Most of Nash's goals are meaningless...

[KreiMeARiver*]

Trade him for Torts then fire Torts again. Then trade Hank for Nash. Then....then.....then.....

 

[EspenK]

I did a similar analysis on Nash during his last season with the Jackets. It only covered that year but if I remember correctly about 1/2 or so of his goals came late after the outcome had been decided.

Of course he had had it with Columbus by then and except for a pre-trade deadline flourish he pretty much was a non-factor most of the year.

Hopefully for you guys he continues to play at the nearly ppg pace of last year and he stays motivated.

 

[EspenK]

You'd be surprised, but the majority of what they considered meaningless were in blowout losses. Basically any goal that didn't actually help the team, whether it be a goal late in a game when down 3 or a goal that padded the lead.

Bringing up Columbus fans in this situation is somewhat hyperbolic, I only did it because someone in the other thread mentioned that "Columbus fans are always saying he scored a lot of meaningless goals." But it is something I've seen said on HF by many fans, especially when he was talked about before the trade happened and people were trying to find ways to support not wanting him on their team.

How else would you define meaningless?

 

[Tawnos]

What it shows as far as his goal scoring is the bulk of his goals come when the game is tied, or his team is either trailing or leading by one goal.

Isn't the vast majority of playing time in all games around the league in one of those 3 situations?

Just saying, because I don't disagree with the bulk of your post. One of those situations where perception is in contrast with statistics.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

I did a similar analysis on Nash during his last season with the Jackets. It only covered that year but if I remember correctly about 1/2 or so of his goals came late after the outcome had been decided.

Of course he had had it with Columbus by then and except for a pre-trade deadline flourish he pretty much was a non-factor most of the year.

Hopefully for you guys he continues to play at the nearly ppg pace of last year and he stays motivated.

Definitely noticed this trend as well.

How else would you define meaningless?

I was just reiterating it for that poster.

Isn't the vast majority of playing time in all games around the league in one of those 3 situations?

Just saying, because I don't disagree with the bulk of your post. One of those situations where perception is in contrast with statistics.

I'd assume thats safe to say. Either way, I think it proves that the majority of goals scored in the NHL have "meaning". I always thought it was a silly argument because goals are goals, but just wanted to look deeper to see if those claims held water.

 

[db2011]

Lowering the bar including guys like Seguin and Selanne in there. Then you include Ovechkin who played in less games and against the best goalie in the world in his games, so there goes that example. Now you consider Toews who got a solid amount of bad press for his offensive output, but he's not supposed to be the pure goal scorer Nash is supposed to be. Nash contributes NOTHING other than his goal scoring. He's been a poor playmaker, he's got no heart, he doesn't play D, he doesn't hit, he doesn't lead. Toews is/does all of those things which make him valuable even when he's not putting the puck in the net. Same goes for Kane, who's season high goal total was 30 which he only did once.

Nash has been a disappointment so far. And I had low expectations of him coming into things.

I'm a Columbus fan, and since we got generalized into this thread I'll just say that the bolded pretty much sums up my position on the guy. To be fair, that's not representative of a lot of the CBJ fans, but I have a hard time looking at his career and seeing where he's going to live up to his billing.

As far as suggesting that the consensus view of Nash's goals by Columbus fans is that they were mostly meaningless, I don't know where the OP came up with that.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

I'm a Columbus fan, and since we got generalized into this thread I'll just say that the bolded pretty much sums up my position on the guy. To be fair, that's not representative of a lot of the CBJ fans, but I have a hard time looking at his career and seeing where he's going to live up to his billing.

As far as suggesting that the consensus view of Nash's goals by Columbus fans is that they were mostly meaningless, I don't know where the OP came up with that.

Read my second post where I said it was hyperbolic... I heard it plenty of times before the trade, and someone referenced it the other day, that's where it came from.

His billing is as an offensive forward that isn't a total liability defensively, no one claims he is a checking forward/energy guy. I think the failure to realize that is definitive of people having too high of expectations or thinking all players should play similar games. I think he fits up to that just fine, just like Gaborik lives up to his billing as a one dimensional "sneaky" goal scorer.

 

[db2011]

Read my second post where I said it was hyperbolic... I heard it plenty of times before the trade, and someone referenced it the other day, that's where it came from.

His billing is as an offensive forward that isn't a total liability defensively, no one claims he is a checking forward/energy guy. I think the failure to realize that is definitive of people having too high of expectations or thinking all players should play similar games. I think he fits up to that just fine, just like Gaborik lives up to his billing as a one dimensional "sneaky" goal scorer.

I did read your post, but I don't understand your use of hyperbole there.

Is that his billing? I thought it was as power forward with all the tools. You're certainly right that no one claims he's a 3rd or 4th liner.

Maybe it's being a Columbus fan, but the view in the league seems to have always been that Nash is a superstar, which by definition is someone to build a team around (as Columbus tried to do). Based on that, he's seemed overrated to me for awhile now. At least he's not your captain like he was with us, because a leader he is not (unless you buy into the apologists' line that he's not a "vocal" leader).

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If Nash developed a bit of a mean streak, he'd be an all-time great. His skill set is that good.

But he doesnt...and as a result, he doesnt seem to be as effective in physical games. Those dazzling rushes to the front of the net sure seemed more prevalent in January against Tampa Bay rather than in May against Boston.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Not sure it's fair to judge anyone based on one year of playing in Tortorella's system...and with an incredibly weak power play, that was weak before Nash got here.

That said, another year of decent regular season production followed by another disappearing act when games count most and the checking intensifies, and the arrow points directly at Nash.

No more excuses.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

I did read your post, but I don't understand your use of hyperbole there.

Is that his billing? I thought it was as power forward with all the tools. You're certainly right that no one claims he's a 3rd or 4th liner.

Maybe it's being a Columbus fan, but the view in the league seems to have always been that Nash is a superstar, which by definition is someone to build a team around (as Columbus tried to do). Based on that, he's seemed overrated to me for awhile now. At least he's not your captain like he was with us, because a leader he is not (unless you buy into the apologists' line that he's not a "vocal" leader).

He is a power forward, not all power forwards have mean streaks. Within each classification of player type there are sub categories that better describe players, a generalization usually leaves people questioning a player label. Need to delve deeper.

He's an easy scapegoat for Columbus fans, I get that and it's understandable. Nash is a star player, not a superstar, another false classification. Maybe it has something to do with fans having too high of expectations? I don't know but he's certainly an above average player (substantially so, in most regards) who uses his body to protect the puck and drive the net (power forward-esque) while not being a total catastrophe without the puck, who isn't a big checker or vocal leader. That's fine he doesn't have to be a leader we have several, he has an edge but uses it at the wrong times and isn't effective when he's agitated. Doesn't happen often but it does. I'd like to see him hit more, but then again we have plenty of guys that are more effective at that.

If Nash developed a bit of a mean streak, he'd be an all-time great. His skill set is that good.

But he doesnt...and as a result, he doesnt seem to be as effective in physical games. Those dazzling rushes to the front of the net sure seemed more prevalent in January against Tampa Bay rather than in May against Boston.

Naturally, those dazzling plays don't tend to be as common place in the playoffs as they do in the regular season for any player. Minus the top stars in the league. I won't argue that he doesn't need to play better in the playoffs, that's a given, but to expect highlight reel goals out of him then is setting yourself up for disappointment, and that can be said about 95% of players.

He needs to learn how he can adapt as a player in the post season, hopefully he got some of that figured out this year, considering it accounted for 75% of his total playoff experience. Hopefully he continues to learn this year and the coaching staff helps him apply different tactics to his game, better suited for a tight game.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Naturally, those dazzling plays don't tend to be as common place in the playoffs as they do in the regular season for any player. Minus the top stars in the league. I won't argue that he doesn't need to play better in the playoffs, that's a given, but to expect highlight reel goals out of him then is setting yourself up for disappointment, and that can be said about 95% of players.

He needs to learn how he can adapt as a player in the post season, hopefully he got some of that figured out this year, considering it accounted for 75% of his total playoff experience. Hopefully he continues to learn this year and the coaching staff helps him apply different tactics to his game, better suited for a tight game.

I agree.

He'd be well served to study how Jagr adapted his game later on in his career. Using that big body to shield the puck and control play in the trenches.

Nash isn't very good at that now considering his size and skill. Most of his creating comes off the rush.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

I agree.

He'd be well served to study how Jagr adapted his game later on in his career. Using that big body to shield the puck and control play in the trenches.

Nash isn't very good at that now considering his size and skill. Most of his creating comes off the rush.

I think part of that is it's how he's always been used, and one observation Edge made about him was that he still played a little like a junior kid. Part of that I would assume is his role in Columbus and them trying to build the team around him, not asking him to change anything about his game, the other part is some of the coaches he had there weren't extremely experienced. I'd say he played some of his best hockey under Hitch and during that stage had a slightly different game, again something I think Edge pointed out.

Looking at how the Sedin's, and Kesler along with a few others flourished under AV I am hoping he can help him take his game to the next level. I'm a big Nash fan, and a big part of it is because when you watch him even at 28 he's still pretty raw. Is it to late for him to learn and change? I don't think so, but if he wants the last half of his career to define him and to separate himself from the pack that's what he needs to do.

 

[db2011]

He is a power forward, not all power forwards have mean streaks. Within each classification of player type there are sub categories that better describe players, a generalization usually leaves people questioning a player label. Need to delve deeper.

He's an easy scapegoat for Columbus fans, I get that and it's understandable. Nash is a star player, not a superstar, another false classification. Maybe it has something to do with fans having too high of expectations? I don't know but he's certainly an above average player (substantially so, in most regards) who uses his body to protect the puck and drive the net (power forward-esque) while not being a total catastrophe without the puck, who isn't a big checker or vocal leader. That's fine he doesn't have to be a leader we have several, he has an edge but uses it at the wrong times and isn't effective when he's agitated. Doesn't happen often but it does. I'd like to see him hit more, but then again we have plenty of guys that are more effective at that.

Guess I should be writing this down. So, delving deeper, who would you say Nash compares to? I don't think your take on Nash is consistent with the expectations he's had during his career; you're underselling to make him less of a disappointment.

Your generosity is inspiring. I won't say Rick Nash scores the majority of his goals in garbage time, but it's not Columbus scapegoating to call him out for being overrated. Your resistance to label him a superstar is saying something, because he's been described as one by a lot of people his entire career. I think he's soft, a pretty boy who gets by on physique and talent. I've been watching the guy almost 10 years waiting on him to get mad and lead his team, and it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Guess I should be writing this down. So, delving deeper, who would you say Nash compares to? I don't think your take on Nash is consistent with the expectations he's had during his career; you're underselling to make him less of a disappointment.

Your generosity is inspiring. I won't say Rick Nash scores the majority of his goals in garbage time, but it's not Columbus scapegoating to call him out for being overrated. Your resistance to label him a superstar is saying something, because he's been described as one by a lot of people his entire career. I think he's soft, a pretty boy who gets by on physique and talent. I've been watching the guy almost 10 years waiting on him to get mad and lead his team, and it hasn't happened yet.

You're probably right, my take on Nash isn't consistent with the HIGH expectations people put on him. Whose fault is that? the players? I don't see why, who calls him a superstar? fans? Why do they label him that? Because he was a 1st overall pick, and the only legitimate talent CBJ drafted that they didn't mishandle and send packing?

Who did all that overrating? It certainly wasn't NYR fans, he was drafted and played his first 10 seasons in Columbus. So my guess is they might have had something to do with it? If that bothers you take it up with your fanbase, because it's simply not my fault.

