Toggle sidebar

Nick Ritchie discussion - clears waivers

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
zeke said:
I mean...he's a heavyweight, sure. But Simmonds and Clifford bring that, but with a bit more energy and less defensive liability.

Ritchie was supposed to bring superior puck skills and offense on top of that, but we haven't seen that at all so far. In fact, Simmonds has been notably better with the puck.

And remember, Ritchie dropped all the way down to the 4th line for Boston in the playoffs last year due to ineffectiveness.

Is Ritchie good as a 4th line enforcer? Sure, probably. Not necessarily great though.

Moving him means we won't have to play any cap-limit roster games the rest of the way, though, and $2.5m is a lot of deadline capspace we could use to upgrade the roster with an impact salary player.
Click to expand...
He gets paid too much AAV for sure for what he is contributing YTD no doubt .. but so does Mitch YTD if you were being fully honest.. and backup tender is worst of bunch .. Wayner and Cliffy are factors but they do not have power of Ritchie who with Chara is probably strongest man in NHL
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25
JT AM da real deal said:
He gets paid too much AAV for sure for what he is contributing YTD no doubt .. but so does Mitch YTD if you were being fully honest.. and backup tender is worst of bunch .. Wayner and Cliffy are factors but they do not have power of Ritchie who with Chara is probably strongest man in NHL
Click to expand...

True. In terms of value provided for cap hit, I'd say that Marner and Ritchie have been our worst players this season. Not too surprised to be saying that about Ritchie, Marner's season though is a big lunchbag letdown.

I agree with you about Ritchie, gotta give Mrazek a break though since he's been injured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JT AM da real deal
ottomaddox said:
Too many 0's already beside this guy's name.

2 shots on goal in 2 games? 0 shots on goal in the game against the Habs.

Played over 13 min a night on the top line.

Who's more deserving in the top line: Kase, Bunting, Kerfoot, and even Kampf.

He's in a race for last place with Simmonds and Amadio.

Please don't come in this thread to tell me that "TOR has only played two games."

Sorry Nick. You are getting demoted soon

You only have 1 chance at 1st impressions.

Get better. Much better. Some jobs are on the line here. So is your career!
Click to expand...
He’s not the elephant in the room he just skates and plays like one
 
aingefan said:
What actually happens to the cap if Ritchie is waived and clears?
Click to expand...

We gain just under a million in capspace in that situation I believe.

Which gives us all the space we need to carry a full roster with 7 dmen.
 
zeke said:
Shooting percentage doesn't effect xgf/xga or ga.
Click to expand...

No but it does effect, goals, and by extension all of points, GF, and GF%. So only 4/6 of the handpicked charts are misleading because of poor short term conversion

If he was converting at his career rate he'd be comfortably in the 8-9 range for most individual production metrics, up at 6th for goals. Which is pretty indicative of what he is. A flawed middle 6 player that brings a heavyweight presence and game changing (if inconsistent) physicality.
 
4thline said:
No but it does effect, goals, and by extension all of points, GF, and GF%. So only 4/6 of the handpicked charts are misleading because of poor short term conversion

If he was converting at his career rate he'd be comfortably in the 8-9 range for most individual production metrics, up at 6th for goals. Which is pretty indicative of what he is. A flawed middle 6 player that brings a heavyweight presence and game changing (if inconsistent) physicality.
Click to expand...

- production
- goal differential (raw and relative)
- expected Goals differential (raw and relative)

There's nothing "hand-picked" about those - they're pretty comprehensive all together.

And he's not only last in all of them, but last by a lot.
 
zeke said:
- production
- goal differential (raw and relative)
- expected Goals differential (raw and relative)

There's nothing "hand-picked" about those - they're pretty comprehensive all together.

And he's not only last in all of them, but last by a lot.
Click to expand...

They're handpicked because they're not what you would choose for a player you liked sitting with a sh% at 1/4 of their career rate. Shot generation? Rebounds? Corsi?

And where would he fall in production and goal differential had he converted at his career rate over a 30 game sample?

Answer-
Goals/60 tied with Simmonds for 6th
Points/60- slightly below Marner sitthing 8th
GF% Still last, @ ~48% *
RelG+-, didn't do the math, but floating in the same vicinity as the rest of the minus guys

* yes 48% seems a lot lower than than 53ish of the next lowest, until you realize you're talking about a hypothetical 10F11A for Ritchie vs 9F8A for Engvall. That 2 goal spread is definitely "last by a lot".
 
4thline said:
They're handpicked because they're not what you would choose for a player you liked sitting with a sh% at 1/4 of their career rate. Shot generation? Rebounds? Corsi?
Click to expand...

Yeah i would absolute use that for everyone.

Xgf includes shot generation, rebounds, and corsi.
 
4thline said:
aaaand as expected, obfuscation to avoid the meat of the post.
Click to expand...

Hey if you want to say that his shooting percentage is pure luck that's fine. Some people will agree, some won't.

But you're still faced with his awful goals against performance and his awful expected goals for and against performance, too.
 
With the reclamation projects/fliers the Leafs took, some were going to work out and some weren't. They seem to have done better than I expected so far, but Ritchie seems to be one who isn't working out. I think you just deal with it and if putting him on waivers ultimately gives you space to do something that helps the team, then go for it. If he becomes a sunk cost, so be it. They shouldn't hold onto him just because they gave him a contract. Now if they believe he can turn it around then they can keep trying - with the long layoff there's no guarantee the guys who were good or bad before the break will be the same now.
 
zeke said:
Hey if you want to say that his shooting percentage is pure luck that's fine. Some people will agree, some won't.

But you're still faced with his awful goals against performance and his awful expected goals for and against performance, too.
Click to expand...

Lol. You. You'd be the first person to point out a player shooting at one quarter of career average is likely to regress to the mean, and warn about small sample size. IF doing so didn't run contrary to your feelings on the player.

And lol at all of
-assigning serious weight of aggregate on ice defensive performance to winger
-describing 2.06 GA/60 (7th among forwards) as "awful"
-describing a xGF/GA within a rounding error of breakeven (not to mention several teamates) as "awful"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Nylund
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom