Taylor Hall For Adam Larsson V | 4,000+ Posts and Counting!

[McDraekke]

In anycase I take that bet that Hall gets more pts than Lucic any day of the year.

I will take that bet! (that Lucic will get more points than Hall on at least one day of the year)




I honestly can't believe some people are still arguing trade value. We lost it. But this off-season might be a turning point for this faltering team in a good way. So why not wait to see how the chips fall?

 

[Replacement*]

With all due respect Young Lions, I've noticed this little motif in your posting style on a number of occasions. I have been involved in a couple myself, and I'm not on here often You make a statement, somebody else counters with their opinion, you ask for examples from THEM to support THEIR opinion.

A few of these posters put in a certain amount of extra work and time, LaGu being the most recent example I've seen (amongst many others), and you counter their time and effort they could have spent elsewhere with you asking for more details than they've already provided for 30 minutes of work and more accuracy.

You are basically micromanaging people's reasoned responses to your opinion. To top it off, you yourself are asking other posters to put in more work than you apparently are willing to provide yourself. Do you seriously think that you can just make a statement without any detail or accuracy (your own words) and expect someone who disagrees to do what you seem to be refusing to do?

This isn't some "fly by" post that has just spawned because I want to pile on. Just a common miscourtesy that I've noticed by yourself on a number of occasions. Take this post for what it is, just my opinion. I on't speak for any others here.

With all due respect Young Lions brings the mail. He substantiates his positions the way I would prefer that posters do and agree, or disagree, and I've done both with him, he responds, elaborates, and fleshes out his positions.

Additionally, I respect (of course) posters that don't always prop this orgs latest moves and that don't mind calling out what this org does. Really in response to years of this org there is some validity to critiquing it. But which is usually going to be an unpopular approach on a fan board.

 

[Young Lions*]

With all due respect Young Lions, I've noticed this little motif in your posting style on a number of occasions. I have been involved in a couple myself, and I'm not on here often You make a statement, somebody else counters with their opinion, you ask for examples from THEM to support THEIR opinion.

Because that's how it's supposed to work around here. I'm always happy to post a cite when it's a point of fact that's up for discussion or a rationale when it's one of opinion.

A few of these posters put in a certain amount of extra work and time, LaGu being the most recent example I've seen (amongst many others), and you counter their time and effort they could have spent elsewhere with you asking for more details than they've already provided for 30 minutes of work and more accuracy

I get what you're saying but I think you mistake my intentions. I'm not asking for Lagu to put in the extra work, merely making an observation about the data. More broadly, if someone like Panda Bear does a stats post and I have questions, should I redo all the work they've already done, or simply ask how they arrived where they did? What's wrong with that?

You are basically micromanaging people's reasoned responses to your opinion. To top it off, you yourself are asking other posters to put in more work than you apparently are willing to provide yourself. Do you seriously think that you can just make a statement without any detail or accuracy (your own words) and expect someone who disagrees to do what you seem to be refusing to do?

Again: if someone thinks I've insufficiently supported an argument or wants a source for something, I'm happy to provide it. I have never refused to do so, that's just false. I'm also happy to learn from others (again, Panda Bear has done yeoman's work on Larsson that I don't have any reason or desire to contradict or replicate).

 

[Replacement*]

I will take that bet! (that Lucic will get more points than Hall on at least one day of the year)




I honestly can't believe some people are still arguing trade value. We lost it. But this off-season might be a turning point for this faltering team in a good way. So why not wait to see how the chips fall?

Wait for what. I know what Lucic's game looks like inside and out. I know what Halls game looks like inside and out. I know which game I will miss and which game I do not enjoy.

That said, and as I've mentioned I don't know much about Larssons game. But that doesn't change that I now miss out on countless Hall hilite reel plays and the production he drove on this team.

I also think theres going to be some missing the water when the well runs dry when hockey starts again and people truly note something missing and we don't have Halls jets anymore.

Its funny that if Hall were Russian, and his name was Pavel Bure, he would be seen as a franchise player, an allstar player, an electric, explosive player with WC burn speed and the creativity and skill to make plays at high speed. How really, is Halls game any different. Why did Bure get such accolade and Hall gets criticism?

