Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Rick Nash

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
eyjee said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, him and the rest of that special section of this forum have had absolutely zero issue dying on such a nonsensical hill for the last three years. Why would they change now?
 
when rick nash says hes not scoring goals. i believe him.

i have eyes.

i say he doesnt score. he says hes doesnt score. hes right !

but yeah, over his entire time here, he has scored goals as an average over time.

and that helps us exactly how right now ?

hes old and slow now.
 
True Blue said:
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?
Click to expand...

I do not ascribe zero value or infinite value. I read the studies and articles about various draft picks after I know which draft pick we are speaking about. Here are a few links on the subject.

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-expected-value-of-nhl-draft-picks-1.317819

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/Schuckers_NHL_Draftchart.pdf
 
Nash is like most players on this board. Not nearly as good as some proclaim him to be nor nearly as bad as some proclaim him to be. He is somewhere in the middle.
 
NickyFotiu said:
I do not ascribe zero value or infinite value. I read the studies and articles about various draft picks after I know which draft pick we are speaking about. Here are a few links on the subject.

http://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-expected-value-of-nhl-draft-picks-1.317819

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/

http://statsportsconsulting.com/main/wp-content/uploads/Schuckers_NHL_Draftchart.pdf
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but I think something is being missed.

Let's take a single third round pick. I agree that holding onto a 3rd rounder just because a draft year in the past a third rounder was a home run, is foolish thinking, and the statistics of the return for that pick back it up.

The thing is the pick not only has value for cheap talent. It also has value for trades.

For example, if you have an extra 2nd round pick, a GM could flip a first and 2 seconds for a player they need.

If they don't have the extra second, or even worse lack any second rounds picks, then they either need to add a prospect and or future picks, or eat salary, etc. etc.

Furthermore, if you trade several picks for a player, and they don't pan out, then losing the picks was not only bad because "we could have picked X, Y, and Z" with those picks, but also because we now don't have those extra picks to trade for what we need in the future.

I mean there are only so many things teams can legally trade to acquire talent, so being frivolous with draft picks can be poor asset management not just because we missed out on one third rounder who became a great player or whatever.

Note: this is a big reason the Eric Staal trade was such a stinker even though it was "only 2 second rounders"
 
ReggieDunlop68 said:
I get what you are saying, but I think something is being missed.

Let's take a single third round pick. I agree that holding onto a 3rd rounder just because a draft year in the past a third rounder was a home run, is foolish thinking, and the statistics of the return for that pick back it up.

The thing is the pick not only has value for cheap talent. It also has value for trades.

For example, if you have an extra 2nd round pick, a GM could flip a first and 2 seconds for a player they need.

If they don't have the extra second, or even worse lack any second rounds picks, then they either need to add a prospect and or future picks, or eat salary, etc. etc.

Furthermore, if you trade several picks for a player, and they don't pan out, then losing the picks was not only bad because "we could have picked X, Y, and Z" with those picks, but also because we now don't have those extra picks to trade for what we need in the future.

I mean there are only so many things teams can legally trade to acquire talent, so being frivolous with draft picks can be poor asset management not just because we missed out on one third rounder who became a great player or whatever.

Note: this is a big reason the Eric Staal trade was such a stinker even though it was "only 2 second rounders"
Click to expand...

That is why you place a numerical value on each pick. If you are lacking a pick for a certain deal you could either offer up other picks that add up to the numerical value or you can go pick shopping. One of the links I provided has a numerical value for each pick similar to the ones scouts/gms use for the NFL draft.
 
I hope Nash keeps playing like he has been the past few games. Or improve from there.

Man possessed.
 
NickyFotiu said:
That is why you place a numerical value on each pick. If you are lacking a pick for a certain deal you could either offer up other picks that add up to the numerical value or you can go pick shopping. One of the links I provided has a numerical value for each pick similar to the ones scouts/gms use for the NFL draft.
Click to expand...

I get that. This topic started chiding one of the posters for "just hoarding picks."
 
Raspewtin said:
Yes, him and the rest of that special section of this forum have had absolutely zero issue dying on such a nonsensical hill for the last three years. Why would they change now?
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? No one is complaining about his regular seasons or if he has been an asset. What people are pointing out is that his playoff performance has been lacking.
 
I love HFNYR and the Rangers fanbase in general for a lot of reasons.

