Player Discussion Jeff Gorton

[GoAwayPanarin]

94? Messier, Mactavish, Sarge?

Well, I never met a hockey coach/gm at any level that said losing faceoffs is no big deal. Its part of the game, it automatically puts teams on their heals after a break in the action, it gives you instant setup with a full 2 minute PP, it matters whether its not your cup of tea or not

2014. That team sucked on draws too.

I don't know how many GM's you've met, but I'm pretty sure that the better ones would tell you that they'd rather have the right type of players to run a PP than the wrong ones and a FO Ace. Winning the FO doesn't mean much if you don't know what you're doing on the PP. Again, it's like comparing a hangnail to a gaping hole in your face.

I just think complaining about not being able to win a FO on the PP is hilarious considering all of the other things that are wrong with this team that are MUCH bigger issues (like having someone who can actually QB the PP.)

 

[True Blue]

But killer possession numbers.

Not to mention the way that he absolutely drove the offense.

 

[Thirty One]

The price paid set that measure, not me.

The measure for me will always be effectiveness on the ice, not what's memorable in your mindbrain.

 

[Bluenote13]

I love how in one breath you say "look the FO didn't listen to me!! just imagine if they did" and your very next point is "our FO didn't sign him and that's all you need to know"

Pick one.

Save your typing, I'm not interested in anything you have to say

2014. That team sucked on draws too.

I don't know how many GM's you've met, but I'm pretty sure that the better ones would tell you that they'd rather have the right type of players to run a PP than the wrong ones and a FO Ace. Winning the FO doesn't mean much if you don't know what you're doing on the PP. Again, it's like comparing a hangnail to a gaping hole in your face.

I just think complaining about not being able to win a FO on the PP is hilarious considering all of the other things that are wrong with this team that are MUCH bigger issues (like having someone who can actually QB the PP.)

You keep saying its the biggest issue of all time, not me.

Do you have some hang nails or what, you are footing around something here...


Yes, for years we've needed a PPqb, Mcdonagh fooled them into thinking he was enough, just sprinkle in a Boyle here and a Yandle there and boom, PP magic !

 

[Bluenote13]

The measure for me will always be effectiveness on the ice, not what's memorable in your mindbrain.

Too high a price for that short lived end result.

Memories, all alone in the moonlight....

 

[True Blue]

No, I'm correct. I'm just also able to see why some idiot coach or GM might disagree. You know like our current idiot coach and the former idiot GM who signed them both to extensions.

You are correct that they are the absolute worst defensemen in the NHL, but yet believe that there are more idiots than not that are in coaching and GM positions that will not see it that way? Not sure this thinking leads to long term satisfaction, but keep on keeping on.

You're also attempting to make this black and white, as if it is impossible for them to both be bad defensemen, but still be looked at as valuable. Which is obviously incorrect to anyone with even mediocre reasoning ability.

Let's look at this. "As if it is impossible for them to be bad defensemen and still be looked on as valuable". What does this even mean? If they are bad defensemen, then where is their value add unless they are suddenly coaching? And at last check, I have not really seen such a move. If they are the worst defensemen in the NHL, then on whose team are they an asset if on the ice? You are not really making a case to make the math work on this one, aside from "It is because I say it is" viewpoint. In which case, there is no arguing because if you said it, it must be right.

How about last summer when the Red Wings traded Datsyuk and a first to Arizona? So I guess the answer isn't never, but I'm curious to see how you'll spin that into somehow still being a bad strategy.

If you are going to try go down this road, at least try to at a minimum make it an apples for apples story. Leaving out pertinent facts to make your story better, does not reality make.

Detroit did in deed trade Datsyuk and their first round pick to Arizona. However, they got back Arizona's first and I believe second rounder in the trade. That is NOT what you are proposing. You are saying to go out and bribe a team with a first round pick to take Girardi. Not exactly the same. So yes, teams have made trades of players and picks, but FOR picks. Holland would have been killed if he traded Datsyuk and the 16th overall and received......nothing.

As if it would be better to suffer another year of Staal and Girardi dragging the team down.

If picks are so useless, then why not trade 2 first rounders for someone to take Staal and two more for someone to take Girardi? Bet you find takers. And there is no dead cap space and no on dragging down the team.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Save your typing, I'm not interested in anything you have to say



You keep saying its the biggest issue of all time, not me.

Do you have some hang nails or what, you are footing around something here...


Yes, for years we've needed a PPqb, Mcdonagh fooled them into thinking he was enough, just sprinkle in a Boyle here and a Yandle there and boom, PP magic !

You said...

IDK, Ideally I want a Centerman that will actually win a PP faceoff in the offensive zone on the regular. Stepan and his losing faceoffs at key moments just kills me, if it were not for the declining defenders, would be the worst part of watching this team IMO.

I don't know, sounds like its a pretty big deal to you (it shouldn't be.)

So you're either king of the flip flop or finally coming around. If its the latter, congrats and you're welcome!

 

[Raspewtin]

You said...



I don't know, sounds like its a pretty big deal to you (it shouldn't be.)

So you're either king of the flip flop or finally coming around. If its the latter, congrats and you're welcome!

He's no stranger to fairy tales so it's anyone's guess.

 

[Bluenote13]

You said...



I don't know, sounds like its a pretty big deal to you (it shouldn't be.)

So you're either king of the flip flop or finally coming around. If its the latter, congrats and you're welcome!

Well, thats ONE way of misreading it thats for sure.

I said personally I didn't say organizationally. Sometimes the littlest things eat you inside, got it Sherlock Holmes?

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Well, thats ONE way of misreading it thats for sure.

I said personally I didn't say organizationally. Sometimes the littlest things eat you inside, got it Sherlock Holmes?

Ah so you're going to go that route, classic.

At least try and ride it out with conviction, it's more respectable

 

[Bluenote13]

Ah so you're going to go that route, classic.

At least try and ride it out with conviction, it's more respectable

What 'route' is that, the truth?

 

[JohnC]

"Save your typing, I'm not interested in anything you have to say"

If that's not code for "I've lost this debate" then I don't know what is.

 

[Thirty One]

The top 10 teams in 5-on-4 faceoff percentage this season averaged 1.911 goals per 20 minutes
Middle 10 teams averaged 2.050
Bottom 10 teams averaged 1.986

 

[Ail]

Let's look at this. "As if it is impossible for them to be bad defensemen and still be looked on as valuable". What does this even mean? If they are bad defensemen, then where is their value add unless they are suddenly coaching? And at last check, I have not really seen such a move. If they are the worst defensemen in the NHL, then on whose team are they an asset if on the ice? You are not really making a case to make the math work on this one, aside from "It is because I say it is" viewpoint. In which case, there is no arguing because if you said it, it must be right.

Tanner Glass is one of the worst players in the league, yet there are those who suggest he has value. The same is true for Girardi, and Staal, and every other bad player in the league. Why is this so difficult for you?

If you are going to try go down this road, at least try to at a minimum make it an apples for apples story. Leaving out pertinent facts to make your story better, does not reality make.

Detroit did in deed trade Datsyuk and their first round pick to Arizona. However, they got back Arizona's first and I believe second rounder in the trade. That is NOT what you are proposing. You are saying to go out and bribe a team with a first round pick to take Girardi. Not exactly the same. So yes, teams have made trades of players and picks, but FOR picks. Holland would have been killed if he traded Datsyuk and the 16th overall and received......nothing.

No I'm not. If that's how you took it, that's on you. I didn't think it would be necessary to suggest that the use of assets to bribe a team to take a player, or more importantly his bad contract, would be more than just dumping them off with no assets in return. Although at this point since you brought it up, I probably would pay a 1st just to get Staal off the team, and Girardi can be bought out.

What's stopping the Rangers from doing exactly what Detroit did? It is an apples to apples comparison, but yet again, here you are trying to complicate the argument, make assumptions, and turn it into something it is not. The Red Wings needed to unload a bad contract, the Coyotes wanted to move up in the draft. The Coyotes took on the bad contract to move up in the draft. Detroit paid to unload that contract. The Rangers can do the same thing, which is precisely what I was suggesting from the beginning.

 

[Revel]

The top 10 teams in 5-on-4 faceoff percentage this season averaged 1.911 goals per 20 minutes
Middle 10 teams averaged 2.050
Bottom 10 teams averaged 1.986

Thanks for posting this. Prompted me to shoot over to Corsica and check it out. Can't argue with the hard data. Some of the best PP teams don't have comparatively good FO %s...while some of the worst PP teams excel at FOs. There's really no substantial connection between FO% and PP%. The only thing that stands out is that the best PP teams have elite talent on the PP. I have no problem admitting my thought process was wrong (as is often the case). It's good to learn.

 

[Bluenote13]

"Save your typing, I'm not interested in anything you have to say"

If that's not code for "I've lost this debate" then I don't know what is.

No, I already told that poster I have no interest in having any conversation with them, thats it.

Thanks for keeping up with me all these years shadow.....

 

[Bluenote13]

The top 10 teams in 5-on-4 faceoff percentage this season averaged 1.911 goals per 20 minutes
Middle 10 teams averaged 2.050
Bottom 10 teams averaged 1.986

Thanks for posting this. Prompted me to shoot over to Corsica and check it out. Can't argue with the hard data. Some of the best PP teams don't have comparatively good FO %s...while some of the worst PP teams excel at FOs. There's really no substantial connection between FO% and PP%. The only thing that stands out is that the best PP teams have elite talent on the PP. I have no problem admitting my thought process was wrong (as is often the case). It's good to learn.

These stats don't indicate how many of those faceoffs were at the most crucial points in the game, not that it matters to you guys....

 

[The Gloaming]

He needs to fire AV or idiotproof the **** out of this roster (literally).

We just cannot do the whole "give this core one more shot" thing again, especially with the wonder twins.

 

[JimmyG89]

These stats don't indicate how many of those faceoffs were at the most crucial points in the game, not that it matters to you guys....

It does actually. Isn't every faceoff critical? When is it okay to lose a faceoff?

Based on what I've read, you don't want to ever lose a faceoff. Doesn't that make them super important?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[The Gloaming]

These stats don't indicate how many of those faceoffs were at the most crucial points in the game, not that it matters to you guys....

How are you defining crucial faceoffs? And how can you prove that a player with a high faceoff% is winning these crucial faceoffs, and not just making up for them with "uncrucial" faceoffs? Especially when uncrucial faceoffs are probably outnumbering the crucial ones by at least 4:1?

 

[Bluenote13]

It does actually. Isn't every faceoff critical? When is it okay to lose a faceoff?

Based on what I've read, you don't want to ever lose a faceoff. Doesn't that make them super important?

You can't have it both ways.

Thats not the point though if we're talking about Stepan losing crucial faceoffs. He wins one when we are up 4-1 in October is not the same as losing a faceoff to start a 4 on 4 in game six vs the Sens. I'd prefer to have some clutch in the dot when it matters.

 

[Bluenote13]

How are you defining crucial faceoffs? And how can you prove that a player with a high faceoff% is winning these crucial faceoffs, and not just making up for them with "uncrucial" faceoffs?

Not by stats, by seeing with my own eyes how many crucial faceoffs he loses.

 

[The Gloaming]

Not by stats, by seeing with my own eyes how many crucial faceoffs he loses.

So you're watching all of the thousands of faceoffs a player takes over the season and picking out the important ones, and doing that for multiple players? Ok.

I believe Washington's PP would still be deadly even if Backstrom and Johansson were winning 40% of their faceoffs.

 

[Revel]

Thats not the point though if we're talking about Stepan losing crucial faceoffs. He wins one when we are up 4-1 in October is not the same as losing a faceoff to start a 4 on 4 in game six vs the Sens. I'd prefer to have some clutch in the dot when it matters.

If your PP is already solid, winning some extra faceoffs will probably result in some more goals. Sure. But if your PP sucks and you're looking to attack the problem...the first thing you want to do is change your PP personnel....otherwise you'll continue to bang your head against the wall. Then, probably look at your system. FOs are a tertiary concern.

With the Rangers...they primarily need to be looking at who they have out there and their approach. In my opinion.

 

[Thirty One]

I just checked the data, and on crucial faceoffs, Stepan is actually 54.8%.