Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part LXIX

[True Blue]

27

Ok, 27. And will not be 28 until next year.

 

[LokiDog]

Like with everything, I think that the truth is in the middle. 70 point player? No. 40ish? Why not? And that is more than good enough for most second lines in the league. And at say $4.5, that makes is a pretty good bargain. Especially when you consider what he morphs to when with Panarin. I am just not sure of who you bringing in that will be both cheaper and produce as much.

And I agree about ZBad and Panarin. Last year may well be their top year ever. Hopefully not, but good chance.

Also, it may not be that nobody wanted him, but more of a) nobody was willing to part with whatever it is that Gorton wanted and b) Gorton & JD did not find alternatives that appealing. At least for now.

LD, feel free to jump into any conversation. So let it be written........

Oops

Looking at 2018-19 (since it’s the last full season), 45 point production would put him in company with Henrique, Kerfoot, Stastny, Zajac. In fact, 45 points would put him exactly at 61st in the NHL in scoring for centers. It’s really in the high end third line/super low end for second line production. The midway point between the #31-62 center in the last full season was 55 points. So Strome at a 43, or even a 50 point pace, is a low end 2C at best, and more realistically, a 3C with a bad game away from the puck (versus guys in that range who have okay-to-good defensive games). If Strome put up 50 points he’d still be 53 among centers. Assuming there’s 62 top-six centers, even 50 points is still bottom tier 2C production, 40 points is outside of the top 70.

Actually, since that same season was Strome’s first as a Ranger, the 43 point pace he had after the trade puts him at 63rd in the NHL. The actual 35 points he finished with puts him at 81.

 

[Avery16]

Ok, 27. And will not be 28 until next year.

This is usually how it works.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I'm fine with Strome on a 1 or 2 year deal. He's the best we got for now, in a weird place where we are at the cap for next season but will have a lot of space coming off the following. Getting him on a short term deal is ideal for us, and very beneficial. So 2 years 4.5 per would be ok for me though I think people would be mad. 1 year even better.

I just don't understand why it's out of bounds to discuss that he's a very limited player. Everyone hated JT Miller by the end of his tenure for playing stupid. He's literally referred to as "bozo" here. But somehow it's STROME DERANGEMENT SYNDROME to point out how stupid Strome is off the puck? Fantastic that he has great chemistry with Panarin. What happens if Chytil takes a huge leap and needs top 6 mins? Or other guys do? Or because of injuries Strome can't center Panarin? Chemistry is great, but "stapled to Panarin" can't be the selling point of a guy.

So yeah short term the faults aren't a big thing. Long term it becomes an issue. don't think that's remotely unfair.

 

[SA16]

He paced for 45-50 points in a full season back in 18-19. That's not "not" effective.

Ignoring the fact it's not true, and that "pace" is not a real thing that has any meaning, you didn't even provide any context. "Pace" is just how you get sucked into the trap of overpaying mediocre players because all it is is a proxy for overperformance due to unsustainable factors. Strome was bad as a Ranger in 18-19. He was good in 19-20 with Panarin.

In 18-19, as a Ranger at 5v5, he scored 1.32 points/60 and that is while shooting almost 17%! If you want to know who else scored between 1.27 and 1.37 points/60 that year in 800+ mins the list would include Bjugstad, Zucker, B. McGinn, Z. Smith, Laine, Greenway, Crouse, Rakell, Kempe, Cousins, Iafallo, Reaves, Virtanen. So, sure, there were some good players in down years. Of course that group of players shot 8.3% on average.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Your friend is a liar.

I don’t know 31 if you were being funny, because when I first read your reply I did laugh and smile. If you were being serious I just checked Hockey Reference and there were only four forwards on that team that had more power-play points than Strome. Also that team had five or six Centers so if he claims that Ryan played on Tavares wing I have to believe him because he been an Islander season ticket holder for the 34 years that I have known him and probably longer. As far as Kyle Okposo being the other wing, that was the part he wasn’t 100% certain on due to Capuano’s experimenting with line combinations.

 

[JohnC]

But Panarin us unlikely to pace for over 100 points again (as several have said, last year may have been the best we’ll ever see from Mika and Bread) and Strome’s points will follow suit.

The amazing thing is there’s a contingent on this board that will blame Panarin for this.

The classic ‘it’s Stepan, Kreider, Nash not Girardi, Staal, Glass’ crowd.

 

[True Blue]

This is usually how it works.

Whew. Thank goodness you managed to enlighten us. Was worried.

 

[Thirty One]

I don’t know 31 if you were being funny, because when I first read your reply I did laugh and smile. If you were being serious I just checked Hockey Reference and there were only four forwards on that team that had more power-play points than Strome. Also that team had five or six Centers so if he claims that Ryan played on Tavares wing I have to believe him because he been an Islander season ticket holder for the 34 years that I have known him and probably longer. As far as Kyle Okposo being the other wing, that was the part he wasn’t 100% certain on due to Capuano’s experimenting with line combinations.

Strome played about 11% of his even strength time with Tavares that. I think he did largely play on PP1 without checking (we've discussed all things Strome before).

 

[Fitzy]

MSL had his best seasons in his 30's, so while it's likely, we shouldnt assume that what we saw from Panarin and Zib last year was an anomaly.

To the degree that their production dips, I think it will partly be the consequence of other star players emerging and taking shifts at key times. Panarin played an extra minute of PP time per game last year. When Lafreniere, Kakko, ect become stars, the minutes will be more evenly distributed.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

Ignoring the fact it's not true, and that "pace" is not a real thing that has any meaning, you didn't even provide any context. "Pace" is just how you get sucked into the trap of overpaying mediocre players because all it is is a proxy for overperformance due to unsustainable factors. Strome was bad as a Ranger in 18-19. He was good in 19-20 with Panarin.

In 18-19, as a Ranger at 5v5, he scored 1.32 points/60 and that is while shooting almost 17%! If you want to know who else scored between 1.27 and 1.37 points/60 that year in 800+ mins the list would include Bjugstad, Zucker, B. McGinn, Z. Smith, Laine, Greenway, Crouse, Rakell, Kempe, Cousins, Iafallo, Reaves, Virtanen. So, sure, there were some good players in down years. Of course that group of players shot 8.3% on average.

Lol, a lot of people thought he would suck this past season because of that 17% abnormally, but he went onto have his best and career season (granted, with Panarin, I'll give that). He was not "bad or terrible" in 18-19 by any stretch, either.

He's basically Derrick Brassard II. Maybe not quite as good, but it's obvious he's comfortable and found a home here.

 

[True Blue]

Looking at 2018-19 (since it’s the last full season), 45 point production would put him in company with Henrique, Kerfoot, Stastny, Zajac. In fact, 45 points would put him exactly at 61st in the NHL in scoring for centers. It’s really in the high end third line/super low end for second line production. The midway point between the #31-62 center in the last full season was 55 points. So Strome at a 43, or even a 50 point pace, is a low end 2C at best, and more realistically, a 3C with a bad game away from the puck (versus guys in that range who have okay-to-good defensive games). If Strome put up 50 points he’d still be 53 among centers. Assuming there’s 62 top-six centers, even 50 points is still bottom tier 2C production, 40 points is outside of the top 70.

Depends on how you look at it. If you look at how many top lines there are and then look at how many forwards are available to man them, you will see that Kreider's 52 points from that year, put him on the lower tier of top line production for all forwards. 43 points would put you in the top 125 in the league, which would put it squarely at second line production level.

 

[LokiDog]

Depends on how you look at it. If you look at how many top lines there are and then look at how many forwards are available to man them, you will see that Kreider's 52 points from that year, put him on the lower tier of top line production for all forwards. 43 points would put you in the top 125 in the league, which would put it squarely at second line production level.

Well, again, 43 is a pace, not the actual result. 2018-19 was a 35 point year for Strome in which he played 81 NHL games. Moreover, 43 does place him right at 125, but it doesn’t take into account guys above and below him who missed games due to injury (and since we’re using pace for Strome rather than actual totals, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the competitors as well). When you adjust for points per game played (and eliminate outliers with less than 10 games played), a 43 point pace would put you closer to 160-170 among forwards, so once again, low end second line (assuming 6 top six per team x31 teams = 186). Strome’s actual production of 35 points put him around 215, again outside of top six range.

 

[EdJovanovski]

This is usually how it works.

 

[EdJovanovski]

MSL had his best seasons in his 30's, so while it's likely, we shouldnt assume that what we saw from Panarin and Zib last year was an anomaly.

To the degree that their production dips, I think it will partly be the consequence of other star players emerging and taking shifts at key times. Panarin played an extra minute of PP time per game last year. When Lafreniere, Kakko, ect become stars, the minutes will be more evenly distributed.

I see Panarin having much more longevity than Zibanejad. Panarin is one of the most durable players in the league, his game is predicated on his IQ and not any physical attribute, and he seems more like someone who’s obsessed with hockey than Mika is. He has less NHL mileage than most star players his age, and he had probably the hardest life of any player in the NHL so his ridiculous level of determination will enable him to produce well into his later years

 

[Avery16]

have not listened, but could be interesting.

 

[Fitzy]

I see Panarin having much more longevity than Zibanejad. Panarin is one of the most durable players in the league, his game is predicated on his IQ and not any physical attribute, and he seems more like someone who’s obsessed with hockey than Mika is. He has less NHL mileage than most star players his age, and he had probably the hardest life of any player in the NHL so his ridiculous level of determination will enable him to produce well into his later years

For sure. It's going to be a tough decision re- a potential Zibanejad extension. I don't want to lose him for nothing but it's rare you have a guy with an injury history stay productive late into his late 30's.

You've got like- Malkin, and thats the one exception. I love Zibby but he isnt Malkin

 

[NYR]

When is Strome's hearing again?

Shit..This day can't come soon enough.

Boards be crashing over Ryan Strome..

 

[JCProdigy]

I don’t know 31 if you were being funny, because when I first read your reply I did laugh and smile. If you were being serious I just checked Hockey Reference and there were only four forwards on that team that had more power-play points than Strome. Also that team had five or six Centers so if he claims that Ryan played on Tavares wing I have to believe him because he been an Islander season ticket holder for the 34 years that I have known him and probably longer. As far as Kyle Okposo being the other wing, that was the part he wasn’t 100% certain on due to Capuano’s experimenting with line combinations.

Strome played about 11% of his even strength time with Tavares that. I think he did largely play on PP1 without checking (we've discussed all things Strome before).

Ramp5's friend was just misremembering by one year. It's Strome's 15-16' season where his playing time was with Tavares.

https://frozenpool.dobbersports.com/frozenpool_linecombo.php?select=F&forward=NYR:2967:RYAN:STROME&games=2015-2016:R:99&period=ALL&situation=EV

 

[SA16]

Lol, a lot of people thought he would suck this past season because of that 17% abnormally, but he went onto have his best and career season (granted, with Panarin, I'll give that). He was not "bad or terrible" in 18-19 by any stretch, either.

He's basically Derrick Brassard II. Maybe not quite as good, but it's obvious he's comfortable and found a home here.

He is absolutely nothing like Derick Brassard outside of being a 2C on the team. Brassard which was a much better offensive player, a much better skater, and performed were far lesser linemates. Brassard was also a better defensive player and didn't take nearly as many penalties. Brassard also had a dangerous slap shot he could unleash when open or on the PP which is not something in Strome's game at all.

In 18-19 among forwards who played at least 1,000 minutes Ryan Strome ranked 129/131 in points/60. Great season. That same year among forwards who played 800+ minutes (as he did with the Rangers) his Ranger stats alone would put him at 202/252. How is this a good season?

His results were good in the 19-20 season though I do not buy them as likely to continue or not just being a function of playing with Panarin. His results in 18-19 were bad.

 

[Fitzy]

When is Strome's hearing again?

Shit..This day can't come soon enough.

Boards be crashing over Ryan Strome..

Still over a week away

 

[True Blue]

Well, again, 43 is a pace, not the actual result. 2018-19 was a 35 point year for Strome in which he played 81 NHL games. Moreover, 43 does place him right at 125, but it doesn’t take into account guys above and below him who missed games due to injury (and since we’re using pace for Strome rather than actual totals, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the competitors as well). When you adjust for points per game played (and eliminate outliers with less than 10 games played), a 43 point pace would put you closer to 160-170 among forwards, so once again, low end second line (assuming 6 top six per team x31 teams = 186). Strome’s actual production of 35 points put him around 215, again outside of top six range.

Right, so if he paced in that manner, he would finish in top-2 line production. Again, 50 points gets you lower top line, 40 is in there for second line. Not that many third liners score 40 points. If his pace continued, his 43 points is second line. And, to me, low end second line is still second line. Just like while 50 points may be low end top line, it is still top line. This is the MIT graduation argument. Whether or not you graduated at the top of the class or in the bottom third, you are still an MIT graduate.

 

[LokiDog]

Right, so if he paced in that manner, he would finish in top-2 line production. Again, 50 points gets you lower top line, 40 is in there for second line. Not that many third liners score 40 points. If his pace continued, his 43 points is second line. And, to me, low end second line is still second line. Just like while 50 points may be low end top line, it is still top line. This is the MIT graduation argument. Whether or not you graduated at the top of the class or in the bottom third, you are still an MIT graduate.

To me, low end second line is not. Fundamental difference in how we view things, but to me low end second line is a place holder for a kid or someone who is filling a role because the depth isn’t there. So Strome’s historical point production away from Panarin, even when given credit for his pace after being traded here and not the actual results of his season, is low, low end second line. For all forwards. For centers it’s outside of the top 62. For all forwards in the NHL it’s around 163 of 186. And that’s giving him credit for pace, not actuals.

Also 50 does not put you in the top 93 forwards. 52 is the cutoff and aside from a handful, only the lowest end top line forwards are at 50+, about 80 of 93 are above 60.

Obviously last year is an entirely different beast, but I think that’s where the problem is for most people. We’ve got a one dimensional guy in the vein of Parenteau whose total game leaves a lot to be desired but he just paced for 70 points (Parenteau and Tavares, PA had 67). His career averages and even bests from his entire NHL past place him just on the cusp of being a very low end 2C. Now you have the discrepancy between a historically lacking borderline 2C and a guy who in his most recent outing paced for 70. Finding what the sweet spot in between is seems to be a hold up for JG as well.

 

[pld459666]

I'm not sure why you try to make it sound less bad by saying "one penalty every three games." If you said a player scored "one goal every three games" is that something you wouldn't be concerned about? That's almost a 30 goal scorer! And "one penalty every three games" is equivalent to giving up ~5-6 additional goals versus no penalties.

I mean at the same time people rant and rave about needing good faceoff players when the difference between a 55% faceoff player and a 45% faceoff player is 1-2 faceoff wins per game for top players. The difference between a good 4C on faceoffs (say Pierre Edouard Bellemare who won 53% of his faceoffs taking 11.4 per game) and a bad one (like Riley Nash who won 47.9% of his faceoffs taking 8 faceoffs per game) is slightly more than one faceoff win every three game yet people are all about needing a good depth center who can win a faceoff. If one doesn't matter then the other logically cannot either. I do not know your opinion on faceoffs this is just a general comment.

I'd bring him back for one year anyway but trying to mitigating the negative effect of his penalties by using language is a bit weird.

Over the course of 82 games, I'm not concerned

 

[Avery16]

Over the course of 82 games, I'm not concerned

It had a negative effect during the play-in round. Not the time to f*** around.