Particularly, overrated defensemen that haven't gotten this team any further than Rick Nash are so adored in hindsight for being mediocre but hard working sieves, but Rick Nash, the best ES goal scorer in the NHL his whole time here, is an overrated loser we can't wait to get rid of.

You people are too much. Really.

Girardi and Staal are much, much closer to overrated career losers (but none of them are) than Nash is and they'll get a shrine of adoration amongst this organization LMAO
 
Wow I don't think I've ever seen or heard/read a "shrine of adoration" for either G or Staal... especially not in the last 2-3 years. Literally the opposite

Not that it makes much of a difference in a Nash thread
 
Riche16 said:
Wow I don't think I've ever seen or heard/read a "shrine of adoration" for either G or Staal... especially not in the last 2-3 years. Literally the opposite

Not that it makes much of a difference in a Nash thread
Click to expand...

They will be looked back upon for what they were from 2009-2012. Without a doubt.
 
Raspewtin said:
They will be looked back upon for what they were from 2009-2012. Without a doubt.
Click to expand...

I suppose that may be true... I for one will always remember G for the falling down and giving away pucks constantly in the '14 SCF

I will also remember Nash & his "puck-luck" or "snakebites" or "grip on the stick" or whatever other term / phrase folks choose to use in that series and the Tampa series in '15 (where to be honest Rick did show up for one game in the latter)
 
Raspewtin said:
Particularly, overrated defensemen that haven't gotten this team any further than Rick Nash are so adored in hindsight for being mediocre but hard working sieves, but Rick Nash, the best ES goal scorer in the NHL his whole time here, is an overrated loser we can't wait to get rid of.
Click to expand...
First of all, where is the adoration? Girardi at one point WAS a legit, top pairing shut down defenseman. What Girardi IS and has been for several years is FAR from that.

Second of all, let's take a look at the numbers. In 2012, he was tied for second with 4 other players. In 2013, his 20 ES goals tied him with 9 other players. There were 22 that did better. He was tops in 2014. In 2015, his 10 ES goals tied him with 21 other players. There were many that did much, much better. This year, his 13 ES goals tie him with 13 others. There are again MANY players that are better at ES. Yes, I know there have been injuries, but part of being THE MAN is being on the ice. But still not the best ES goal scorer. Maybe one of the better extrapolated ES goal scorers. But extrapolated and real are two different things. Players do not get paid on extrapolated amounts. They get paid on real ones.
You people are too much. Really.
Click to expand...
Calling a spade a spade and not burying your head in solely extrapolated stats is one way to view the world. Yours is clearly different.
Girardi and Staal are much, much closer to overrated career losers (but none of them are) than Nash is and they'll get a shrine of adoration amongst this organization LMAO
Click to expand...
Overrated to YOU. And by YOUR standards. Most of the hockey world regarded those two as legit top-pairing shut down defensemen in their prime. Overrated career losers? Wow. As for Nash, there is nothing wrong with pointing out his playoff failures. That is called debate. Debates occur with several people with varying points of view. Not a one sided conversation that one has with himself to remind himself of how utterly intelligent he is and why all those that do not see things his way are utter idiots.
 
The positive and negative narratives are too much. Rick Nash like most vet players is what his record shows him to be in the last 4 seasons. No better. No worse. Figure on around 60-70 games played and around 39-45 points a season.
 
If there weren't such a discrepancy between Nash's regular season goal scoring and his playoff goal scoring, there would be no controversy and he would be universally beloved.
 
we want cup said:
If there weren't such a discrepancy between Nash's regular season goal scoring and his playoff goal scoring, there would be no controversy and he would be universally beloved.
Click to expand...
You are not going to get much of an argument from most people on that. We ALL want him to do well when it counts. The Rangers NEED for him to do well when it counts. That is what makes this so disappointing for those of us that are criticizing him.
 
we want cup said:
If there weren't such a discrepancy between Nash's regular season goal scoring and his playoff goal scoring, there would be no controversy and he would be universally beloved.
Click to expand...

I actually don't totally think of it as being a wide discrepancy in his time here. Nash's regular seasons are marked by ridiculous stretches where he does things like 12 goals in 10 games and also has multiple consecutive weeks without goals.

He's yet to get hot in the playoffs. I definitely think it could happen, it just hasn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom