Their seed was a fluke. However, if we were to win any year, a year when those Kings were in the finals was as good as any.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Who hates Dubinsky? People are just saying he's overrated.

People around here act like he's a first line player. He's a very useful third liner.

And i don't care what he was "on pace for." Dubinsky was notorious for going on extremely long droughts. Maybe he'll have a season where that doesn't happen, but he played in 29 games last year.

Remember in 2010 when he started of super hot and was leading the league in like every category. He then fell off the face of the earth and didn't score a point for like 20+ games.

Fact is, the guy has cracked 50 points ONCE in his career. and that was centering Jaromir Jagr.

He is a fantastic role player. But he makes to much money and is basically a glorified third liner. And you can say he was "on the same pace" as callahan last year but lets look at there real stats instead of a 29 game sample.

In 405 games, Ryan Callahan has 121 goals.
In 424 games, Brandon Dubinsky has 83 goals

Ryan Callahan has 40 power play goals.
Dubinsky has....15

Callahan has 934 hits
Dubinsky has 548

The only place where Dubinsky beats Callahan is assists and faceoffs. Callahan is the superior offensive player.

If you had asked me after their first couple years in the league who i thought the better player would be, i would have said Dubinsky by a mile, but it's clear as day Callahan is not only a superior player but a better leader as well.

Faceoffs are important and are highlighted on this team because a lot of our guys suck at them, but they are usually an easy aspect to replace. Keeping Dubinsky because of faceoffs is moronic.

Again, very useful player, but nothing more than a third liner. I don't care if he's "playing on columbus' first line" right now. He played on our first line plenty....never made him a "first line player."

He's a great third liner that can slot in on the 2nd line here and there.

Whichever mod deleted my post and left this one has got to be kidding me. The entire point of my post was that I took this post, copied it's form and cherry picked my own statistics to show how easily the other argument could be made. Letting this post stay here is simply allowing biased, misinformation to be disseminated. I didn't flame the poster; I showed how easily I could write an almost identical post claiming the opposite by only portraying certain statistics and twisting it to fit a description of a player that isn't really accurate.


Everything I wrote was completely relevant. He cherry picked stats to prove a point. I cherry picked other stats to show how easily you could make the inverse argument. And you could. They're nearly identical players with different strengths (playmaker vs finisher). They have nearly identical career best seasons, the same number of 40 point seasons, nearly identical points in their career (Dubi has more, and is younger). They're both known to by physical forces. Cally hits more and Dubi is bigger and still hits a lot (few players anywhere hit more than Cally). They both play almost identical minutes on the PK, but Cally gets significantly more PP time. And yet, they still put up similar points. Dubinsky had ONE bad season and became a glorified third liner. Callahan has almost identical EVERYTHING except for being a better goal scorer versus playmaker, and he is a legitimate top line winger. Dubinsky is also a superb faceoff man and a very strong leader, as evidence by quickly being given the A in Columbus (people talked about him receiving the C here, the year before Cally got it, most expected him to at least get an A).

And I wasn't even the only poster to point this out or disagree with this post. I didn't "copy" the form of the post to 'troll' the poster; I wanted to prove a point about how easy it is to twist information to serve your own agenda and more accurately compare the two players by providing the "other" side of the stats that were chosen and showing that, when you look at the complete picture, they're remarkably similar.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I'd like to debunk a few myths here myself.

Dubinksy is currently playing on the top line in Columbus. After a very hot pre-season, he has a point in each of his team's first games.

Last season, in Columbus, he was on pace for 56.552 points. Ryan Callahan was on pace, last season, for 56.489.

The season before that, Dubinsky was switched to the wing (he is back at center in Columbus). He took 399 faceoffs, compared to the 875 he'd taken the year before. He didn't adjust to playing the wing that well (a popular misconception here) because his puck possession/carrying/distribution game didn't translate well to the wing. As he struggled, he didn't produce and Torts, being Torts, put him the doghouse, gave him less and less favorable linemates and heavily curtailed his PP time. He played 2:17 less at ES than Callahan and received 1:46 on the PP per game; Callahan received 3:42.

Prior to that season, as a center, Dubinsky's production had risen every single season of his career. He had also never been below 51% in the dot. In fact, the season right before Dubi was switched to the wing he'd had a 24 goal 54 point season, in which he took 875 faceoffs and went .525 in the dot. Clearly, it made sense to move him out of that position. Also, I've heard some people here say Dubinsky has never scored 20 goals in his career? He had back to back 20 goal seasons prior to the off-year that got him traded.

What's more, Dubinsky is 13 months younger than Ryan Callahan. He has played in 19 more games than Callahan and still has more points than him in his career. Last year, although he was injured and only played 29 games, he was on an identical pace, point-wise, as Callahan and also played identical SH minutes per game in Columbus. People love to say Dubinsky is a fringe 2nd liner/ideal third liner but he has outscored our "top line" captain to this point in their careers. Moreover, Callahan's career best season is 29 goals and 54 points. The season before, Dubinksy had 24 goals and 54 points. Last season, both were on pace for 56 points. Both are responsible two-way players with strong leadership qualities and physical games. Cally is a goal scorer, Dubi is a playmaker; both are 50+ point players. Cally is a winger, Dubi is a center (never below 50% in the dots). Cally wears a C, Dubi wears an A.

This board has downplayed and belittled the importance of Dubi since the trade, because he had one bad year. He still has more career points than Callahan, plays just as much time short handed, gets less time on the PP, and paces for identical points. He's a passionate, team guy and not even really overpaid, considering what guys got in free agency this summer. Those of us who feel it was a mistake to let him go, when he was such a core part of the team's identity are not glorifying the past and yearning for some fringe top six player. Dubinsky is no more a third liner than Ryan Callahan is.

This should be required reading to post anything about Dubi.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Thank you.

People love to believe that "the way they remember it" is the truth.

That post is the truth. That's why I made it. In the hopes that some posters might realize it's not nearly the way they might remember it.

 

[smoneil]

I completely disagree with him being an above average second liner, when he has only performed at that level over one full season.

He was a fringe second liner and a great third liner at best while here. The jury is still out on his tenure in Columbus as I'm not going to judge him based on the 31 games he's played in that uniform.

He may very well prove to be a great second liner over the course of his prime. But he hasn't yet and using a sample size of 29 games to argue that he is on a level playing field with Callahan is asinine.

You have this thing, where you keep stating that people are trying to argue something that they aren't, and then "proving" them wrong. It's called a straw man argument. You should probably stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously.

Nobody said that Dubi is on a level playing field with Cally because of 29 games in Columbus. We based that on the entirety of their careers--careers where Dubi has out-produced Cally in every year but one.

Also, Dubinsky has performed at the level of an above average 2nd liner for 3 of the last four seasons (his last year here was a down year).

Again, anyone who watched him in his time here saw flashes of brilliance, even for extended periods of time, such as the beginning of the year during his 24 goal season. But during the second half, he fell off the face of the planet and completely stopped producing.

I have no doubt Dubinsky is capable of going on streaks where he plays like a first line player, but he has never shown he can sustain that level of play. He had one season where he sustained the play of a great second line player. Outside of that he has been a fringe 2nd liner/great third line player.

Again with the first line player nonsense. Again--NOBODY is making that argument. Also, you keep going back to goals as your basis. Dubinsky is not a goalscorer. He never was. He did have a couple of 20 goal seasons, but that's really the most that you could expect from a player like Dubi. A 45-55 point player that also PKs, wins faceoffs, hits, transitions well and fights when needed is NOT a 3rd line player.

And again-- three of his last four seasons were 2nd line production.

The only reason he gets "hate" around here, from myself and others, is because people act as if he is the key to a cup winning team. He's a solid player, but he's not a savior and with the depth the Rangers seemed to have at the time, he became expendable, specifically for a player of Nash's caliber.

Two things. First--nobody acts as if Dubi is the key to a cup winning team. We think that the team would have been better off with him, AA, Erixon and the 1st than with Nash. There is a difference, and we have different reasons for WHY we think that. Mine is that the team made a deep run, winning on chemistry and effort. Teams that make that kind of a deep run, when kept together, tend to do better the next year. You can see it in a lot of teams--they get a taste, understand what it takes to get there, and find a higher level the next year. We gutted the team, moving or just removing players that went through that, and replacing them with nobodies or players that have NEVER succeeded.

Nash is a hell of a talent, but he has never carried a team to anything. During the trade debate, my main concern was that Nash's attitude and lack of career success would result in the team falling from where they were and that it would spread through the locker room. He was a total no-show in the playoffs, and the locker room revolted on the coach (something that had happened a few times in Nash's tenure with Columbus). I'm not happy about being right, but everyone should have seen last season coming a mile away.

Second--you are too obsessed with stats--Chemistry is just as if not more important than pure talent when it comes to winning the Cup. Yes, you need to have talent, but you also need to want it more than the other team. How many times have we seen the Cup won because a minor player, a grinder, a 2nd/3rd/4th line guy came up with the big goal? Hell, we lost last year because Boston's bottom six dominated us. Historically, the only thing Nash has been willing to dig deep and fight for is a day off. That's his MO. It's always been his MO. Even on team Canada, he was bumped down to the bottom six.

As such, I think the team was better off before the Nash trade. We moved guys who ARE willing to do what it takes, and brought in a guy with boatloads more talent and much better regular season stats, but has no 2nd gear to speak of.

 

[redfzn]

Watching the Blue Jackets play the Isles last night, Gabby really seemed to be moving around out there and very noticeable.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

You have this thing, where you keep stating that people are trying to argue something that they aren't, and then "proving" them wrong. It's called a straw man argument. You should probably stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously.

I never stated anyone was trying to "argue" anything. I'm debating that Dubinsky isn't as necessary as people around here make him out to be.

Again with the first line player nonsense. Again--NOBODY is making that argument. Also, you keep going back to goals as your basis. Dubinsky is not a goalscorer. He never was. He did have a couple of 20 goal seasons, but that's really the most that you could expect from a player like Dubi. A 45-55 point player that also PKs, wins faceoffs, hits, transitions well and fights when needed is NOT a 3rd line player.

He's scored above 45 points once in his career....so acting like 45-55 points is the "norm" for him, just isn't true.

And again-- three of his last four seasons were 2nd line production.

Fair enough, but above average....no. On par with other 2nd liners outside of the one 54 point season.

Two things. First--nobody acts as if Dubi is the key to a cup winning team. We think that the team would have been better off with him, AA, Erixon and the 1st than with Nash. There is a difference, and we have different reasons for WHY we think that. Mine is that the team made a deep run, winning on chemistry and effort. Teams that make that kind of a deep run, when kept together, tend to do better the next year. You can see it in a lot of teams--they get a taste, understand what it takes to get there, and find a higher level the next year. We gutted the team, moving or just removing players that went through that, and replacing them with nobodies or players that have NEVER succeeded.

Ok and where did i say that keeping that team together would have been a mistake....i never did. Although i do believe they played above their heads that year. The only thing i have said is that it will take results with the team as constructed currently to put to bed the fact that we would have been better off without the trade.

Unless this team, or a team built around Nash, makes it to the ECF/further, that trade will have likely been considered a mistake in many fans eyes, including my own. Although I still maintain that you do that trade over and over.

Nash is a hell of a talent, but he has never carried a team to anything. During the trade debate, my main concern was that Nash's attitude and lack of career success would result in the team falling from where they were and that it would spread through the locker room. He was a total no-show in the playoffs, and the locker room revolted on the coach (something that had happened a few times in Nash's tenure with Columbus). I'm not happy about being right, but everyone should have seen last season coming a mile away.

And can you find any sort of facts that Nash was a "leader" in that revolt, or even an interested party?

I've seen over and over again, people have this sense that just because Nash doesn't fly around and hit people that he isn't trying. He has a style to his game that makes it seem as if he isn't out there giving 110% but it's been the way he always plays. I've never seen someone professionaly question his effort levels. I don't see him as having a lack of attitude, I just see him as more of a player that has a ton of talent and makes it look easier then most.

Second--you are too obsessed with stats--Chemistry is just as if not more important than pure talent when it comes to winning the Cup. Yes, you need to have talent, but you also need to want it more than the other team. How many times have we seen the Cup won because a minor player, a grinder, a 2nd/3rd/4th line guy came up with the big goal? Hell, we lost last year because Boston's bottom six dominated us. Historically, the only thing Nash has been willing to dig deep and fight for is a day off. That's his MO. It's always been his MO. Even on team Canada, he was bumped down to the bottom six.

Again, please back up facts to support this claim. Talk about a straw man arguement. The people i've seen continously question his work ethic are fans, not professionals. You think that fans would learn over time that there are different types of players, you have your grinders, ala Dubinsky, Callahan etc, who have skill, but add other aspects to their games as they develop in order to make it and be successful in the NHL. Then you have guys like Nash, Gaborik, Sedin twins, etc, who are born with immense talent and focus strictly on an offensive side of the game rather then the grinding aspects. The players that are able to combine the grinding and the skill become legends, like Messier, Lemeiux, or more recently, Ovechkin.

Nash isn't a grinder, he's not someone who is going to go out there and fight every game or throw around big hits, he's someone who is an offensive specialist. People always want to replicate a Messier type and what they don't realize is those guys don't grow on trees. I guess simply put, I consider Nash and Gaborik complimentary offensive players. They are never going to lead there teams directly to cups, but they will have to play large parts in it.

But i also don't think you can have a team of grinders thrown together (some like Callahan, Dubi, with more talent then others) and win a cup. You need certain elite talent in specific areas. Nash is an elite offensive player. Not an elite overall player.

As such, I think the team was better off before the Nash trade. We moved guys who ARE willing to do what it takes, and brought in a guy with boatloads more talent and much better regular season stats, but has no 2nd gear to speak of.