My resistance to label him a superstar means nothing, he isn't a superstar. Again, who has described him as one? He has only had a few seasons that you would consider him one, if he returns to a PPG player this year maybe I'll open up to the idea a bit, but the fact is he hasn't produced consistently at that level. Although his production hasn't gone down every year, another fallacy thrown around HF. It has only decreased 3 times in his career based on PPG production, twice after his two best seasons by a modest amount and in '11-'12 for obvious reasons.

If you want a comparison as far as value to a team and overall game look no further than #10 for the Columbus Blue Jackets. Obviously they play two different styles, but they are both offense first guys, and can both be responsible defensively. Nash is less of a perimeter player than Gaborik and a little less institutional IMHO. Neither are overly physical except Gaborik tends to avoid it, Nash is more visible when he isn't scoring goals. Gaborik has out produced him over their careers but only by about .05 PPG.

Your personal feelings about Nash make it seem pretty obvious that you're decided on what kind of player he is, so I don't really understand why you're asking me.

 

[Machinehead]

I can't kill Nash too much for what happened in the playoffs. When your team has exactly ONE legit goal scorer **** like that happens. That's on management.

 

[Jersey Girl]

You're probably right, my take on Nash isn't consistent with the HIGH expectations people put on him. Whose fault is that? the players? I don't see why, who calls him a superstar? fans? Why do they label him that? Because he was a 1st overall pick, and the only legitimate talent CBJ drafted that they didn't mishandle and send packing?

Who did all that overrating? It certainly wasn't NYR fans, he was drafted and played his first 10 seasons in Columbus. So my guess is they might have had something to do with it? If that bothers you take it up with your fanbase, because it's simply not my fault.

My resistance to label him a superstar means nothing, he isn't a superstar. Again, who has described him as one? He has only had a few seasons that you would consider him one, if he returns to a PPG player this year maybe I'll open up to the idea a bit, but the fact is he hasn't produced consistently at that level. Although his production hasn't gone down every year, another fallacy thrown around HF. It has only decreased 3 times in his career based on PPG production, twice after his two best seasons by a modest amount and in '11-'12 for obvious reasons.

If you want a comparison as far as value to a team and overall game look no further than #10 for the Columbus Blue Jackets. Obviously they play two different styles, but they are both offense first guys, and can both be responsible defensively. Nash is less of a perimeter player than Gaborik and a little less institutional IMHO. Neither are overly physical except Gaborik tends to avoid it, Nash is more visible when he isn't scoring goals. Gaborik has out produced him over their careers but only by about .05 PPG.

Your personal feelings about Nash make it seem pretty obvious that you're decided on what kind of player he is, so I don't really understand why you're asking me.

Based on your description of Nash it seems ridiculous for Sather to give up so many assets for such a non-superstar.

 

[Off Sides]

I think he's soft, a pretty boy who gets by on physique and talent. I've been watching the guy almost 10 years waiting on him to get mad and lead his team, and it hasn't happened yet.

I have doubts he will ever put the team on his back so to speak. Not too much different than Gaborik to be honest, although I think Nash is actually the better overall player in terms of controlling the play.

In the playoffs I'd certainly like to see someone more assertive, someone who looks like they really want it and are going to battle to get it. Not sure I saw much of that sort of drive from Nash in these past playoffs but I am not going to write him off yet. Might just need to be surrounded by a team who is all on the same page to bring it out of him and I'd say neither Columbus or the Rangers last year were exactly that.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Based on your description of Nash it seems ridiculous for Sather to give up so many assets for such a non-superstar.

Ok... So Kekalainen gave up the farm for Gaborik too, my description of Nash is that he's a very good player but doesn't live up to the hype he's been given over the years. Rarely does anyone.

