Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Tyler Seguin

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been giving this topic more thought (not that it really deserves it), and I'm starting to think that quote unquote inconsistency could actually be more desirable than consistency. It's just sort of taken as a given that consistency = good. Why? Let's say we have a hypothetical player who scores 1 point every game, no more, no less. At the end of the season he has 82 points making him a point per game player and an undisputed 1st line talent. Now, what if this player's team went 0-82, losing every game by the score of 2-1? Was that consistency desirable? Did it make a difference? Is the player who can't take over a game and bend it to their will more valuable than one who can? I would argue that the ability to have big, explosive games is a harbinger of a higher talent that will go on to do special things, especially when they're not freak isolated occurrences.
 
piqued said:
I've been giving this topic more thought (not that it really deserves it), and I'm starting to think that quote unquote inconsistency could actually be more desirable than consistency. It's just sort of taken as a given that consistency = good. Why? Let's say we have a hypothetical player who scores 1 point every game, no more, no less. At the end of the season he has 82 points making him a point per game player and an undisputed 1st line talent. Now, what if this player's team went 0-82, losing every game by the score of 2-1? Was that consistency desirable? Did it make a difference? Is the player who can't take over a game and bend it to their will more valuable than one who can? I would argue that the ability to have big, explosive games is a harbinger of a higher talent that will go on to do special things, especially when they're not freak isolated occurrences.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Having a consistent player who shows no ability to completely take over games and have that explosive offense is less valuable, IMO, than a player who is a little less consistent, but has shown that ability. Consistency is something that can come with time, the sort of offense where a player can get 3+ points in multiple games each season is rare and cannot be taught.
 
piqued said:
I've been giving this topic more thought (not that it really deserves it), and I'm starting to think that quote unquote inconsistency could actually be more desirable than consistency. It's just sort of taken as a given that consistency = good. Why? Let's say we have a hypothetical player who scores 1 point every game, no more, no less. At the end of the season he has 82 points making him a point per game player and an undisputed 1st line talent. Now, what if this player's team went 0-82, losing every game by the score of 2-1? Was that consistency desirable? Did it make a difference? Is the player who can't take over a game and bend it to their will more valuable than one who can? I would argue that the ability to have big, explosive games is a harbinger of a higher talent that will go on to do special things, especially when they're not freak isolated occurrences.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the opposite end of the spectrum.

If you have a player who produces 82 points over the course of a season but who only every has 5 or 4 point games he's only going to be in the box score once every 17 games or so. Even if all of those are wins the team is still terrible, they're just not winless. There has to be a more fruitful way of looking at the situation than complete binary opposing positions.

If we set the bar at PPG over a full season I think you would be better off if the player accounts for one point most nights, going scoreless for as few as possible, and having a fair number of 2-3 point nights. Modano was pretty much that player for the better part of his career. A blend is best. I know I would be a little worried if my 1st line center was held scoreless in half of his team's games. Even with the explosion games there are just too many games where he isn't a factor in, offensively.
 
I know we hate other fanbases criticizing our guys but I still think its somewhat fair. The same production with slightly better distribution would be ideal for Seguin and the team would probably have a slightly better record.
 
I think every team needs a lineup with a majority of players who are consistent in their production, but also needs to mix in a few guys who are streaky. If your top 6 has four or five guys who score on a fairly consistent basis, and one guy who scores in bunches, it's a nice mix when you have a few games and you need that extra push. Take Boston's cup run when Seguin had that monster game against Tampa, if they don't have a player capable of having a game on that occasion they don't win the cup.

I don't really even think Seguin is that streaky, it'll be something that likely improves with time as the team gets more depth and improves their PP. If you look at the game log, he has score in more games in the second half of this season than the first half. That can likely be attributed to gelling with his line mates, learning a new system, and adapting to playing center. Next year we might see a Seguin who scores in more games while still having some pretty explosive games every once in a while.
 
I'm ready to deem this trade top 3 in Franchise history. Anyone else? It's almost as if Boston didn't fully know what they had? Perfect storm and Nill pulled it off.
 
Stars99Lobo37 said:
9 game point streak. Points in 18 of 21.

Soooooo inconsistent.

:sarcasm:
Click to expand...

When we talked about this before, we concluded that a functional power play would add to Seguin's "consistency" and his pt streak has coincided with a more consistent power play. I would say we were right.

too bad power play points don't count.
 
t takes two, two sides to every story
Not just you
I can't keep ignoring
I admit half of it, I'm not that innocent, oh yeah
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom