Player Discussion Nick Suzuki Part 11

[Lafleurs Guy]

Players peak at different ages all the time, there is no set age where a player just stops improving. Even one of the best players in the league in MacKinnon didn't break out until he was 23. Just looking at the current top 50 scorers in the league and there a plenty of examples.

- Zibanejad was a 50 point guy then broke out at 25
- Nylander was a 60 point guy then turned into an 80 point guy at 25
- JT Miller turned into a PPG player at age 26
- Hagel is 25 and now close to a PPG
- Roman Josi broke his career high in points by 31 points as a 31 year old.
- Marchand didn't become a PPG player until he was 28
- Verhaege was barely an NHLer at 24
- Reinhart didn't become a PPG player until 26

Some players break out later because they come into the league later. And defensemen develop later on average so I wouldn’t include them.

Sometimes a ‘switch’ just goes off. It happened with Pricw in 2011. He just turned into a star goalie all of a sudden. In forwards it’s usually earlier. Maybe for Nick it was the All-star break. Maybe going forward we’ll see more consistent production. It’s not unheard of to peak a little later but 24 is not young. It’s prime time for a forward.

The best case for a late peak was Datsyuk. He came into the league a little older and peaked around 30. But that’s really an anomaly.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

If habs have a real high-danger second line and real depth through his prime years, with players that actually stand out at what they do well, Suzuki will be top tier pretty sure.

Very real possibility. The hardest part was getting a proper 1st line and sure it’s still early, but we might have that covered.

If Dach can stay reasonably healthy then I think we’re going to be in more than fine shape. I feel quite confident that someone out of Roy, Newhook, Mesar and Beck can fill the rest of the holes in the top 6.

We have a plethora of interesting bottom 6 prospects too.

 

[Miller Time]

Whatever you say man…

He's not wrong... Your take on the other hand

Only in Montreal will you find fans actively downplaying their best player just because

Some people just don't like having nice things I guess

I'm pretty stoked to see the Habs line up a quality #1C for the first time in decades... Who is 24, signed long term ylto a great contract, and has shouldered the weight of the "C" seemingly with ease.

Future is bright

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Very real possibility. The hardest part was getting a proper 1st line and sure it’s still early, but we might have that covered.

If Dach can stay reasonably healthy then I think we’re going to be in more than fine shape. I feel quite confident that someone out of Roy, Newhook, Mesar and Beck can fill the rest of the holes in the top 6.

We have a plethora of interesting bottom 6 prospects too.

I’m interested in seeing what we get out of this draft too. If we finish around 7th we should get a pretty good player. Interesting to see what we do if it’s a center.

 

[LesHabitants]

He's not wrong... Your take on the other hand

Only in Montreal will you find fans actively downplaying their best player just because

Some people just don't like having nice things I guess

I'm pretty stoked to see the Habs line up a quality #1C for the first time in decades... Who is 24, signed long term ylto a great contract, and has shouldered the weight of the "C" seemingly with ease.

Future is bright

You know, you're right. The captaincy seems to have come seamlessly and easily to this kid. He seems so chill.

 

[Forsead]

Koivu 2.0 ?

I remember peoples downplaying Koivu with comments, on this very board, such as : not a true number 1 center.

It's true he will never be Crosby, as a superstar, but still a number 1.

 

[rik schau]

He still needs to shoot more often than always passing when in decent position. Good things come from shooting.

 

[Miller Time]

Koivu 2.0 ?

I remember peoples downplaying Koivu with comments, on this very board, such as : not a true number 1 center.

It's true he will never be Crosby, as a superstar, but still a number 1.

I think Suzuki has passed Koivu's post-injury level of impact already & has untapped offensive output that will keep growing as the team keeps improving around him.

 

[Forsead]

I think Suzuki has passed Koivu's post-injury level of impact already & has untapped offensive output that will keep growing as the team keeps improving around him.

How has Suzuki shown more than Koivu following seasons:

- 2000-2001 : 47 pts in 54 gp in the dead puck era with terrible linemates
- 2002-2003 : 71 pts in 82 gp in the dead puck era with terrible linemates. Probably Koivu best season after his 56 pts in 50 gp.
- 2005-2006 : 62 pts in 72 gp post lockout. This is the worst season of the 4 I'm highlighting.
- 2006-2007 : 75 pts in 81 gp post lockout.

Suzuki has not reached 66 pts in a season in a much more high scoring era, with arguably better linemates.