 

[db2011]

You're probably right, my take on Nash isn't consistent with the HIGH expectations people put on him. Whose fault is that? the players? I don't see why, who calls him a superstar? fans? Why do they label him that? Because he was a 1st overall pick, and the only legitimate talent CBJ drafted that they didn't mishandle and send packing?

Who did all that overrating? It certainly wasn't NYR fans, he was drafted and played his first 10 seasons in Columbus. So my guess is they might have had something to do with it? If that bothers you take it up with your fanbase, because it's simply not my fault.

My resistance to label him a superstar means nothing, he isn't a superstar. Again, who has described him as one? He has only had a few seasons that you would consider him one, if he returns to a PPG player this year maybe I'll open up to the idea a bit, but the fact is he hasn't produced consistently at that level. Although his production hasn't gone down every year, another fallacy thrown around HF. It has only decreased 3 times in his career based on PPG production, twice after his two best seasons by a modest amount and in '11-'12 for obvious reasons.

If you want a comparison as far as value to a team and overall game look no further than #10 for the Columbus Blue Jackets. Obviously they play two different styles, but they are both offense first guys, and can both be responsible defensively. Nash is less of a perimeter player than Gaborik and a little less institutional IMHO. Neither are overly physical except Gaborik tends to avoid it, Nash is more visible when he isn't scoring goals. Gaborik has out produced him over their careers but only by about .05 PPG.

Your personal feelings about Nash make it seem pretty obvious that you're decided on what kind of player he is, so I don't really understand why you're asking me.

My take on Nash is founded on almost 10 years of supporting him as my team's best player and for most of that time its captain. I got involved in this thread because your OP built an argument based on the alleged perceptions of the CBJ fanbase ("Nash's goals are mostly meaningless"- say CBJ fans!). It would be one thing if that were actually true, but Columbus fans don't think that in enough of a quantity for it to be a consensus. Go to our board and you'll see just how much support Nash still gets there.


If your point is that Nash's goals are not meaningless, independent of the opinions of fans of his former team, ok fair enough, and you've done a comprehensive study to support that position.

If it's a platform to talk about Nash and sing his praises, then just do that without bringing a straw man into it. For the most part I agree with your assessment of Nash's abilities. That's why I'm very happy with the deal Columbus and NYR made in that trade. As someone already pointed out, what Sather gave up to get him is overpayment based on your description of him.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

My take on Nash is founded on almost 10 years of supporting him as my team's best player and for most of that time its captain. I got involved in this thread because your OP built an argument based on the alleged perceptions of the CBJ fanbase ("Nash's goals are mostly meaningless"- say CBJ fans!). It would be one thing if that were actually true, but Columbus fans don't think that in enough of a quantity for it to be a consensus. Go to our board and you'll see just how much support Nash still gets there.


If your point is that Nash's goals are not meaningless, independent of the opinions of fans of his former team, ok fair enough, and you've done a comprehensive study to support that position.

If it's a platform to talk about Nash and sing his praises, then just do that without bringing a straw man into it. For the most part I agree with your assessment of Nash's abilities. That's why I'm very happy with the deal Columbus and NYR made in that trade. As someone already pointed out, what Sather gave up to get him is overpayment based on your description of him.

Except it's not, and my description of a player has absolutely zero bearing on the actual value of said player. So...

What strawman? You came in here and started asking questions, I answered them. If anyone made the thread about something other than what I wrote in the OP it was those people who came in looking to derail it.

If the opening line offends you I apologize, but it is what it is and should be taken lightly.

Have I been singing praise of anyone? I feel I've simply been disagreeing with people who use some pretty dramatic language in trying to prove their points.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Except it's not, and my description of a player has absolutely zero bearing on the actual value of said player. So...

What strawman? You came in here and started asking questions, I answered them. If anyone made the thread about something other than what I wrote in the OP it was those people who came in looking to derail it.

If the opening line offends you I apologize, but it is what it is and should be taken lightly.

Have I been singing praise of anyone? I feel I've simply been disagreeing with people who use some pretty dramatic language in trying to prove their points.

