I more meant that your post illustrated the point. Probably much better than I have been doing.
Player Discussion Rick Nash
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
- Status
He was brought here to score goals. He has always been a big goal scorer. His goal scoring is the one thing that he does that is the most important to the Rangers. In 61 playoff games, he has 11 goals and 22 assists. That is NOT representative of a top line player. Nor the teams highest and most important forward. When the team needed him to score, he has not done so. He is not here to be a secondary scorer. He is here to be THE man. That is why so much was given up for him. That is why he gets paid what he gets paid. This is not a compare and contrast to Thorton. This is what is going on here and what the team needs to get ahead.
You are using the per 60 stat to say "Hey he is not that bad". And you will not find many gripes about his regular season play. Now try using the per 60 goal stat for him on the playoffs. Not sure as to what it is, but I am betting that it does not make him look too good. Again, I have no idea of what that number is. But 11 goals in 61 games does not a good stat make.
silverfish
got perma'd
I'll never understand what peoples beef is with per 60 stats. Are you also this aggressive towards stats in baseball like strikeouts per nine innings? You know that GAA is a per 60 metric, right?
The best way I can describe why a per 60 metric matters is as follows...
Here are the ten worst goalies in terms of losses:
Are these the 10 worst goalies of all-time? No. Are these 10 goalies who have probably played many more games than other goalies? Yes. Would it be more realistic to perhaps view this as a losses per 60 or GP played metric to weigh some of that out?
What about in the NFL... Here are the "worst QBs of all-time"
Brett Favre. Worst QB of all-time, right? Or maybe we should pro-rate this metric by passes thrown to paint a more accurate picture?
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
I am quit aware of what a metric is. And I have nothing against the goals per 60. It can be useful when evaluating players. However, when it is trotted out as back up that Nash has been the best ES goal scorer in the NHL since he got to the Rangers (yes, this really was covered), THAT I have an issue with. I also am finding it somewhat humorous that it is being used to evidence his solid play in the regular season, however when it comes to evaluating him in playoffs it is not even mentioned oddly enough. Maybe a coincidence, but I would bet that the same metric that is being used to evidence solid play would cast a negative light on him in the playoffs.
Which I would expect it to do, since again the debate by and large has been about him and the playoffs.
silverfish
got perma'd
Right. No one is using it to defend Nash's playoff play because everyone agrees that Nash needs to score more goals in the playoffs. If you made the argument that Nash's G60 leaves something to be desired in the playoffs, you'd be making a good argument.
See, and I have a feeling that there are many here that think that his playoff performance is has been solid. I do not really know at what point the per 60 has started to become the basis to defend his regular season play. Especially since there are not many people who are claiming that his regular season play has been lacking. My argument is that he has not fared well in the playoffs. And that the Rangers's ROI has been lacking.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
If your standard is that the only thing Nash can do that's worthwhile in the playoffs is score goals, then there's no way you can say he's been anything but a disappointment. Not all of of accept that is the standard, however.
silverfish
got perma'd
And yet I have never said that. I have always said that goal scoring is the most important thing that he does. By far. And by that metric, yes, he has been a disappointment. That is what it comes down to. I believe that he was brought here to score goals. That is the single biggest thing of import that he does. There are others, but that is the most important aspect of his job.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
And the reason I brought up the P/60 stat is because it shows that Nash has been better than what people give him credit for.
Sure, the play offs have been disappointing but that was mostly the 2014 post-season. I know, I know, it sounds like I am cherry picking here, but if you look past that 2014 post-season (as mentioned, Thornton had 1 awful post-season as well and some consider him a play-off choker because of it), Nash has 23 points in 36 games for us in the play-offs which is 0.63 PPG.
I don't just want to look at goals, because I think assists are just as important. You can't have an assist without someone else scoring a goal. Sure, secondary assists might not be viewed to be as important as goals or primary assists, so lets look at primary points per 60 since 2012-13:
Here, top10 P1/60 since 2012-13 (At least 1000 minutes played):
His P1/60 in the play-offs since 2012 (Which includes the dreadful 2014 season) is 1.01.
Better than Joe Thornton, Alex Ovechkin, and Nicklas Backstrom. I won't say he was great, but man... If his P1/60 in the post-season as a Ranger is better than Ovechkin in that same timespan, I don't understand why Caps fans aren't driving Ovechkin out of town with pitchforks
Again, I think that the population size of those that say he has been outright poor in the regular season is relatively small. He does get credit for other aspects besides goal scoring. It is just not weighed as much.
Well, the 1 goal in 12 games from the 2013 post season does not exactly hold up either. And I get what you are saying, but once you go down the slippery slope of excluding some of the inputs into an analysis, that is quite a rabbit hole. Then you can start to get into looking at goal totals and how many of those games he was held scoreless. And did he score his goals in the biggest games of all.