Hall is an exceptional player. I will miss him not being here anymore. I will actually watch Devils games now due to Hall being there. Because of what he brings and his play being well worth watching.

Fantastic move for Jersey who gets a prominent franchise player that will now perhaps get some of the recognition he deserves.

 

[Dorian2]

With all due respect Young Lions brings the mail. He substantiates his positions the way I would prefer that posters do and agree, or disagree, and I've done both with him, he responds, elaborates, and fleshes out his positions.

Additionally, I respect (of course) posters that don't always prop this orgs latest moves and that don't mind calling out what this org does. Really in response to years of this org there is some validity to critiquing it. But which is usually going to be an unpopular approach on a fan board.

I haven't got a problem if a poster critiques anything. But in many of the posts that I've seen, the current one a recent example, it's fairly plain to see that there has been no counterpoint with any "mail" at all. It's clear in my last post that the buck was passed to someone else who has already clearly made a very good counter point. I understand that Young Lions puts in effort and time to make points, but like I mentioned. There is an undertow of passing the buck to another poster to defend what's already been defended quite well.

 

[Replacement*]

I haven't got a problem if a poster critiques anything. But in many of the posts that I've seen, the current one a recent example, it's fairly plain to see that there has been no counterpoint with any "mail" at all. It's clear in my last post that the buck was passed to someone else who has already clearly made a very good counter point. I understand that Young Lions puts in effort and time to make points, but like I mentioned. There is an undertow of passing the buck to another poster to defend what's already been defended quite well.

I've raised this with you before. You enter into a thread, take a glimpse of say 5 posts, and make summary conclusion based on that rather than seeing a larger segment of the posts.

hey, nobody is required to read this board, or read more than a few posts on this board, that's fine, but to do so and then make summary conclusions about a posters posting is just wrong.


So get off yer dang soapbox so there...

 

[Ol' Jase]

Jesus, now we're comparing Taylor Hall to Pavel Bure?!!?

 

[Dorian2]

Because that's how it's supposed to work around here. I'm always happy to post a cite when it's a point of fact that's up for discussion or a rationale when it's one of opinion.



I get what you're saying but I think you mistake my intentions. I'm not asking for Lagu to put in the extra work, merely making an observation about the data. More broadly, if someone like Panda Bear does a stats post and I have questions, should I redo all the work they've already done, or simply ask how they arrived where they did? What's wrong with that?



Again: if someone thinks I've insufficiently supported an argument or wants a source for something, I'm happy to provide it. I have never refused to do so, that's just false. I'm also happy to learn from others (again, Panda Bear has done yeoman's work on Larsson that I don't have any reason or desire to contradict or replicate).

Thanks for the reasonable response.

Like I said man, my post is just my opinion of a number of occasions when you've asked for more citations on top of citations. This is a hockey forum, not a research paper with citations needed on every single thing said. Yourself included. I'm not asking you to just suck it up and agree or disagree with anybody without a supporting argement on either side, citations included.

Maybe it's the way I think (which is kinda off to some people), particularly more logic oriented types. But wouldn't it have been of equal value to you and LaGu to say something like "good post". "But here are some specifics that you should include to really make your point acceptable to me". It comes down to the wording and how different types of people perceive things. My perception is quite different than yours and a number of other posters. That's all.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Young Lions, I'd ask you to take a look at this. I posted it the day the trade went don:

Some perspective for those who believe Larsson may be a product of Cory Schneider's play as well.

Schneider's #'s with Larsson on ice:

TOI 1013:24
GF60 1.66
GA60 1.30
GF% 56.0
CF60 41.03
CA60 45.17
CF% 47.6

Schneider's #'s without Larsson on ice:

TOI 1643:06
GF60 1.53
GA60 2.19
GF% 41.2
CF60 43.93
CA60 49.33
CF% 47.1

Zone Starts:

With Larsson on ice:

OZFO% 21.6
DZFO% 42.5
NZFO% 35.9
OZone% 33.6

Without Larsson on ice:

OZFO% 36.0
DZFO% 26.0
NZFO% 37.9
OZone% 58.0

These are not the numbers of a mediocre #4 defenseman, regardless of how you look at it.

Oh, and one more thing.

Larsson was on the ice when Schneider played more that any other Devil was.

 

[McDraekke]

Wait for what. I know what Lucic's game looks like inside and out. I know what Halls game looks like inside and out. I know which game I will miss and which game I do not enjoy.

That said, and as I've mentioned I don't know much about Larssons game. But that doesn't change that I now miss out on countless Hall hilite reel plays and the production he drove on this team.

I also think theres going to be some missing the water when the well runs dry when hockey starts again and people truly note something missing and we don't have Halls jets anymore.

Its funny that if Hall were Russian, and his name was Pavel Bure, he would be seen as a franchise player, an allstar player, an electric, explosive player with WC burn speed and the creativity and skill to make plays at high speed. How really, is Halls game any different. Why did Bure get such accolade and Hall gets criticism?

Hall is an exceptional player. I will miss him not being here anymore. I will actually watch Devils games now due to Hall being there. Because of what he brings and his play being well worth watching.

Fantastic move for Jersey who gets a prominent franchise player that will now perhaps get some of the recognition he deserves.

Hall is not a franchise player. A franchise player has the power to turn things around. Hall did not do that. McDavid on the other hand is already showing these things on and off the ice (with FA signings, etc).

Hall is not Bure. That is ridiculous.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Jesus, now we're comparing Taylor Hall to Pavel Bure?!!?

this thread jumped the shark weeks ago and going full crazy....

 

[Replacement*]

Hall is not a franchise player. A franchise player has the power to turn things around. Hall did not do that. McDavid on the other hand is already showing these things on and off the ice (with FA signings, etc).

Hall is not Bure. That is ridiculous.

That would be your view, it isn't accurate. A franchise player is the one people come to see. Hall was that here until we won the lotto on McDavid. Albeit its unfortunate that Hall is now gone due to now being classed as expendable by the org.

So a few questions;

How long before Hall is the franchise player in NJ?

Were Marcel Dionne, Shane Doan, Daryll Sittler, Lanny McDonald, Rick Nash,(CBL) franchise players in their respective markets during their tenure? I would say each of them was and were also figureheads for their franchise. As Hall was here for half a dozen seasons.

Where do you get this notion that one player, any player, "turns things around" not even Gretzky would win anything without the right supporting cast which should be more than clear in his post Oiler years.

edit to edit; Hall drives virtually identical production than Bure did and playing the same D attacking speed rushing game. How is the comparison ridiculous?

 

[Halibut]

Hall is not a franchise player. A franchise player has the power to turn things around. Hall did not do that. McDavid on the other hand is already showing these things on and off the ice (with FA signings, etc).

Hall is not Bure. That is ridiculous.

Meh. Bure was no franchise player, he was exciting and could dangle but he didnt lead the Canucks to a Stanley cup or the Panthers. I'm fine with the comparison, both fast and pushed play. Bure was on a much better Canucks team in 94 at least but a few years later he was putting up points but his team wasnt winning much.

 

[Replacement*]

this thread jumped the shark weeks ago and going full crazy....

How is it ridiculous?


Hall is playing in a literal dead pucks era when system play (from most teams) is at its peak and goalies are excellent. Goals scored is really down from historic levels.

Bure played at a time when more goals were scored.

Bure scored a lot more goals, but against worse D system and goaltending but both players drove very similar offense.

Bure, in first 6 seasons, only had 60 more pts than Hall. That's a modest 10pts/season, when goals were easier to come by.

The key to me is that both players had jets, both were explosive, and both contributes to very similar amount of team GF.

 

[Young Lions*]

Hall is not a franchise player. A franchise player has the power to turn things around. Hall did not do that.

I didn't know Hall was the guy responsible for making trades and scouting and drafting for all the years.

Franchise player, elite player, hockey IQ, all these terms that get thrown around with no reasonable degree of consensus around what they mean. For example, by your definition of franchise player, how many active players would actually qualify? Crosby? Anyone else? Even McDavid hasn't actually done anything yet to prove himself worthy of the label.

To me, and I think most people, a franchise player is a cornerstone piece, the kind a team can build around. Hall is definitely that even if management failed to hold up their end of the bargain. The Devils certainly would seem to think that's the case, otherwise why else would they trade their #1D man for him?

 

[McDraekke]

That would be your view, it isn't accurate. A franchise player is the one people come to see. Hall was that here until we won the lotto on McDavid. Albeit its unfortunate that Hall is now gone due to now being classed as expendable by the org.

So a few questions;

How long before Hall is the franchise player in NJ?

Were Marcel Dionne, Shane Doan, Daryll Sittler, Lanny McDonald, Rick Nash,(CBL) franchise players in their respective markets during their tenure? I would say each of them was and were also figureheads for their franchise. As Hall was here for half a dozen seasons.

Where do you get this notion that one player, any player, "turns things around" not even Gretzky would win anything without the right supporting cast which should be more than clear in his post Oiler years.

Note that I didn't say that a franchise player WILL make a team better. I said they have the power to turn things around, be it by their on-ice skill mixed with the draw of other top players during FA. It's certainly not 100% guaranteed to be successful though.

You are right, that is my definition of a Franchise Player. Your definition doesn't really attribute any actual value, other than to the team's fans which isn't a very good way to measure value of a player in the market.

Rick Nash and Shane Doan in the very least I would take off of that list (mostly due to my experience of watching hockey in the last dozen years or so). If you say Doan was a franchise player, then so was Smyth, and I wouldn't say he was a Franchise player (imo), but a player who had endeared himself to the entire fanbase.

 

[LaGu]

I don't mind checking stats when I have time. I do it all the time, many times without posting about it. Otherwise I have no problem in just saying that I don't agree and leave it at that.

That said it is, imo, very common for posters to come with claims without backing it up and then after being showed that it is wrong or a misrepresentation they will just ignore or repeat the same again. This was not that though since the claim was made by someone witthout backing it up, being called out and then I chose to look into it. I see nothing wrong with that. The former though is very annoying and has happened alot lately.

And the point brought up by YL was something I did consider, but since I chose players from many different years I hoped that it would more or less cancel out (but I have not confirmed that).

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

How is it ridiculous?


Hall is playing in a literal dead pucks era when system play (from most teams) is at its peak and goalies are excellent. Goals scored is really down from historic levels.

Bure played at a time when more goals were scored.

Bure scored a lot more goals, but against worse D system and goaltending but both players drove very similar offense.

Bure, in first 6 seasons, only had 60 more pts than Hall. That's a modest 10pts/season, when goals were easier to come by.

The key to me is that both players had jets, both were explosive, and both contributes to very similar amount of team GF.

when Hall wins multiple Rocket Richard trophies, then we can compare the 2 players

Hall wishes he had a shot like Bure

 

[Young Lions*]

Note that I didn't say that a franchise player WILL make a team better. I said they have the power to turn things around, be it by their on-ice skill mixed with the draw of other top players during FA. It's certainly not 100% guaranteed to be successful though.

If you consider a player a franchise player, but they fail to do what a franchise player is by definition supposed to, how can they be a franchise player?

 

[Replacement*]

Note that I didn't say that a franchise player WILL make a team better. I said they have the power to turn things around, be it by their on-ice skill mixed with the draw of other top players during FA. It's certainly not 100% guaranteed to be successful though.

You are right, that is my definition of a Franchise Player. Your definition doesn't really attribute any actual value, other than to the team's fans which isn't a very good way to measure value of a player in the market.

Rick Nash and Shane Doan in the very least I would take off of that list (mostly due to my experience of watching hockey in the last dozen years or so). If you say Doan was a franchise player, then so was Smyth, and I wouldn't say he was a Franchise player (imo), but a player who had endeared himself to the entire fanbase.

You stated my comment comparing Hall to Bure was ridiculous even though both drove very similar production. Now, if you're going to jump on a poster like that you should have more substantive response, or any, than the above.

The thing is theres essentially little difference. Hall, as many, or more, times a game drives the puck into key dangerous areas where NHL goals are scored. He's clearly the player, on an otherwise peripheral playing club, that drove the majority of his 330 NHL points.

As to some vague concept of "power to turn things around" what on Earth does that mean other than some misleading script that has nothing to do with Hall at all?

The one very unfortunate thing is that the NHL has not got a chance to see the electric Taylor Hall in the playoffs. A lot of opinions will change when that occurs.

 

[Replacement*]

when Hall wins multiple Rocket Richard trophies, then we can compare the 2 players

Hall wishes he had a shot like Bure

I figured this would be your reply.