Do you agree Sather overpaid for a non superstar?

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Do you agree Sather overpaid for a non superstar?

No I think the value was good for a very good player, a star player.

People do realize that as far as "superstar" players go there are only a handful in the league right? Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Lundqvist, etc... Then there are guys a level below them, who are still very good. You can't possibly believe the package we gave up would get one of those players in a trade do you?

You can also look into the production of the three players we gave up and Nash and see that those players only had one or two more points than he did. Which makes it a pretty even trade, granted we lost depth. Which we then reacquired in the Gaborik trade, which was also pretty fair value. Slight edge goes to the Rangers in terms of the total package IMO.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

He is a power forward, not all power forwards have mean streaks. Within each classification of player type there are sub categories that better describe players, a generalization usually leaves people questioning a player label. Need to delve deeper.

He's an easy scapegoat for Columbus fans, I get that and it's understandable. Nash is a star player, not a superstar, another false classification. Maybe it has something to do with fans having too high of expectations? I don't know but he's certainly an above average player (substantially so, in most regards) who uses his body to protect the puck and drive the net (power forward-esque) while not being a total catastrophe without the puck, who isn't a big checker or vocal leader. That's fine he doesn't have to be a leader we have several, he has an edge but uses it at the wrong times and isn't effective when he's agitated. Doesn't happen often but it does. I'd like to see him hit more, but then again we have plenty of guys that are more effective at that.



Naturally, those dazzling plays don't tend to be as common place in the playoffs as they do in the regular season for any player. Minus the top stars in the league. I won't argue that he doesn't need to play better in the playoffs, that's a given, but to expect highlight reel goals out of him then is setting yourself up for disappointment, and that can be said about 95% of players.

He needs to learn how he can adapt as a player in the post season, hopefully he got some of that figured out this year, considering it accounted for 75% of his total playoff experience. Hopefully he continues to learn this year and the coaching staff helps him apply different tactics to his game, better suited for a tight game.

He's not a power forward. He's a dangler.

As far as the stupid semantics game of he's a "star" not a "superstar", that doesn't matter. He's a former 1st overall pick, and was widely considered a top player in the league who would be even more productive if on a better team. The expectations are what they are and were what they were. Your specific expectation doesn't change squat about his play on the ice. And his play on the ice has been a disappointment for what he was supposed to be going back to his draft day.

Here's the thing, he's our best forward and that says a lot about where we're at. As a hockey player he's one dimensional. Worst of all, he's a loser. He's go no killer instinct and he seems to be out there for himself, not for the team. How many times did we watch him throw little temper tantrums out there on the ice when things didn't go his way? Classic Nash this past year was dangle for 5 minutes, not even bothering to look to his teammates, have the puck stolen from him and then slash the guy who stole it in a hissy fit and get penalized or just mope on back to the bench.

 

[Jersey Girl]

He's not a power forward. He's a dangler.

As far as the stupid semantics game of he's a "star" not a "superstar", that doesn't matter. He's a former 1st overall pick, and was widely considered a top player in the league who would be even more productive if on a better team. The expectations are what they are and were what they were. Your specific expectation doesn't change squat about his play on the ice. And his play on the ice has been a disappointment for what he was supposed to be going back to his draft day.

Here's the thing, he's our best forward and that says a lot about where we're at. As a hockey player he's one dimensional. Worst of all, he's a loser. He's go no killer instinct and he seems to be out there for himself, not for the team. How many times did we watch him throw little temper tantrums out there on the ice when things didn't go his way? Classic Nash this past year was dangle for 5 minutes, not even bothering to look to his teammates, have the puck stolen from him and then slash the guy who stole it in a hissy fit and get penalized or just mope on back to the bench.

Totally agree...'star'...'superstar'...completely depends on each individual's definition of each. As you said, semantics.

Will be interesting to see if Vigneault can get more out of him, or if he remains the same old Nash.