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.
Tawnos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unless a player has 82 goals, and never scores more than one goal a game, all high goal scorers score in stretches.

I'm not buying this excuse.
 
It is not all about goal scoring to me. Hockey is a team game. Some primary assists are more responsible for a goal that the guy that actually gets the goal. Sometimes we have to cut a guy some slack and just appreciate the good that player brings the team. He may not still be a 8 mill a year player but he is a solid 5 mill a year player.
 
ReggieDunlop68 said:
Unless a player has 82 goals, and never scores more than one goal a game, all high goal scorers score in stretches.

I'm not buying this excuse.
Click to expand...

You don't need to. It's not an excuse. What I'm saying is that Nash isn't capable of consciously turning it on in a specific scenario like the playoffs. It's just not in his type of mental skill set. Some players, like Brassard and Kreider, are capable of it. Nash isn't. In other words, since when is a criticism an excuse?

So what we see is a streaky scorer who can't turn it on and hasn't had a hot streak in the playoffs.

Also, your whole post there is kind of BS. Of course no one scores every single game. What many, many other top offensive players do is score at a high clip for most of the season, rather than at a superhuman clip in some stretches and not at all in other stretches.
 
Tawnos said:
You don't need to. It's not an excuse. What I'm saying is that Nash isn't capable of consciously turning it on in a specific scenario like the playoffs. It's just not in his type of mental skill set. Some players, like Brassard and Kreider, are capable of it. Nash isn't. In other words, since when is a criticism an excuse?

So what we see is a streaky scorer who can't turn it on and hasn't had a hot streak in the playoffs.

Also, your whole post there is kind of BS. Of course no one scores every single game. What many, many other top offensive players do is score at a high clip for most of the season, rather than at a superhuman clip in some stretches and not at all in other stretches.
Click to expand...

You moved the goal posts a bit.

Anyway, I've made it pretty clear that I believe Rick Nash does not "turn it up" after mid February, and I don't believe it has anything to do with streaks, snake-bitten, AV, etc.


Again, I hope he does, but he hasn't, and when it was the time he HAD to, he didn't.
 
ReggieDunlop68 said:
You moved the goal posts a bit.

Anyway, I've made it pretty clear that I believe Rick Nash does not "turn it up" after mid February, and I don't believe it has anything to do with streaks, snake-bitten, AV, etc.


Again, I hope he does, but he hasn't, and when it was the time he HAD to, he didn't.
Click to expand...

A player like Nash should still have the occasional streak after mid-February even without turning it up.

Also, what goal posts did I set that I moved?
 
Tawnos said:
A player like Nash should still have the occasional streak after mid-February even without turning it up.

Also, what goal posts did I set that I moved?
Click to expand...

We were first talking about the general wax and wane of goal scoring streaks. I was trying to point out that all high goal scorers, let's say 28+ goal scorers have streaks. If they play the full 82 games and you take some multi-goal games into account, a 28+ goal scorer might not actually score in at least 30 of the games out of the 82 game season.

I felt that the goal posts were moved when we started talking about not just that goal scoring streaks exist into the goal scoring tendencies of other top regular season scorers who are not Rick Nash.

The fact is Rick Nash's overall performance in the second half of the season and the post season has been severely underwhelming for several years.

I mean we are talking long term polar opposite performances from October to Mid February and Mid-February and beyond for several years, most importantly during the main striking point for this core in 2014.

Of course he "does things and stuff " well. It's just hyperbole when people say he a total piece of garbage. He's not, and that why he still does things when he's not in the driver seat anymore.

That being said, I can firmly say after watching him for several years and noticing the length and severity of these spells that it's not just "puck luck".

There are a myriad of reasons he doesnt show up as well in the second half season.

He could keep getting injured. It could be psychological. Maybe he can't cut across the net as easily against hungrier teams.

Again, IDK.

The fact is it's not just puck luck.

And I know he's trying.

I mean Rick Nash said it himself in the article linked a few pages ago in this thread.
 
Goals/60 since 2012-13 (When Nash moved to the Rangers):

1. Auston Matthews: 1.52
2. Andreas Athanasiou: 1.41
3. Rick Nash: 1.26
4. Patrik Laine: 1.22
5. Steven Stamkos: 1.22
6. Conor Sheary: 1.18
7. Max Pacioretty: 1.16
8. Corey Perry: 1.15
9. Vladimir Tarasenko: 1.14
10. Tyler Pitlick: 1.13

5 of those have played fewer than 100 NHL games (Matthews, Athanasiou, Laine, Sheary, Pitlick) and who knows if they can keep it up, but aside from the players listed above, Ovechkin (1.12), Seguin (1.11), P. Kane (1.10), Malkin (1.07) and Crosby (1.07) all have worse G/60 numbers since 2012 than Nash.
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Goals/60 since 2012-13 (When Nash moved to the Rangers):

1. Auston Matthews: 1.52
2. Andreas Athanasiou: 1.41
3. Rick Nash: 1.26
4. Patrik Laine: 1.22
5. Steven Stamkos: 1.22
6. Conor Sheary: 1.18
7. Max Pacioretty: 1.16
8. Corey Perry: 1.15
9. Vladimir Tarasenko: 1.14
10. Tyler Pitlick: 1.13

5 of those have played fewer than 100 NHL games (Matthews, Athanasiou, Laine, Sheary, Pitlick) and who knows if they can keep it up, but aside from the players listed above, Ovechkin (1.12), Seguin (1.11), P. Kane (1.10), Malkin (1.07) and Crosby (1.07) all have worse G/60 numbers since 2012 than Nash.
Click to expand...

What does that say about the stat? Last offseason people were posting similar even strength goal scoring per 60 stats for Brandon Pirri.

Nash is a good player who has had a very good career but people should not inflate or deflate who he is as a player today. We should just be happy for the good and cut the guy some slack. We all get older.
 
Tawnos said:
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.
Click to expand...

*whispers*

like literally every goal scorer in history
 
Tawnos said:
He's yet to get hot in the playoffs. I definitely think it could happen, it just hasn't.
Click to expand...
He's played in over 60 playoff games. I would have thought the hot stretch would have come by now. At some point, it is not characterized as hot stretches or lack of them. The cold stretch simply becomes what is. A playoff failure.
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Goals/60 since 2012-13 (When Nash moved to the Rangers):

1. Auston Matthews: 1.52
2. Andreas Athanasiou: 1.41
3. Rick Nash: 1.26
4. Patrik Laine: 1.22
5. Steven Stamkos: 1.22
6. Conor Sheary: 1.18
7. Max Pacioretty: 1.16
8. Corey Perry: 1.15
9. Vladimir Tarasenko: 1.14
10. Tyler Pitlick: 1.13

5 of those have played fewer than 100 NHL games (Matthews, Athanasiou, Laine, Sheary, Pitlick) and who knows if they can keep it up, but aside from the players listed above, Ovechkin (1.12), Seguin (1.11), P. Kane (1.10), Malkin (1.07) and Crosby (1.07) all have worse G/60 numbers since 2012 than Nash.
Click to expand...

So of the players on that list, and the players you list in the paragraph after, how many would you EASILY take on your team over Rick Nash?
 
True Blue said:
He's played in over 60 playoff games. I would have thought the hot stretch would have come by now. At some point, it is not characterized as hot stretches or lack of them. The cold stretch simply becomes what is. A playoff failure.
Click to expand...

Nah. Not when you account for the different game that's played in the playoffs.
 
Riche16 said:
So of the players on that list, and the players you list in the paragraph after, how many would you EASILY take on your team over Rick Nash?
Click to expand...
You point out the flaws of using solely extrapolated numbers to define how good or bad a player is. No matter what the goals/60 are showing, Nash is not the 2nd or third best player in the NHL. I have used this example in the past. It is like taking a platoon player in baseball who bats right handed and crushes lefties but cannot play against righties. You can take his numbers and attempt to equalize by projecting out what they are over a whole season, but those numbers will never be achieved.

No matter what Nash's per 60 is, he does not belong in that upper, elite echelon of players. Which is not to disparage his regular season play. He has been pretty good. He has not been great. Add that to the disappearance in the playoffs, and you get what you get. Not enough for $8m per year.
 
True Blue said:
He's played in over 60 playoff games. I would have thought the hot stretch would have come by now. At some point, it is not characterized as hot stretches or lack of them. The cold stretch simply becomes what is. A playoff failure.
Click to expand...

18 points in 24 play-off games in the last 2 years isn't that bad. Yes, he was absolutely awful in 2014, we all know that. But for the same reason Thornton is considered a play-off choker.

Riche16 said:
So of the players on that list, and the players you list in the paragraph after, how many would you EASILY take on your team over Rick Nash?
Click to expand...

I am not suggesting Nash is better than all the players on that list but that he deserves more credit than he gets now
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
People make it sound as if assists aren't as important as goals.
Click to expand...

Irishguy42 said:
I honestly think more people here believe that more than they'd want to admit...
Click to expand...

No. This is just twisting words.

Nash is supposed to be the elite scorer, which he has been often in the regular season. If he's on fire, he can score more than the other guys.

It would be better and we would have ahem...won the cup if let's say he had 15 goals 7 assists instead of let's say 2 goals 14 assists while assisting on the next highest goal scorer who can only pot 9 max on his best year.

Particularly, if those theoretical goals were game breakers.

And yes, he's a good player, but he's not exactly a Ron Francis playmaker, so he can't rely on just playing the distributing role for us to be a winner given the current and then [2014] team construction.
 
NickyFotiu said:
It is not all about goal scoring to me. Hockey is a team game. Some primary assists are more responsible for a goal that the guy that actually gets the goal. Sometimes we have to cut a guy some slack and just appreciate the good that player brings the team. He may not still be a 8 mill a year player but he is a solid 5 mill a year player.
Click to expand...

He we had $1.5 to put towards two better defenseman, we'd be in a much stronger position right now.
 
True Blue said:
You point out the flaws of using solely extrapolated numbers to define how good or bad a player is. No matter what the goals/60 are showing, Nash is not the 2nd or third best player in the NHL. I have used this example in the past. It is like taking a platoon player in baseball who bats right handed and crushes lefties but cannot play against righties. You can take his numbers and attempt to equalize by projecting out what they are over a whole season, but those numbers will never be achieved.

No matter what Nash's per 60 is, he does not belong in that upper, elite echelon of players. Which is not to disparage his regular season play. He has been pretty good. He has not been great. Add that to the disappearance in the playoffs, and you get what you get. Not enough for $8m per year.
Click to expand...

I think u quoted the wrong post here bro. I didn't point out anything and I am agreeing with you.

There might be 2 guys on that list I WOULDN'T take over Nash lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom