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

[Namtsua]

Hall is Messier, Bure, Weight, and I'm sure I missed a few other comparisons.

The best part is that, earlier in the year, people were calling him an elite grinder

 

[Young Lions*]

Some people haven't been watching for very long apparently... No team is ever completely healthy. You have to plan for injuries.

How do you plan for losing both your generational top C and your #1D for more than half the year?

 

[McFlyingV]

Some people haven't been watching for very long apparently... No team is ever completely healthy. You have to plan for injuries.

And I mean, Hall hasn't played a full, 82-game season prior to this last one.

You're right, but no one could have planned for the injuries we had last year. Go look at every pacific team that made playoffs and you won't find even half the injuries to their top 2-3D or top 6 forwards. Certainly none of those teams missed half the season from their best forward and best dman.

 

[Replacement*]

You're right, but no one could have planned for the injuries we had last year. Go look at every pacific team that made playoffs and you won't find even half the injuries to their top 2-3 or top 6 forwards. Certainly none of those teams missed half the season from their best forward and best dman.

Missing McDavid was significant. Its too early to tell if missing Klefbom is. One established himself very quickly as a dominating player. The other is still a question mark and especially after missing so much hockey.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Hall represented a failed dream of up-tempo, run and gun, dynasty-days, 'Oilers' brand of hockey that would lead us back to a Stanley Cup.

 

[doulos]

No it's the opposite of someone who is a complimentary player. A player who can move around the line up and consistently bring results and make his teammates better. Pittsburgh won a Cup with three such guys. Hall was such a player and McDavid is certainly going to be one, but we don't have anyone else who has proven they can do that yet.

I think this is a fair assessment of what it means for sure. I also think it's become one of these trendy words that gets overused and is tied in with analytics as well. Terms like 'they push the river' and such get tied into it. Doesn't make it wrong or right, but I think it's a bit of a nebulous term that isn't defined very well statistically. I have no problem with that though as long as all sides are honest about its limitations.

 

[nabob]

How do you plan for losing both your generational top C and your #1D for more than half the year?

Depth at important positions. Center and defense. Not having excess depth on the wings, especially ones who ate injury prone or not effective when they play to not get hurt.

Build a "team" not a bunch of individuals. Which is what Chia is doing.

Imagine if we had dealt all of our depth for Subban and then still had injuries!!

 

[Panda Bear]

It's one of the latest buzz words that seems to be tied in with analytics and jazz. It's like compete-level!

!!

Competing is what you do to get the puck. Driving is what you do with the puck. Analytics looks at what you do with and without the puck. Jazzing is what you do with a puck bunny.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

How do you plan for losing both your generational top C and your #1D for more than half the year?

This is the Oilers, it's practically a given that any good rookie will miss a good chunk of time.

But more seriously... If your team is relying on rookies to provide the scoring you have a bigger problem. The team had plenty of more experienced players than McDavid to carry the team. Hall did that and then took a nap when he returned.

I personally think Klefbom is an overrated Band-Aid so I don't consider his injury anything less than normal.

The best teams in the league have the depth to overcome even the toughest injuries. The Lightning were beset by injuries to Stamkos and Bishop and still nearly won the Eastern Conference. The Oilers lose anyone and their house of cards comes crashing down.

You don't "plan" for your best players to be hurt but at the same time you have to have the depth to overcome any such injuries because there's always a chance they'll happen.

And at some point the players themselves have to push forward in spite of injuries. They happen, it's a fact of life.

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

Depth at important positions. Center and defense. Not having excess depth on the wings, especially ones who ate injury prone or not effective when they play to not get hurt.

Build a "team" not a bunch of individuals. Which is what Chia is doing.

Imagine if we had dealt all of our depth for Subban and then still had injuries!!

I bet people would've put money down on Subban being hurt before November.

 

[doulos]

!!

Competing is what you do to get the puck. Driving is what you do with the puck. Analytics looks at what you do with and without the puck. Jazzing is what you do with a puck bunny.

Haha, great post. I'm not actually knocking the terms. They have value, but are just a lot more "fuzzy" than something like 'goals scored' so they can be harder to use a way of assessing a player.

 

[Panda Bear]

Missing McDavid was significant. Its too early to tell if missing Klefbom is. One established himself very quickly as a dominating player. The other is still a question mark and especially after missing so much hockey.

It was obvious within the week that missing Klefbom hurt the team.

All you had to do was watch to be able to tell that Klefbom made our defensive corps better.

 

[McFlyingV]

Missing McDavid was significant. Its too early to tell if missing Klefbom is. One established himself very quickly as a dominating player. The other is still a question mark and especially after missing so much hockey.

Sure, and I'm not saying that Klefbom has established himself as a top pairing D or anything like that, but he was playing as our best D before he got injured, and coincidentally or not our season went into the tank after his injury.

 

[Young Lions*]

I think this is a fair assessment of what it means for sure. I also think it's become one of these trendy words that gets overused and is tied in with analytics as well. Terms like 'they push the river' and such get tied into it. Doesn't make it wrong or right, but I think it's a bit of a nebulous term that isn't defined very well statistically. I have no problem with that though as long as all sides are honest about its limitations.

