Player Discussion Neal Pionk

[Blue Blooded]

But Quinn hasn't done that, or anything as drastic. Why make this hypothetical example?
Let's be specific, you don't like Pionk, which is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Does that mean Pionk isn't a good player? Nope. I'm sure you are in the camp that prefers ADA. Does it make him a better player? Nope. Does Quinn get to see these guys on a daily basis? Yep. Is he making his decisions on the feedback he has gotten by watching these players each day? Yep. Am I appealing to authority? Nope.

If I walk into a Thomas Keller's French restaurant and order a dish I have never tried before, should I question the chef's preparation? Maybe, but it would be silly of me to think I know more about French cooking.

Last example; was AV correct in playing Glass over Hayes against the Penguins in the 2016 playoffs?

 

[Mac n Gs]

I thought Pionk did a solid job winning 1v1 battles and making some nice jumps in the neutral zone to intercept pucks. However, he, and the rest of the team, really struggled to move the puck up ice last night.

 

[Rangers in 7]

In my opinion based off the eye test and analytics he’s not very good....

 

[nyr2k2]

I don't know why everyone can't just accept that he's an UDFA who has played less than half a season of NHL games, has some good skills, has some areas he needs to improve, and is probably being asked to do too much given a dearth of other options. I don't know why we need to hear after every game that he's some fantastic little spark plug or that he didn't shoot enough Corgis and therefore is awful. He's a good, young player in over his head and for me that's the end of it. Everything here has to be a f***ing fight.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I don't know why everyone can't just accept that he's an UDFA who has played less than half a season of NHL games, has some good skills, has some areas he needs to improve, and is probably being asked to do too much given a dearth of other options. I don't know why we need to hear after every game that he's some fantastic little spark plug or that he didn't shoot enough Corgis and therefore is awful. He's a good, young player in over his head and for me that's the end of it. Everything here has to be a ****ing fight.

A lot of it comes from the either/or treatment of ADA, whom many adore, in large part due to "shooting corgis" (good one, BTW ). You'll see some compare/contrast next game when ADA presumably comes in for McQ, but I doubt it'll be so full of vitriol.

 

[The S5]

Last example; was AV correct in playing Glass over Hayes against the Penguins in the 2016 playoffs?

If you are asking if Hayes was the better player, then I agree with you.
You would have to ask AV why he made that decision. Like I said before, coaches try things all of the time that don't work. It is their overall body of work that can be criticized, not every decision.

 

[SA16]

If you are asking if Hayes was the better player, then I agree with you.
You would have to ask AV why he made that decision. Like I said before, coaches try things all of the time that don't work. It is their overall body of work that can be criticized, not every decision.

It doesn't really matter what the "why" is for playing Glass over Hayes because unless it is "Hayes is injured and not able to play" whatever his reason is is wrong.

 

[The S5]

It doesn't really matter what the "why" is for playing Glass over Hayes because unless it is "Hayes is injured and not able to play" whatever his reason is is wrong.

It may have been and the culmination of AV's decisions that didn't work out led to his firing. That's how these things work. It doesn't diminish the fact the coaches know more about their teams and players than anyone else. Doesn't mean they won't make some decisions that don't work our along the way. I'm sure Scotty Bowman made plenty of bad decisions, but when you have the best players, things tend to work out.

 

[gorangers0525]

I don't know why everyone can't just accept that he's an UDFA who has played less than half a season of NHL games, has some good skills, has some areas he needs to improve, and is probably being asked to do too much given a dearth of other options. I don't know why we need to hear after every game that he's some fantastic little spark plug or that he didn't shoot enough Corgis and therefore is awful. He's a good, young player in over his head and for me that's the end of it. Everything here has to be a ****ing fight.

Corgi shooting aside, a lot of fans think he’s not good...even for a young developing player. I’m one of them, certainly hope he proves me wrong but I really don’t see the potential others see. Doesn’t have to be a fight, just difference of opinions.