You are equalizing goals and assists. That only works in a playing field that is absolutely level. Which means that everyone who scores goals will do so at the same clip. But when you break that apart with the issue is that not everyone's abilities to score goals are the same, you will get to the issue that in Nash's case, the aspect that assists equally is important are haircutted. If your top goal scorer is not scoring goals, but getting assists, then chances are as a team you are not scoring as many goals. Because the puck on the stick of Nash has a much better chance of being a goal than if it was on someone else's stick.
This is the problem with trying to use a metric that extrapolates goals as opposed to one that uses real goals. Nash has 11 goals in 61 playoff games with the Rangers. Ovechkin has 41 goals in 84 playoff games. It is not even close. So no matter what extrapolated metrics show, the real one show that in the playoffs, Nash is not worth carrying Ovechkin's jock strap.
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
And the reason I brought up the P/60 stat is because it shows that Nash has been better than what people give him credit for.
Sure, the play offs have been disappointing but that was mostly the 2014 post-season. I know, I know, it sounds like I am cherry picking here, but if you look past that 2014 post-season (as mentioned, Thornton had 1 awful post-season as well and some consider him a play-off choker because of it), Nash has 23 points in 36 games for us in the play-offs which is 0.63 PPG.
I don't just want to look at goals, because I think assists are just as important. You can't have an assist without someone else scoring a goal. Sure, secondary assists might not be viewed to be as important as goals or primary assists, so lets look at primary points per 60 since 2012-13:
Here, top10 P1/60 since 2012-13 (At least 1000 minutes played):
His P1/60 in the play-offs since 2012 (Which includes the dreadful 2014 season) is 1.01.
Better than Joe Thornton, Alex Ovechkin, and Nicklas Backstrom. I won't say he was great, but man... If his P1/60 in the post-season as a Ranger is better than Ovechkin in that same timespan, I don't understand why Caps fans aren't driving Ovechkin out of town with pitchforks
So his playoffs P1/60 is better than other regular season to playoff regressors?
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
Rick Nash in the last 3 post-seasons:
28 GP 9G 11A 20P
That is 0.71 points per game in the last 3 post seasons. Not bad for a "play off choker". Not saying it's elite, but it's a massive improvement from his 2014 campaign
28 GP 9G 11A 20P
That is 0.71 points per game in the last 3 post seasons. Not bad for a "play off choker". Not saying it's elite, but it's a massive improvement from his 2014 campaign
That may be, but the Rangers need Nash to be elite to go anywhere. Last night was the perfect illustration. Nash was a monster everywhere. THAT is the Rick Nash that the team needs. It is constructed with him as the centerpiece of the forwards. Don't give me this "drive the offense" crap. The most important aspect of his job is to score goals.
This team does not go anywhere if Henke is subpar. This team does not go anywhere if Nash is invisible. Nash was an absolute force last night. That is what this team needs from him every night in the playoffs.
Yeah that is very good. Especially that he continues to do all the little things like killing penalties and whatnot. Issue with Nash is that cap hit he has. That is the first thing people look at and they expect him to be like that all the time. If he was making a couple of million less people would be less on his case every game. But that is around the entire league, a player can still be very good and very effective but they are overpaid. I am bold enough to say he has been our best forward so far in this series.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
I hope he has a monster playoff run so we can trade him before UFA market opens. I like the guy but we need that cap space.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
That's at least 19 games where he didn't score a goal, which is what he's paid to do.
Yes, you have nailed the argument perfectly. What we have all been up in arms about is the fact that Nash does not score a goal in each and every game. Spot on analysis.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I didn't say that was your argument. Are you saying you're happy with 9 goals in 28 games from a player who you believe is paid $7.8 million exclusively to score playoff goals?
There is no salary cap in the playoffs so his salary is irrelevant in the playoffs.
In the last three playoffs before this one, the team that Rick Nash is on has gone to the SCF, game 7 of the ECF and then bounced in the first round. I'd say those teams have done pretty well, with the exception of last year.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I guess technically that's true, but the caliber of players you have during the playoffs is limited to what you can fit under the cap during the regular season.
The argument has also never been about how far can or does a team go while Rick Nash is on it.
Please find where I stated that Nash is being paid $7.8 million exclusively to score playoff goals.
Sure, his dominant offensive days are over but he still serves a purpose. Last night, he was all over the front of the net and creating opportunities. Now everything I just said may not be worth the money that the Rangers are paying him now but that's what happens when you go after a super start in his prime. You're going to end up overpaying him when he begins to get old. I think they're other moves the Rangers can make to free up cap space before looking into Nash's situation.
- Status