While I do tend to value goals more than assists, in cases where the player getting the assists, is clearly driving that offensive production the distinction is less important.

The sum contribution is that Hall causes the same amount of GF production than Bure did. Hall is also a FAR SUPERIOR EV producer than Bure was.

Anyway, any player wishes they had a shot like Bure but a lot of those shots don't beat present day NHL goalies. Just like a lot of the 80's shots don't beat present day goalies. How do I know that? Bure scored tons of goals from well outside the area where todays NHL goals are typically scored. Hall actually has to spend more time in traffic, in the paint, to generate similar production. Of the two, Bure was the more Peripheral player.

 

[Mr Sakich]

IMO, for the trade to be a win, Larsson has to be a bona fide #1D man in short order. 30+ points, 25 minutes a night in all situations. Lucic has nothing to do with it.

if your primary focus is on determining the winner of the trade, than your statement is true. The reality is that Chia does not care if he wins a trade, he cares about making the team better.

There is no way Chia does this trade if he does not know for sure that Lucic is signing a week later. In CHia's mind, Lucic was part of the overall plan just as the Hall trade was part of the overall plan.

 

[Young Lions*]

I don't mind checking stats when I have time. I do it all the time, many times without posting about it. Otherwise I have no problem in just saying that I don't agree and leave it at that.

That said it is, imo, very common for posters to come with claims without backing it up and then after being showed that it is wrong or a misrepresentation they will just ignore or repeat the same again. This was not that though since the claim was made by someone witthout backing it up, being called out and then I chose to look into it. I see nothing wrong with that. The former though is very annoying and has happened alot lately.

And the point brought up by YL was something I did consider, but since I chose players from many different years I hoped that it would more or less cancel out (but I have not confirmed that).

It wasn't just you that had me thinking about era adjusted scoring. Someone else mentioned Yzerman and the old narrative that he became a more complete player at the expense of his point totals, which I've always thought was a bit specious when you consider the fact his best years were in the 80s when scoring was at an all time high while his decline corresponded both with the start of the dead puck era in the 90s as well as his aging out of his most productive years.

 

[Replacement*]

Since I had nothing to do the last 30 minutes I took a look at this. I just looked at each players best and second best season in terms of pts, obviously there are many more factors that play in. For example I would say the Bergeron was and is a much better player at 24+ years than before even though his best pts seasons were at the age of 20 and 21. Also, a few players on the list are still young and could improve.

Players included: Crosby, Benn, Spezza, Jagr, Stamkos, Giroux, Kessel, Kane, Thornton, Seguin, Eberle, Kopitar, Ovechkin, Backstrom, Tavares, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Perry, L.Eriksson, Krejci, Hossa, Datsyuk, Toews, Zetterberg, Nash, Malkin, Hull, Shanahan, Gretzky, Tkachuk, Modano, Sundin, Lindros, Sakic, Forsberg, Kariya, Selanne.

edit: the players in bold had their best season under the age of 24 (I know, Seguin and a couple more are probably too young to be counted).

Age 19: 1
Age 20: 5
Age 21: 10
Age 22: 13
Age 23: 12
Age 24: 11
Age 25: 5
Age 26: 6
Age 27: 5
Age 28: 2
Age 29: 1
Age 30: 1
Age 31: 1

Seems to be a relation as well to draft position. Players like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hull, Alfredsson peaked much later than high picks and they bring up the average quite a bit so it could be interesting to divide this more based on where the players were drafted.

Sorry, and I appreciate the effort, but why include multiple players in that list who are still playng, still young, and could still best their career peak production? I know you noted that, but why include it?

This skews the results making it look more like tweeners getting the highest points.

Nor does this reflect the reality that Hall, as recently as last season was 4th in scoring, spend a large segment of the season around PPG, and only struggled to produce in last 30games at which point the season, and peak motivation, were gone, on a player that had seen a lot of years where the Oilers were not put into a position to be competitive.

 

[Dorian2]

I've raised this with you before. You enter into a thread, take a glimpse of say 5 posts, and make summary conclusion based on that rather than seeing a larger segment of the posts.

hey, nobody is required to read this board, or read more than a few posts on this board, that's fine, but to do so and then make summary conclusions about a posters posting is just wrong.


So get off yer dang soapbox so there...