 

[Miamipuck]

I am in the middle here. I don't think he passes the eye test all that much and know he has terrible metrics. That said, his usage is putrid and not at all suited for his skill set at this point of his career. I would like to see how he improves or not with 1.) more experience and 2.) correct usage.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Not that it is necessarily false that an NHL coach knows more than Random Guy On The Internet, but the fact that a coach has decided to play one player over another doesn't prove that to be the case whatsoever..

BB wades into this convo perfectly by acknowledging what merits lie with the foundation of S5's thought process. He then carefully explains the flaw

You're arguing that the coach knows best because he decided to do something, regardless of what that thing is, I.E. the coach is infallible

Here he clearly explains where the flaw was and he followed up later with a good use of an extreme hypothetical to drive home the point. The hypothetical was clearly not literal.

Did the coach do that?

S5 immediately misconstrued that as a literal statement.

Yes, a coach who watches the team practice almost every day does have a better sense of a players ability. On top of that, you don't get to be an NHL coach without knowing more than 99.9% of keyboard jockeys..

S5 seems to have completely failed to grasp the opposing viewpoint in every single way imaginable. These are points that were already countered in the previous post and yet he makes these points again anyway.

It's a hypothetical. If Quinn decided to do that, would he be correct in doing so in your opinion? Your line of argumentation states that you would consider the move to be correct, since the coach thought it was correct.

10/10. Perfectly clarifies and highlights the flaw in S5's logic again in a clear, easy to understand way. S5 has to address the actual point now.

Please stop. I'm not arguing anything. I'm stating a fact. Coaches know more about the game and their team than anyone else, the least of whom are HF posters..

Argumentation: the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory. S5 misunderstands and takes it as
Argument: Opposing a view, usually in an angry or heated fashion. He also reiterates his stance even though everyone understood it before.

I'm stating a fact. Coaches know more about the game and their team than anyone else, the least of whom are HF posters

S5 prepares us for an upcoming fact that he is going to communicate but he immediately offers a factually inaccurate opinion instead. LOL. Later, after reiterating his stance yet again, S5 offers this:

And, how does one discern whether a coach's move was correct

Not by blindly accepting every decision a coach makes, that's for sure.

Questioning a coach after every loss is going to make a tough season even tougher.

Maybe... for some people who actually DO that. Many of us can handle questioning a coach only occasionally, when a decision seems particularly egregious.

Why make this hypothetical example?

This was my fav part. Because it was answered waaay earlier. S5 then decides to veer the conversation into a ravine and starts to build what he thinks is a great counter point.

Am I appealing to authority? Nope. If I walk into a Thomas Keller's French restaurant and order a dish I have never tried before, should I question the chef's preparation? Maybe, but it would be silly of me to think I know more about French cooking.

But it flames out horribly when he douses it with terrible analogies and a completely incorrect conclusion (When he states he is not appealing to authority even though he has...repeatedly.)

 

[The S5]

BB wades into this convo perfectly by acknowledging what merits lie with the foundation of S5's thought process. He then carefully explains the flaw


Here he clearly explains where the flaw was and he followed up later with a good use of an extreme hypothetical to drive home the point. The hypothetical was clearly not literal.



S5 immediately misconstrued that as a literal statement.



S5 seems to have completely failed to grasp the opposing viewpoint in every single way imaginable. These are points that were already countered in the previous post and yet he makes these points again anyway.



10/10. Perfectly clarifies and highlights the flaw in S5's logic again in a clear, easy to understand way. S5 has to address the actual point now.



Argumentation: the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory. S5 misunderstands and takes it as
Argument: Opposing a view, usually in an angry or heated fashion. He also reiterates his stance even though everyone understood it before.


S5 prepares us for an upcoming fact that he is going to communicate but he immediately offers a factually inaccurate opinion instead. LOL. Later, after reiterating his stance yet again, S5 offers this:


Not by blindly accepting every decision a coach makes, that's for sure.



Maybe... for some people who actually DO that. Many of us can handle questioning a coach only occasionally, when a decision seems particularly egregious.



This was my fav part. Because it was answered waaay earlier. S5 then decides to veer the conversation into a ravine and starts to build what he thinks is a great counter point.