I look at it pretty simply: how does the team do when Player X is on the ice versus when he is not? In Hall's case, it's clear the Oilers were a better team in terms of scoring goals and getting shots when he was playing than when he was on the bench, so it's pretty hard to conclude he was the problem.

 

[Replacement*]

It was obvious within the week that missing Klefbom hurt the team.

All you had to do was watch to be able to tell that Klefbom made our defensive corps better.

The amount of sample in which Klefbom "made our D corps better" is very limited.

Certainly I wouldn't be betting the farm on it.



Nor would I think that a viewed sample within one week tells much of anything.

The much clearer thing is that the team missed McDavids contribution. The difference with and without McDavid being striking.

 

[McFlyingV]

Depth at important positions. Center and defense. Not having excess depth on the wings, especially ones who ate injury prone or not effective when they play to not get hurt.

Build a "team" not a bunch of individuals. Which is what Chia is doing.

Imagine if we had dealt all of our depth for Subban and then still had injuries!!

If that trade happened and we got injuries it would be the Eakins days all over again. Relying on players of Marc Arcobello's ability to be your 2nd line centre.

 

[Replacement*]

Sure, and I'm not saying that Klefbom has established himself as a top pairing D or anything like that, but he was playing as our best D before he got injured, and coincidentally or not our season went into the tank after his injury.

Thank you for saying coincidentally and not consequentially.

I agree.



It doesn't tell us anything about the player though.

Also, saying Oilers best D is like saying best Meal Item at McDonalds.

 

[McFlyingV]

The amount of sample in which Klefbom "made our D corps better" is very limited.

Certainly I wouldn't be betting the farm on it.



Nor would I think that a viewed sample within one week tells much of anything.

The much clearer thing is that the team missed McDavids contribution. The difference with and without McDavid being striking.

Yes the difference offensively was very apparent, but the overall record was not better with McDavid in the lineup and that goes to show imo how much we missed the D that were out.

 

[Young Lions*]

This is the Oilers, it's practically a given that any good rookie will miss a good chunk of time.

But more seriously... If your team is relying on rookies to provide the scoring you have a bigger problem. The team had plenty of more experienced players than McDavid to carry the team. Hall did that and then took a nap when he returned.

Calling McDavid a mere rookie is pretty disingenuous.

I personally think Klefbom is an overrated Band-Aid so I don't consider his injury anything less than normal.

Well gee, given that he's half of the duo that is supposed to be our top pair for the next decade or whatever, I guess we're screwed.

The best teams in the league have the depth to overcome even the toughest injuries. The Lightning were beset by injuries to Stamkos and Bishop and still nearly won the Eastern Conference. The Oilers lose anyone and their house of cards comes crashing down.

You don't "plan" for your best players to be hurt but at the same time you have to have the depth to overcome any such injuries because there's always a chance they'll happen.

And at some point the players themselves have to push forward in spite of injuries. They happen, it's a fact of life.

I honestly don't understand the point of all these banalities.

That the Oilers are a bad team with insufficient depth is not news, but it's not the point of the discussion. Bad teams are the ones who are going to be disproportionately impacted by injuries so the idea that the Oilers would have been as bad as they were even if healthy is absurd on its face.

 

[Panda Bear]

Thank you for saying coincidentally and not consequentially.

I agree.



It doesn't tell us anything about the player though.

Also, saying Oilers best D is like saying best Meal Item at McDonalds.

Apparently they have real fresh vegetables now.

 

[McFlyingV]

Calling McDavid a mere rookie is pretty disingenuous.



Well gee, given that he's half of the duo that is supposed to be our top pair for the next decade or whatever, I guess we're screwed.



I honestly don't understand the point of all these banalities.

That the Oilers are a bad team with insufficient depth is not news, but it's not the point of the discussion. Bad teams are the ones who are going to be disproportionately impacted by injuries so the idea that the Oilers would have been as bad as they were even if healthy is absurd on its face.

I would have to agree, considering he'd be the best forward on more than 2/3 of the teams in the league.

 

[nabob]

Drai picked up the slack when McDavid got hurt. No one on the roster was able to carry Klefbom's jock strap.

He and Larsson have the potential be a great pairing for a decade. That's exciting ****.

 

[Young Lions*]

If that trade happened and we got injuries it would be the Eakins days all over again. Relying on players of Marc Arcobello's ability to be your 2nd line centre.

I guess I forgot the point was not to build a team that could challenge for the Cup, but to have a team that had the most replacement-level players across the board.

 

[McFlyingV]

Thank you for saying coincidentally and not consequentially.

I agree.



It doesn't tell us anything about the player though.

Also, saying Oilers best D is like saying best Meal Item at McDonalds.

Hey we take what we can get lol. Tambo and MacT have been feeding us the dollar menu for years now.

 

[Replacement*]

Yes the difference offensively was very apparent, but the overall record was not better with McDavid in the lineup and that goes to show imo how much we missed the D that were out.

This is not substantiating information. Variables like for instance even schedule impacts results as much as anything.

Some of the Klefbom attribution being voiced here (not saying you but you're verging on it) is unfounded.

In anycase somewhat odd to try to determine the contribution of a player through his absence.

Although I think we see that with Hall, who was an impact player his entire time here.