 

[Miller Time]

How has Suzuki shown more than Koivu following seasons:

- 2000-2001 : 47 pts in 54 gp in the dead puck era with terrible linemates
- 2002-2003 : 71 pts in 82 gp in the dead puck era with terrible linemates. Probably Koivu best season after his 56 pts in 50 gp.
- 2005-2006 : 62 pts in 72 gp post lockout. This is the worst season of the 4 I'm highlighting.
- 2006-2007 : 75 pts in 81 gp post lockout.

Suzuki has not reached 66 pts in a season in a much more high scoring era, with arguably better linemates.

I didn't say Suzuki has surpassed Koivu's point totals.

Points are one metric, and a highly context driven one at that.

In both of Koivu's 70pt seasons, he had several teammates at 40+pts... Suzuki's 66pts last year came with not 1 other teammate over 40... His pts share is already better than Koivu's best, which is a better comparative to evaluate relative impact than just pts alone.

Then there's the defensive play, which the eye test favors Suzuki by a fair margin imo... I haven't compared the defensive metrics of both, so admittedly that assessment is purely subjective at this point.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Koivu 2.0 ?

I remember peoples downplaying Koivu with comments, on this very board, such as : not a true number 1 center.

It's true he will never be Crosby, as a superstar, but still a number 1.

Yeah, it's a good comparison. And Koviu wasn't a true number one either.

Suzuki still has time to take the next step and I hope he does it. So far though he's been a marginal first liner better suited to the 2nd.

 

[Forsead]

I didn't say Suzuki has surpassed Koivu's point totals.

Points are one metric, and a highly context driven one at that.

In both of Koivu's 70pt seasons, he had several teammates at 40+pts... Suzuki's 66pts last year came with not 1 other teammate over 40... His pts share is already better than Koivu's best, which is a better comparative to evaluate relative impact than just pts alone.

Then there's the defensive play, which the eye test favors Suzuki by a fair margin imo... I haven't compared the defensive metrics of both, so admittedly that assessment is purely subjective at this point.

I put an highly important metric IMO : Eras. The dead puck era was very hard to score from. I don't evaluate purely on pts.

Here's an argument : I could argue that at his best Koivu elevated more his teammates than Suzuki.

Here's another one : Also, last season Dach had a 54 pts pace, Caufield a 64 pts pace, Hoffman 42 pts pace, Drouin a 41 pts pace and Matheson 58 pts pace. Koivu guys were Zednik at 51 pts pace, Perreault at a 52 pts pace, Bulis and Gilmour at a 40 pts pace. I would not say one has better teammates than the other, I would in fact argue that Koivu had the lowest quality guys there.

Finally : Then on the two-way plays, again I would say it's similar right now than what we were seeing from Koivu at that time. In the same way as you, I'm going with the eye test.

 

[Ezpz]

Yeah, it's a good comparison. And Koviu wasn't a true number one either.

Suzuki still has time to take the next step and I hope he does it. So far though he's been a marginal first liner better suited to the 2nd.

Saku was roughly 17th in the league in scoring for centers from his sophomore season until leaving us (for guys who played more than 3-4 seasons) while mostly playing with 20-point wingers. He put up comparable numbers to Fedorov, Damphousse, Lecavalier, Messier, and Gomez. Are Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Lindros, Sundin, Thornton, and Datsyuk the only #1 centers of that era? Saku was .02 ppg off of Yzerman. 0.01 of Oates. Tied with Vinny. .04 from being top ten from 97-08.

Like yeah, when you compare him to Sundin specifically he falls short. Otherwise he was definitely a top 20 center for most of his career.

 

[Forsead]

Saku was roughly 17th in the league in scoring for centers from his sophomore season until leaving us (for guys who played more than 3-4 seasons) while mostly playing with 20-point wingers. He put up comparable numbers to Fedorov, Damphousse, Lecavalier, Messier, and Gomez. Are Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Lindros, Sundin, Thornton, and Datsyuk the only #1 centers of that era? Saku was .02 ppg off of Yzerman. 0.01 of Oates. Tied with Vinny. .04 from being top ten from 97-08.

Like yeah, when you compare him to Sundin specifically he falls short. Otherwise he was definitely a top 20 center for most of his career.

This ! Most guys ahead of him are clear cut HHOFers. Is this the criteria for number 1 center ? The thing against Koivu was that he was less of a goal scorer than most of these guys.

 

[Miller Time]

I put an highly important metric IMO : Eras. The dead puck era was very hard to score from. I don't evaluate purely on pts.