But it flames out horribly when he douses it with terrible analogies and a completely incorrect conclusion (When he states he is not appealing to authority even though he has...repeatedly.)

Let me guess, you don't like Pionk?

This is a message board. I'm not interested your psychological analysis of my post. But, go right ahead and be my guest.

Let's just say that we have differing opinions.

 

[Bluto]

I like Pionk.

 

[duhmetreE]

IMO Pionk's pros, greatly outweigh the cons. It feels sometimes like we're watching two different players. Sadly, he's our best defenseman at the moment. That's not a knock on him.

People were actually blaming Pionk on the goal where Smith had no stick. "Why didn't he have his stick on the ice and block that pass" There's no objectivity and a profound bias.

What part of his game is lacking? For a potential 3-4 D-Man in his first full season? What do you hate about his game?

 

[TheDirtyH]

Pionk is dominating highlight reals, pre and psort game discussions, and TOI at all strengths. Of course, if you think he's a bad player it's alarming... Personally it's concerning to see since we just witnessed great Rangers' teams dragged down by dual anchors on the blueline given like treatment and producing like results...

 

[darko]

Pionk is a #4/#5 type d-man who at the moment is expected to play top pairing minutes.

 

[TheDirtyH]

And to say it's fine since you see him as a #3-4 not a #1 does not address the concern that the team views him differently. When, after 36 gp, Pionk is playing 25-29 minutes a night (!) and replacing Kevin Shattenkirk on your PP1, it doesn't look like a player viewed as having #3-4/PP2 upside

 

[darko]

And to say it's fine since you see him as a #3-4 not a #1 does not address the concern that the team views him differently. When, after 36 gp, Pionk is playing 25-29 minutes a night (!) and replacing Kevin Shattenkirk on your PP1, it doesn't look like a player viewed as having #3-4/PP2 upside

Then who should play top pairing minutes? We have no one at the moment.

 

[Miamipuck]

And to say it's fine since you see him as a #3-4 not a #1 does not address the concern that the team views him differently. When, after 36 gp, Pionk is playing 25-29 minutes a night (!) and replacing Kevin Shattenkirk on your PP1, it doesn't look like a player viewed as having #3-4/PP2 upside

If a team doesn't have a #1 it means they're going to have use a #2 or #3 or worse in that position. It's really not too difficult a concept. That does not mean the team thinks he's a #1, it's born out of necessity. If you watch the games and think Pionk is a #1 RD on a playoff team then man I don't know what to tell you.

Shattenkirk is coming off an injury where he missed 3/4's of a season. He looked like a slug at the start of this year. It takes time to come back from catastrophic injuries. So it's not indicative of anything that Pionk is playing over him, not yet at least.

That wasn't a knock against Pionk, his usage is completely wrong. I think that's the point of most people that are critical of him.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Then who should play top pairing minutes? We have no one at the moment.

Shattenkirk? I thought that would be obvious. And if the Rangers are really worried about his injury, wouldn't it be more prudent to throw a veteran like McQuaid into the deep end, or Smith who has had good chemistry in the past with Skjei? Couldn't the answer be anyone else if the answer is already 'we have no one capable of it'?

If a team doesn't have a #1 it means they're going to have use a #2 or #3 or worse in that position. It's really not too difficult a concept. That does not mean the team thinks he's a #1, it's born out of necessity. If you watch the games and think Pionk is a #1 RD on a playoff team then man I don't know what to tell you.

Shattenkirk is coming off an injury where he missed 3/4's of a season. He looked like a slug at the start of this year. It takes time to come back from catastrophic injuries. So it's not indicative of anything that Pionk is playing over him, not yet at least.

That wasn't a knock against Pionk, his usage is completely wrong. I think that's the point of most people that are critical of him.

I think it's clear that I don't think Pionk is a #1 RD on any team, let alone a playoff team. I understand that this is all a matter of circumstance, but it seems the rationale for things has been subject to change to explain away concerns at any moment. Pionk being a fill in because we don't have anything better is the latest example.

