Player Discussion Rick Nash

[ReggieDunlop68]

Nash is a hard player to understand. If you threw stats out the window and/or were new to hockey and just watched him play, he 'looks' like he's one of the best players in the league based on some of the things he can do out there on the ice, regularly.

Somewhat similar to Alex Kovalev in that regard. Kovi would stickhandle through a defense only to not make a goal out of it.

"similar to Alex Kovalev in that regard. Kovi would stickhandle through a defense only to not"

Kovy only had this problem in New York

 

[Thirty One]

But it was Nash himself who said it. So is his evaluation of himself truly horrendous and we shouldn't listen to him?

:thinking emoji:

Yes, the only reason to watch his interviews are to have your soul stared into.

 

[True Blue]

Pretending that every 7th round pick can turn in to Lundy is intellectually dishonest.

I am not pretending that. I just said it has value.

 

[Revel]

said this unfailingly pleasant man

 

[True Blue]

"Rick Nash is paid to score goals" is a great way of saying "my player evaluation is truly horrendous, please don't listen"

I know. He is paid " to drive the offense". Which is just another way of whitewashing that in the pie chart of all of the things he does, goal scoring is the biggest pie.

Which would be like the Red Sox paying David Ortiz to hit sacrifice flies all the time. Actually putting the ball over the fence is not really that important.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Not only do they know more about Rick Nash than any poster, but they also know more about Rick Nash than Rick Nash himself.

In regard to his attitude in the article, although I am justified in my frustration with Rick Nash, I also now really hope he can finally be what I hoped he would be in the post season.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Nash is a great player off the puck and on the PK, but those guys don't command 8 million dollar salaries. We all know this.

I mean he's pretty much earned the AAV he has by virtue of the ability to score goals, lots of them. When he isn't scoring goals, he's still an asset and a positive contributor, no doubt, just not 8 million dollars worth of it.

Don't kid yourselves. This team won't go anywhere with Nash not being the top dog in goal scoring and being that player in the playoffs, the one he's 'paid to be'.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I am not pretending that. I just said it has value.

There are around 700 players and 190 picks a year that "have value" but at some point we have to decide their actual value instead of just saying they have value. By not assigning an actual value the implication is that it could be a Crosby or other all star. An unscratched lottery ticket could be a million dollar winner so it has value but do we value it at $1 or a million dollars?

 

[True Blue]

When he isn't scoring goals, he's still an asset and a positive contributor, no doubt, just not 8 million dollars worth of it.

The debate had never been whether or not he does anything else. In a salary cap world, paying $8m for someone because he is good away from the puck is not the answer.

Don't kid yourselves. This team won't go anywhere with Nash not being the top dog in goal scoring and being that player in the playoffs, the one he's 'paid to be'.

He is actually not the top dog when it comes to goal scoring and has not been for a few years. And has never been that in the playoffs. Which is a big reason as to why the playoffs have ended with disappointment.

 

[True Blue]

There are around 700 players and 190 picks a year that "have value" but at some point we have to decide their actual value instead of just saying they have value. By not assigning an actual value the implication is that it could be a Crosby or other all star. An unscratched lottery ticket could be a million dollar winner so it has value but do we value it at $1 or a million dollars?

No by not assigning any value, you completely manage to devalue and draft picks. Your presumption is that a draft pick has no value. Again, then why not offer 10 first round draft picks for Stamkos?

 

[Thirty One]

The debate had never been whether or not he does anything else. In a salary cap world, paying $8m for someone because he is good away from the puck is not the answer.

He is actually not the top dog when it comes to goal scoring and has not been for a few years. And has never been that in the playoffs. Which is a big reason as to why the playoffs have ended with disappointment.

In terms of goals per even strength minute since he's joined the Rangers he just fell to 2nd in the league this season.

 

[Ail]

In terms of goals per even strength minute since he's joined the Rangers he just fell to 2nd in the league this season.

Sounds like more made up **** to white wash Rich Nashe's failures.

 

[offdacrossbar]

that article is a thing of beauty. i mean perhaps one of larrys all time absolute biggest pieces of steaming hot burning *********. im offended reading it. its the all time biggest puff piece in history.

basically, nash cant score anymore and forget about how 8 mil for 20 goals blows ass but lets focus more on ricks burden and how "frustrated" he is.

lol seriously ?


i read it like this :

"darn, im so upset at my lack of goal scoring. i mean, really.... upset. shoot.... im so upset at me not scoring goals....you know, i mean, its really tough on me man, i mean, i really want to score. i do. no lie. i need to like find peace within myself, i mean not scoring is really wearing on me.


in fact, IT TEARS AT ME"

ok, cool, now i gotta go cash my paycheck.

later dude.

 

[NickyFotiu]

No by not assigning any value, you completely manage to devalue and draft picks. Your presumption is that a draft pick has no value. Again, then why not offer 10 first round draft picks for Stamkos?

Quite the opposite. I dont assume any value. I go by studies of draft picks and then I assign them a real value. You are putting infinite value on assets be it players or picks by not putting any declared value on them. You call them assets so that you dont ever actually declare their actual value. 7th round picks to you are assets with infinite value when in the NHL they are almost given away like candy. If you refuse to ever declare a real value for your assets you give the impression that its infinite. Its like a person with a scratch off ticket that refuses to scratch it because once they scratch it their hope for a million dollar winner disappears.

 

[True Blue]

In terms of goals per even strength minute since he's joined the Rangers he just fell to 2nd in the league this season.

And in terms of actual goals scored, he is far from that. I would rather have more actual goals than more extrapolated goal statistics. More goals tend to lead to more victories. Extrapolated goal statistics do not.

 

[True Blue]

Sounds like more made up **** to white wash Rich Nashe's failures.

Call it what you want. The amount of goals he actually scored puts him around 80th in the NHL. At least that is the way it is this year. And he is not even close to that in the playoffs, which is what most of the argument have been about.

 

[silverfish]

And in terms of actual goals scored, he is far from that. I would rather have more actual goals than more extrapolated goal statistics. More goals tend to lead to more victories. Extrapolated goal statistics do not.

He has the 10th most 5v5 goals in the NHL since he came to the Rangers. He's played in just under 4000 minutes. Nobody above him in this top-10 has played less than 4700. Only two players in the top-25 have played less minutes than Nash. (Corsica)

Is this really the hill you want to do battle on?

 

[True Blue]

Quite the opposite. I dont assume any value. I go by studies of draft picks and then I assign them a real value. You are putting infinite value on assets be it players or picks by not putting any declared value on them. You call them assets so that you dont ever actually declare their actual value. 7th round picks to you are assets with infinite value when in the NHL they are almost given away like candy. If you refuse to ever declare a real value for your assets you give the impression that its infinite. Its like a person with a scratch off ticket that refuses to scratch it because once they scratch it their hope for a million dollar winner disappears.

So what value are you ascribing to them? And let's not forget that one can ascribe whatever value they want to, just as you are. The arbiter gets to make those rules. Further, how are you assigning value to a player, then an up and coming player who has not yet had full success and finally to a draft pick?

 

[True Blue]

Is this really the hill you want to do battle on?

I am not battling this hill. My debate has always been about the playoffs. You will have to look long and hard to see where I state that his play during the regular season has been that of a liability.

A statement was made that he needs to be the top dog as far as goal scoring goes for the Rangers to do anything. I agreed with the statement and added that he has not been that for a few years. What exactly is the fight here? In my response where is the falsehood? Show me where I have disparaged his regular season play.

 

[Thirty One]

Call it what you want. The amount of goals he actually scored puts him around 80th in the NHL.

It's weird how you place no value in extrapolated statistics but seem to have no issue with completely made up statistics.

 

[LORDE]

Nash knows he's paid to score goals but folks on this board don't.

I guess irony.. can be pretty ironic sometimes...

 

[True Blue]

It's weird how you place no value in extrapolated statistics but seem to have no issue with completely made up statistics.

First of all, let's not make things up, shall we? I have never stated that there is no value in extrapolated statistics. How they are used is entirely up to the person presenting that.

Second of all, what completely made up statistics are you referring to?

 

[Dijock94]

I'd imagine if you played him 25 minutes a game and loaded up his PP time he would have bigger numbers. It's not hard to figure out who Rick Nash is. He isn't a guy his whole team leans on. He is just a spoke in this wheel.

 

[Thirty One]

First of all, let's not make things up, shall we? I have never stated that there is no value in extrapolated statistics. How they are used is entirely up to the person presenting that.

Second of all, what completely made up statistics are you referring to?

OK, I missed the part where you said "At least that is the way it is this year." So the 80th in the NHL bit wasn't a made up statistic, just had a really strange way of framing the parameters.

 

[Mac n Gs]

He has the 10th most 5v5 goals in the NHL since he came to the Rangers. He's played in just under 4000 minutes. Nobody above him in this top-10 has played less than 4700. Only two players in the top-25 have played less minutes than Nash. (Corsica)

Is this really the hill you want to do battle on?

Nah, it's Nash's fault he got those concussions and ****ed up his groin/leg. He should've just avoided those injuries altogether so he could get more playing time, ya know in which he'd probably score more goals since he's shown to be one of the best even-strength scorers since coming to the Rangers. Wait...