You are completely free to have that opinion and i don't necessarily disagree with you. But i think basing that off of one post-season, in a season that was completely distorted as it was, is somewhat short-sighted. The team was newly constructed and didn't have any training camp and with games every other day, not many practices to figure things out either.

I think it was a massive detriment to have brought in so many new pieces in a season that was shortened. The teams that had success last year were ones that had been together.

I think this team is more talented, but they need time together to get things working. They weren't given that last year and it worked against them.

 

[aufheben]

The real dilemma is: Who's gonna throw gatorade now?

 

[Samuel Culper III]

The real dilemma is: Who's gonna throw gatorade now?

Nobody on this roster seems to care enough. Henrik might chop it with his goal stick, but outside of the King, we'll have to settle for someone giving the cooler a few nasty looks and frustrated gesticulations.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Whichever mod deleted my post and left this one has got to be kidding me. The entire point of my post was that I took this post, copied it's form and cherry picked my own statistics to show how easily the other argument could be made. Letting this post stay here is simply allowing biased, misinformation to be disseminated. I didn't flame the poster; I showed how easily I could write an almost identical post claiming the opposite by only portraying certain statistics and twisting it to fit a description of a player that isn't really accurate.


Everything I wrote was completely relevant. He cherry picked stats to prove a point. I cherry picked other stats to show how easily you could make the inverse argument. And you could. They're nearly identical players with different strengths (playmaker vs finisher). They have nearly identical career best seasons, the same number of 40 point seasons, nearly identical points in their career (Dubi has more, and is younger). They're both known to by physical forces. Cally hits more and Dubi is bigger and still hits a lot (few players anywhere hit more than Cally). They both play almost identical minutes on the PK, but Cally gets significantly more PP time. And yet, they still put up similar points. Dubinsky had ONE bad season and became a glorified third liner. Callahan has almost identical EVERYTHING except for being a better goal scorer versus playmaker, and he is a legitimate top line winger. Dubinsky is also a superb faceoff man and a very strong leader, as evidence by quickly being given the A in Columbus (people talked about him receiving the C here, the year before Cally got it, most expected him to at least get an A).

And I wasn't even the only poster to point this out or disagree with this post. I didn't "copy" the form of the post to 'troll' the poster; I wanted to prove a point about how easy it is to twist information to serve your own agenda and more accurately compare the two players by providing the "other" side of the stats that were chosen and showing that, when you look at the complete picture, they're remarkably similar.

And maybe the reason the Rangers let him go was because they had a similar player in Callahan that they valued slightly more...

You don't win a cup with a team filled with grinders...

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Why are we comparing what Dubi would do here and what he is doing in Columbus?

Fact of the matter is he'd be a 3rd liner here. In Columbus, he HAS to be a top 6 player. They have no one else.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Tawnos]

Why are we comparing what Dubi would do here and what he is doing in Columbus?

Fact of the matter is he'd be a 3rd liner here. In Columbus, he HAS to be a top 6 player. They have no one else.

Apples and oranges.

Name 2 left wings on this roster better than him in that position.

You might name Hagelin, but at best, that would be a toss-up. As it is, we've had to switch one of our centers to wing. Dubinsky would be a top 6 player here too.

 

[Tawnos]

You know, I'm just as bad as everyone else here. I've been drawn into a meaningless argument about where Dubinsky fits on the depth chart on this team now. Who cares? My original point, and it goes to this actual thread, is that the Rangers miss his attitude towards the game, points on the scoreboard be damned. The 11-12 team was a resilient group and his attitude went a long way towards it. Even if he was a 3rd liner... hell, even a 4th liner. It was that group resiliency that made the 11-12 so good and it's the main aspect of the team that consistently gets overlooked when people decide they were overrated.

We don't have it anymore, so we'll just have to find another way to win, but it was something to watch when we did.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Why are we comparing what Dubi would do here and what he is doing in Columbus?

Fact of the matter is he'd be a 3rd liner here. In Columbus, he HAS to be a top 6 player. They have no one else.

Apples and oranges.

Blah, blah, blah. The Rangers have Nash, Hagelin and Callahan as top-six worthy wingers. Zuccarello, arguably. Dubinsky is certainly more proven. And in Columbus? Gaborik, Horton, Umberger, Foligno, Atkinson, Calvert, Johansen, Letestu, Jenner, Anisimov, Dubinsky. They're hardly chopped liver on forwards right now.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Name 2 left wings on this roster better than him in that position.

You might name Hagelin, but at best, that would be a toss-up. As it is, we've had to switch one of our centers to wing. Dubinsky would be a top 6 player here too.

I would take both Hagelin and Zucc over him in a top 6 role once Hagelin and Callahan are back.

 

[16 To Stanley*]

Richards is playing a top 6 wing as well....