I'm not concerned about how Pionk's usage effects this season's results. I am concerned that it's indicative of the management and coaching staff evaluating him as a player with higher upside and impact than he's actually shown to have.

But whatever. Maybe he's not that bad and looks worse because of the minutes, maybe when Shattenkirk is deemed healthy, he'll assume those minutes and Pionk will slide down the lineup. I doubt it, so to me it's disappointing.

 

[darko]

Shattenkirk? I thought that would be obvious. And if the Rangers are really worried about his injury, wouldn't it be more prudent to throw a veteran like McQuaid into the deep end, or Smith who has had good chemistry in the past with Skjei? Couldn't the answer be anyone else if the answer is already 'we have no one capable of it'?



I think it's clear that I don't think Pionk is a #1 RD on any team, let alone a playoff team. I understand that this is all a matter of circumstance, but it seems the rationale for things has been subject to change to explain away concerns at any moment. Pionk being a fill in because we don't have anything better is the latest example.

I'm not concerned about how Pionk's usage effects this season's results. I am concerned that it's indicative of the management and coaching staff evaluating him as a player with higher upside and impact than he's actually shown to have.

But whatever. Maybe he's not that bad and looks worse because of the minutes, maybe when Shattenkirk is deemed healthy, he'll assume those minutes and Pionk will slide down the lineup. I doubt it, so to me it's disappointing.

Shatty is still working his way back and isn't 100%. McQ sucks.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Shatty is still working his way back and isn't 100%. McQ sucks.

- you left out 20lbs-lighter-Smith.
- so... if Pionk is a #4-5, Is that better than Shattenkirk at >100 or McQ?
- if a defenseman has to play way above what they're capable of, should it be one with 350-600GP or one with 36GP?

And if it's 'whoever plays best' then we've arrived full circle. I think he looks as bad or worse than anyone else in the role and I'd rather see whether he can actually grow and develop into a role he might succeed in (#4-5).

 

[darko]

- you left out 20lbs-lighter-Smith.
- so... if Pionk is a #4-5, Is that better than Shattenkirk at >100 or McQ?
- if a defenseman has to play way above what they're capable of, should it be one with 350-600GP or one with 36GP?

And if it's 'whoever plays best' then we've arrived full circle. I think he looks as bad or worse than anyone else in the role and I'd rather see whether he can actually grow and develop into a role he might succeed in (#4-5).

You are right. Smith is one.

 

[Miamipuck]

Shattenkirk? I thought that would be obvious. And if the Rangers are really worried about his injury, wouldn't it be more prudent to throw a veteran like McQuaid into the deep end, or Smith who has had good chemistry in the past with Skjei? Couldn't the answer be anyone else if the answer is already 'we have no one capable of it'?



I think it's clear that I don't think Pionk is a #1 RD on any team, let alone a playoff team. I understand that this is all a matter of circumstance, but it seems the rationale for things has been subject to change to explain away concerns at any moment. Pionk being a fill in because we don't have anything better is the latest example.

I'm not concerned about how Pionk's usage effects this season's results. I am concerned that it's indicative of the management and coaching staff evaluating him as a player with higher upside and impact than he's actually shown to have.

But whatever. Maybe he's not that bad and looks worse because of the minutes, maybe when Shattenkirk is deemed healthy, he'll assume those minutes and Pionk will slide down the lineup. I doubt it, so to me it's disappointing.

Thank you for the explanation. (no sarcasm) Sounds like we basically agree. Nothing to see here. Lol

Although, I do disagree a little bit on the Shatty part. I think he's still recovering from the after effects. We shall see in the coming weeks or months.

 

[Vitto79]

Atleast 1 guy seems to have worked out on D

I mean Shatty is going to be around for a few years and Pionk gives a 2nd. They are gonna flip McQuaid and don’t have much faith in DeAngelo becoming anything

Lundqvist is going to need 3 years before he’s ready

LD is in better shape w Skjei , Hajek and hoping Lindgreb.... Staal and Smith just part of the tank plan and hopefully can get moved