Here's an argument : I could argue that at his best Koivu elevated more his teammates than Suzuki.

Here's another one : Also, last season Dach had a 54 pts pace, Caufield a 64 pts pace, Hoffman 42 pts pace, Drouin a 41 pts pace and Matheson 58 pts pace. Koivu guys were Zednik at 51 pts pace, Perreault at a 52 pts pace, Bulis and Gilmour at a 40 pts pace. I would not say one has better teammates than the other, I would in fact argue that Koivu had the lowest quality guys there.

Finally : Then on the two-way plays, again I would say it's similar right now than what we were seeing from Koivu at that time. In the same way as you, I'm going with the eye test.

Pace and outcome are very different things.

The outcome of the Habs last year is the total GF, not the pace.

Funny that you don't see how your 2nd point undermines your first argument... Appears that Suzuki did "elevate" those around him... Would be pretty silly to blame him for their injuries & equally silly to ignore that, had their "pace" translated to actuals, Suzuki's actuals also would've increased... & likely surpassed Koivu's best year (10pts more last year with Dach/CC/Matches healthy all year is not much of a stretch imo).

Bottom line imo is that:
A- Koivu was better than his stats showed because he played without elite talent outside of Markov for most of his career. Had he has the benefit of playing with 1 or 2 elite wingers, his point totals would've been better.

B- Suzuki has had the same issue thus far in his career. His point totals are depressed because of the weak & inconsistent quality around him.

C- making a claim that player X is lower tier or lower quality based solely on pt output is a poor assessment. Context absolutely matters. Koivu and Suzuki both played at a quality 1C level even if their pt totals were lower than peers playing in higher quality rosters.


The Koivu vs Suzuki debate is interesting & I'd agree that at this point, close either way one lands... Neither are/were elite #1Cs and both are/were at worst middle tier, if not top tier. Suzuki has runway and work ethic to push into that top 10 conversation, and the roster quality KH is building up may well provide the support needed for the points that some posters narrowly focus on to follow...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Saku was roughly 17th in the league in scoring for centers from his sophomore season until leaving us (for guys who played more than 3-4 seasons) while mostly playing with 20-point wingers. He put up comparable numbers to Fedorov, Damphousse, Lecavalier, Messier, and Gomez. Are Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Lindros, Sundin, Thornton, and Datsyuk the only #1 centers of that era? Saku was .02 ppg off of Yzerman. 0.01 of Oates. Tied with Vinny. .04 from being top ten from 97-08.

Like yeah, when you compare him to Sundin specifically he falls short. Otherwise he was definitely a top 20 center for most of his career.

Yzerman was never the same player after 94. people mistakenly believe that he "sacrificed his scoring" to suit Bowman. Yeah, he played a more two way game but the reality is that his offense was already well on a downward slope because his knees were wrecked. It was so bad that doctors advised him to quit hockey altogether but he kept going. If Yzerman didn't get hurt in 94 he probably would've gone on to be the 2nd highest scorer of all time.

In regards to Koivu, it'd mean something if if he was competing with prime Yzerman but you're talking about a broken down player. Did he compete with Sundin? Maybe in a season or two when Sundin was outside the top ten. Both those players are infinitely better.

As for players ahead of him being HOFers... well, yeah. If you're a top ten center, you're probably going to the HOF. If you're top 15 you've got a solid chance.

Him being 17th in scoring centers from beginning to end isn't really impressive. That spans his entire career and you have tons of guys with far fewer games included there. That's him with an advantage over everyone else and he's still only 17th.

Anyways, no... he was another guy who would've been a fantastic number two but was a poor man's first. Right now I see Suzuki in the same boat. He needs to level up.

 

[Forsead]

Pace and outcome are very different things.

The outcome of the Habs last year is the total GF, not the pace.

Funny that you don't see how your 2nd point undermines your first argument... Appears that Suzuki did "elevate" those around him... Would be pretty silly to blame him for their injuries & equally silly to ignore that, had their "pace" translated to actuals, Suzuki's actuals also would've increased... & likely surpassed Koivu's best year (10pts more last year with Dach/CC/Matches healthy all year is not much of a stretch imo).

Bottom line imo is that:
A- Koivu was better than his stats showed because he played without elite talent outside of Markov for most of his career. Had he has the benefit of playing with 1 or 2 elite wingers, his point totals would've been better.

B- Suzuki has had the same issue thus far in his career. His point totals are depressed because of the weak & inconsistent quality around him.

C- making a claim that player X is lower tier or lower quality based solely on pt output is a poor assessment. Context absolutely matters. Koivu and Suzuki both played at a quality 1C level even if their pt totals were lower than peers playing in higher quality rosters.


The Koivu vs Suzuki debate is interesting & I'd agree that at this point, close either way one lands... Neither are/were elite #1Cs and both are/were at worst middle tier, if not top tier. Suzuki has runway and work ethic to push into that top 10 conversation, and the roster quality KH is building up may well provide the support needed for the points that some posters narrowly focus on to follow...

Yeah I agree with you on most subjects, but what I wanted to point out :
- Either by points or the eye test, I do think Koivu elevated fringes nhl players (Bulis, Petrov, Savage, etc., look at their careers). This has not really be the case with Suzuki, my point is more that they are good players just weren't healthy. The PPG of the players around Suzuki is more of a testament on their own quality. I mean is Caufield carried by Suzuki ? Dach was a 3rd overall for a reason, etc.

10 more pts with a healthy lineup is a speculation, but I agree that's possible. My point is that even then, 71 pts in 2002-2003 is more impressive than 76 pts in 2022-2023.

I agree with most of your B and C point and your conclusion. I'm just saying that IMO, Suzuki as yet reached the impact of Koivu at his best. Close, but not yet, and then Koivu gave us over a decade of that.

Yzerman was never the same player after 94. people mistakenly believe that he "sacrificed his scoring" to suit Bowman. Yeah, he played a more two way game but the reality is that his offense was already well on a downward slope because his knees were wrecked. It was so bad that doctors advised him to quit hockey altogether but he kept going. If Yzerman didn't get hurt in 94 he probably would've gone on to be the 2nd highest scorer of all time.

In regards to Koivu, it'd mean something if if he was competing with prime Yzerman but you're talking about a broken down player. Did he compete with Sundin? Maybe in a season or two when Sundin was outside the top ten. Both those players are infinitely better.

As for players ahead of him being HOFers... well, yeah. If you're a top ten center, you're probably going to the HOF. If you're top 15 you've got a solid chance.

Him being 17th in scoring centers from beginning to end isn't really impressive. That spans his entire career and you have tons of guys with far fewer games included there. That's him with an advantage over everyone else and he's still only 17th.

Anyways, no... he was another guy who would've been a fantastic number two but was a poor man's first. Right now I see Suzuki in the same boat. He needs to level up.

The 17th ranking is scoring pace when you exclude guys with less than 500 gp.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The 17th ranking is scoring pace when you exclude guys with less than 500 gp.

I just ran the same report and he’s 46th in PPG for centers over the course of his career. I filtered out sun 500 games.

Maybe we’re using different criteria?Yzerman’s 15th and Sundin is 7th.

Edit: you said only his time in Montreal. He seems to be 24th.

 

[Forsead]

I just ran the same report and he’s 46th in PPG for centers over the course of his career. I filtered out sun 500 games.

Maybe we’re using different criteria?Yzerman’s 15th and Sundin is 7th.

Edit: you said only his time in Montreal. He seems to be 24th.

I was not the one giving that info initally. It's was from 1996-1997 (sophomore season) to 2008-2009.

With theses criterias, he was equal at 18th.

Over him :

Peter Forsberg
Joe Sakic
Joe Thornton
Pavel Datsyuk
Éric Lindros
Mats Sundin
Jason Allison
Alexei Yashin
Mike Modano
Marc Savard
Brad Richards
Pierre Turgeon
Steve Yzerman
Patrik Elias (was at wings a lot), that's why the 17th.
Adam Oates
Vincent Lecavalier
Doug Weight

Equal : Ron Francis


So again, what is a true number 1 center?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I was not the one giving that info initally. It's was from 1996-1997 (sophomore season) to 2008-2009.

With theses criterias, he was equal at 18th.

Over him :

Peter Forsberg
Joe Sakic
Joe Thornton
Pavel Datsyuk
Éric Lindros
Mats Sundin
Jason Allison
Alexei Yashin
Mike Modano
Marc Savard
Brad Richards
Pierre Turgeon
Steve Yzerman
Patrik Elias (was at wings a lot), that's why the 17th.
Adam Oates
Vincent Lecavalier
Doug Weight

Equal : Ron Francis


So again, what is a true number 1 center?

You’re taking Koivu’s prime and then we’re comparing it to everyone else at different points in their career. And the best he does is 24th.

I’d say a number one center - loosely defined - would be a guy who is around -15th or better in scoring on a regular basis. In some cases - Bergeron for example - the scoring may be a little lower but they’re able to tilt the ice in a definitive way. Another example might be a guy who scores more goals.

How many times did Koivu do that? Was he ever in the top half of scoring centers over a season? If so, how many times?

 

[Forsead]

You’re taking Koivu’s prime and then we’re comparing it to everyone else at different points in their career. And the best he does is 24th.

I’d say a number one center - loosely defined - would be a guy who is around -15th or better in scoring on a regular basis. In some cases - Bergeron for example - the scoring may be a little lower but they’re able to tilt the ice in a definitive way. Another example might be a guy who scores more goals.

How many times did Koivu do that? Was he ever in the top half of scoring centers over a season? If so, how many times?

17th not 24th.

I did the work :

1996-1997 : For centers, he was top 30 in pts and top 8 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

1997-1998 : For centers, he was top 24 in pts and top 19 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2000-2001 : For centers, he was top 44 in pts and top 24 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2002-2003 : For centers, he was top 9 in pts and top 12 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2003-2004 : For centers, he was top 22 in pts and top 16 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2006-2007 : For centers, he was top 19 in pts and top 22 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.


A weak number 1, but still one, especially with his teammates quality. His major problem how much complete season he had.

In the end if Suzuki has that impact, without the injuries/cancer, adjusted for an higher scoring era, I will be very happy.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

17th not 24th.

I did the work :

1996-1997 : For centers, he was top 30 in pts and top 8 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

1997-1998 : For centers, he was top 24 in pts and top 19 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2000-2001 : For centers, he was top 44 in pts and top 24 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2002-2003 : For centers, he was top 9 in pts and top 12 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2003-2004 : For centers, he was top 22 in pts and top 16 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

2006-2007 : For centers, he was top 19 in pts and top 22 in scoring pace for guy who played 40 gp. He was equal with Brendan Morrison.

So… once. In a shortened season. Do I have that right?

 

[Forsead]

So… once. In a shortened season. Do I have that right?

Well your criteria means a there's just 15 number one center. If you go by pace, it's 3 years. 2002-2003 wasn't a shortened season.

Suzuki is currently 18th in scoring pace.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Well your criteria means a there's just 15 number one center. If you go by pace, it's 3 years. 2002-2003 wasn't a shortened season.

Suzuki is currently 18th in scoring pace.

Some are better number once centers than others. Is Suzuki a number one? Sure. But he’s been a poor man’s number one. Same as Koivu was.

The Montreal Canadiens have had number one centers who are near the bottom since forever now. It’s been a huge weakness that’s killed us.

As I said, at 24, Suzuki still has time to level up. My hope is that this is more than just a streak and it’s an actual step forward in his career.

If not, then we either need a new number one or really good wingers. If we have that then hopefully Nick and Dach can carry the load.

 

[Miller Time]

Yeah I agree with you on most subjects, but what I wanted to point out :
- Either by points or the eye test, I do think Koivu elevated fringes nhl players (Bulis, Petrov, Savage, etc., look at their careers). This has not really be the case with Suzuki, my point is more that they are good players just weren't healthy. The PPG of the players around Suzuki is more of a testament on their own quality. I mean is Caufield carried by Suzuki ? Dach was a 3rd overall for a reason, etc.

10 more pts with a healthy lineup is a speculation, but I agree that's possible. My point is that even then, 71 pts in 2002-2003 is more impressive than 76 pts in 2022-2023.

I agree with most of your B and C point and you conclusion. I'm just saying that IMO, Suzuki as yet reach the impact of Koivu at his best. Close, but not yet, and then Koivu gave us over a decade of that.

Suzuki certainly has a ways to go to have as good, or better career than Koivu... And Koivu did what he did after a career altering knee injury in his rookie year & coming back from cancer. What he accomplished with all the obstacles he faced is incredible.

The elevating question is an interesting one. Ryder recreated similar production + his career best in goals later in his career (playing with Ribs ironically enough). Zednik was only marginally more productive than in his Wash days, but was also in his prime in Mtl (& had his only 3 full seasons here) and had only a small bump in the 2yrs with Koivu vs the one without him... Not sure any of the other players that played a lot next to Saku had much of a performance impact to speak to to warrant the claim... Petrov had as good a year when Saku was out as he did when he was healthy... Savages best season came in a year Koivu only played 60 games...