Player Discussion What do we have in J.T. Miller?

[MS]

The point is that when it comes to RFAs mistakes can be made as well. It's not as easy as you're suggesting. Take a look at Arizona and Florida. They constantly sign their RFAs long term. Some have worked out. Some have not. I would argue that they should be more careful. Take Brock Boeser. Ya he's a star but is he a superstar? You yourself questioned his future and felt 6 years at $7M was already an overpayment. So the decision whether or not to "overpay" to get a long term deal done should be a harder decision than the equivalent of putting on your pants in the morning (assuming that putting on pants in the morning is easy for you).

The point is that whether we'd have done either thing at either, most fans would have thought it was terrific, and the overall difference between 'great deal!' and 'terrible move' is much smaller and these deals are much more fixed than what happens in the UFA or trade market.

Yes, I'm happy that the Boeser deal is shorter because I'm not as big a believer in him as others are. But the book on that $42 million deal from fans and media would still have been 'This is great!' and it wouldn't have been hard to justify it with comparables.

 

[F A N]

The point is that whether we'd have done either thing at either, most fans would have thought it was terrific, and the overall difference between 'great deal!' and 'terrible move' is much smaller and these deals are much more fixed than what happens in the UFA or trade market.

Yes, I'm happy that the Boeser deal is shorter because I'm not as big a believer in him as others are. But the book on that $42 million deal from fans and media would still have been 'This is great!' and it wouldn't have been hard to justify it with comparables.

Did you miss all those posts by Benning haters arguing that Brock should have been signed long term and it wasn't done because the Canucks don't have cap room? Granted you are probably right in that those fans would be unhappy with any deal.

 

[Lindgren]

The risk in the trade doesn't really have anything to do with Miller's production levels.

The risk in the trade is that the team is mired as middle tier throughout the 4 years left on the deal, the team has little to no success and when JT Miller is UFA in 4 years at age 30, that 1st rounder is 21 years old on an ELC, on a team that will likely be paying monster salaries to Boeser,Pettersson, Horvat, Hughes and hopefully some others at that stage.

But, I've beaten that to death, if people can't understand that, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone.

I really like the player though and how he looks out there. He's a good add to the group, and definitely looks good with both the top 2 C's on this team.

Well said.

I wonder sometimes whether it's a failure to understand, or a refusal to understand. Most defenders of the trade won't even address your argument. It'd be refreshing if someone who likes the trade would acknowledge the point and simply say that they think the timing is right and Miller will help the Canucks compete for a Stanley Cup. Instead, most just repeat something to the effect that he's a good player who's worth a first round pick.

I fear that Miller is going to help the Canucks become the next Minnesota Wild.

 

[bandwagonesque]

The risk in the trade is that the team is mired as middle tier throughout the 4 years left on the deal, the team has little to no success and when JT Miller is UFA in 4 years at age 30, that 1st rounder is 21 years old on an ELC, on a team that will likely be paying monster salaries to Boeser,Pettersson, Horvat, Hughes and hopefully some others at that stage.

But, I've beaten that to death, if people can't understand that, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone.

People do understand this, no one has said anything that indicates otherwise, and I think you're well aware of it. People are saying that it's a calculated risk and may have been a reasonable one to take.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Well said.

I wonder sometimes whether it's a failure to understand, or a refusal to understand. Most defenders of the trade won't even address your argument.

His argument is countering another presumed argument -- that the risk of the trade turning out badly is insignificant -- that no one I've seen is actually making.

 

[Lindgren]

His argument is countering another presumed argument -- that the risk of the trade turning out badly is insignificant -- that no one I've seen is actually making.

It's an argument that the trade isn't good, and it's an argument that doesn't get addressed by those who think it's bad, which is exactly why it's one that no one you've seen is actually making.

 

[bandwagonesque]

It's an argument that the trade isn't good, and it's an argument that doesn't get addressed by those who think it's bad, which is exactly why it's one that no one you've seen is actually making.

They don't agree with it, or consider that the possible outcomes are too uncertain at this point to judge which is most likely, which is essentially what 420Canuck said. Many people who don't dislike the trade have said one or the other of these things. The people he's complaining about not reaching, who it is implied don't understand that there is a risk at all, do not exist. It's a strawman standing in for the numerous posters who don't think the risk is necessarily ruinous, who are more difficult to actually contradict because 1) their argument has some merit and 2) they exist and are liable to respond if questioned or criticized.

 

[4Twenty]

People do understand this, no one has said anything that indicates otherwise, and I think you're well aware of it. People are saying that it's a calculated risk and may have been a reasonable one to take.

I don't think you're capturing the viewpoint of the general consensus among Canucks fans. I think you're aware of that as well.

 

[4Twenty]

They don't agree with it, or consider that the possible outcomes are too uncertain at this point to judge which is most likely, which is essentially what 420Canuck said. Many people who don't dislike the trade have said one or the other of these things. The people he's complaining about not reaching, who it is implied don't understand that there is a risk at all, do not exist. It's a strawman standing in for the numerous posters who don't think the risk is necessarily ruinous, who are more difficult to actually contradict because 1) their argument has some merit and 2) they exist and are liable to respond if questioned or criticized.

Do you have twitter? I suggest you search JT Miller/Canucks if you don't think that this exists.

It's not a strawman. Please dude, lets discuss something, not your cooked up semantic arguements where you rarely if ever discuss topics beyond the minutia of the posts you're quoting.

 

[Lindgren]

They don't agree with it, or consider that the possible outcomes are too uncertain at this point to judge which is most likely, which is essentially what 420Canuck said. Many people who don't dislike the trade have said one or the other of these things. The people he's complaining about not reaching, who it is implied don't understand that there is a risk at all, do not exist. It's a strawman standing in for the numerous posters who don't think the risk is necessarily ruinous, who are more difficult to actually contradict because 1) their argument has some merit and 2) they exist and are liable to respond if questioned or criticized.

I haven't seen these "many people." Can you find three different posters who have directly addressed the argument that the trade is bad because of its timing (it won't help the Canucks compete for a cup)?

Earlier you say that no one has made this argument, and here you say that many people have made it. It's a bit ... odd.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I've done the same thing but in his case, I'm not sure that holds unless one also accounts for his season to season ice-time and usage. For most players, that's fairly static but for Miller, not so much.

Do the same calculation but factor in P/60 and his ice time with the Canucks so far and you'll get a better read.

Dont forget, his exposure to Stamkos and Kutcherov vs Pettersson and Boeser.

 

[Canucko]

Did you miss all those posts by Benning haters arguing that Brock should have been signed long term and it wasn't done because the Canucks don't have cap room? Granted you are probably right in that those fans would be unhappy with any deal.

Doubtful unless they suffer from amnesia.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Dont forget, his exposure to Stamkos and Kutcherov vs Pettersson and Boeser.

Show me how often he was playing with Stamkos and Kutcherov last season then. Also, show that he was getting 1st unit PP time.

He was underutilized last season and that will hurt him in any analysis that doesn't factor in P/60, PP usage, and linemates.

 

[TropicalFruitGirl2]

Way late to this JT Miller discussion, but a viewpoint from outside the Vancouver fanbase, and one from a fan of the team he formerly played for:

You are getting a good all around, do everything kind of player in JT.
Can play center, wing, top six, bottom six, play a finesse game, or play it physical.

Personally, I think the Canucks gave up quite a bit overall to acquire him, but at the end of the day, he is exactly the type of player a young up n coming Vancouver team needs.
As some have said, his utilization in TB wasn't ideal.
Even though he is versatile, like most players, he'd like a defined role and "spot" in the lineup (he really didn't with the Lightning), and he certainly has found that with Vancouver.

Furthermore, I think he really is playing with a chip on his shoulder and out to prove the Bolts messed up with regards to his services....and he is channeling that in a very positive way for his new team.

Overpayment to acquire? I think, just a bit.
Worth having on the team? Absolutely. I hated seeing him go, but also realized due to the players already on the Bolts and those knocking at the door in the AHL, AND his salary because the Bolts are constantly facing a cap crunch, he simply wasn't going to get the playing time he deserved with the Lightning.

I do wish him well with the Canucks (except when he plays my teams of course ), glad he found a 'home', and yea, 50-60 points out of him this season isn't out of reach.

 

[4Twenty]

Did you miss all those posts by Benning haters arguing that Brock should have been signed long term and it wasn't done because the Canucks don't have cap room? Granted you are probably right in that those fans would be unhappy with any deal.

The point is fans like yourself would be praising it no matter what.

 

[4Twenty]

Show me how often he was playing with Stamkos and Kutcherov last season then. Also, show that he was getting 1st unit PP time.

He was underutilized last season and that will hurt him in any analysis that doesn't factor in P/60, PP usage, and linemates.

How bout you show it.


I know you won’t so here it is on the pp.

J.T. Miller - Teammates - On Ice - Natural Stat Trick


Nearly 90% of his pp minutes was with Kucherov and Stamkos. That’s the 1st unit.

At even strength Stamkos was his most common forward line mate. Kucherov was 3rd.

You got any other concerns follow the link and check for yourself.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Show me how often he was playing with Stamkos and Kutcherov last season then. Also, show that he was getting 1st unit PP time.

He was underutilized last season and that will hurt him in any analysis that doesn't factor in P/60, PP usage, and linemates.

Ok I'll show you:

Did you miss all those posts by Benning haters arguing that Brock should have been signed long term and it wasn't done because the Canucks don't have cap room? Granted you are probably right in that those fans would be unhappy with any deal.

I dont remember reading any Benningsters claiming the bridge deal as more favorable to the team..?

Surely that is not something people think?

 

[Tables of Stats]

How bout you show it.


I know you won’t so here it is on the pp.

J.T. Miller - Teammates - On Ice - Natural Stat Trick


Nearly 90% of his pp minutes was with Kucherov and Stamkos. That’s the 1st unit.

At even strength Stamkos was his most common forward line mate. Kucherov was 3rd.

You got any other concerns follow the link and check for yourself.

One, why should I have to back up a claim I didn't make?

Two, just because his most common linemates on the PP were Kucherov and Stamkos doesn't mean he was a staple on the 1st unit PP. This is born out by the fact that he saw 44 seconds less PP/TOI per game than the top four players. So he did mostly play first unit PP minutes with Tampa but he wasn't a staple the way Kucherov, Stamkos, Point, and Hedman were.

Three, the same TOI figures bear out that he was not given the minutes of a 1st line forward. He was 9th for TOI with Tampa below Cirelli, Killorn, Palat, Gourde, and Johnson. Gourde was the only player on that list to outproduce him (by a single point) while Johnson was tied. Miller was also above all mentioned players in P/60. This shows a fairly uneven usage for a rather productive player.

Four, Tampa fans observed that he also had a fair amount of 3rd line usage so he clearly wasn't a top-line fixture which the other TOI stats bear out.

So yes, you're technically correct in who he had a lot of ice-time with but that clearly isn't the only thing worth looking at.

It also shows that he should do better here just due to getting the ice-time he deserves and won't end up playing fewer minutes than players he's out producing.

 

[4Twenty]

One, why should I have to back up a claim I didn't make?

Two, just because his most common linemates on the PP were Kucherov and Stamkos doesn't mean he was a staple on the 1st unit PP. This is born out by the fact that he saw 44 seconds less PP/TOI per game than the top four players. So he did mostly play first unit PP minutes with Tampa but he wasn't a staple the way Kucherov, Stamkos, Point, and Hedman were.

Three, the same TOI figures bear out that he was not given the minutes of a 1st line forward. He was 9th for TOI with Tampa below Cirelli, Killorn, Palat, Gourde, and Johnson. Gourde was the only player on that list to outproduce him (by a single point) while Johnson was tied. Miller was also above all mentioned players in P/60. This shows a fairly uneven usage for a rather productive player.

Four, Tampa fans observed that he also had a fair amount of 3rd line usage so he clearly wasn't a top-line fixture which the other TOI stats bear out.

So yes, you're technically correct in who he had a lot of ice-time with but that clearly isn't the only thing worth looking at.

It also shows that he should do better here just due to getting the ice-time he deserves and won't end up playing fewer minutes than players he's out producing.

Yeah he’s a good player who can play all over the lineup in multiple roles but he got lots of opportunities in offensive roles with the best players. That’s the point with two of his top 3 forward line mates being 130 and 98 point players. I recognize he wasn’t their line mate all season but he played with them a lot.

I’d say those minutes with those players had a major factor on his p/60, and I don’t really like per 60 rates anyways. I don’t think it means all that much, but in this instance i think it has the opposite effect to what you’re saying.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

One, why should I have to back up a claim I didn't make?

Two, just because his most common linemates on the PP were Kucherov and Stamkos doesn't mean he was a staple on the 1st unit PP. This is born out by the fact that he saw 44 seconds less PP/TOI per game than the top four players. So he did mostly play first unit PP minutes with Tampa but he wasn't a staple the way Kucherov, Stamkos, Point, and Hedman were.

Three, the same TOI figures bear out that he was not given the minutes of a 1st line forward. He was 9th for TOI with Tampa below Cirelli, Killorn, Palat, Gourde, and Johnson. Gourde was the only player on that list to outproduce him (by a single point) while Johnson was tied. Miller was also above all mentioned players in P/60. This shows a fairly uneven usage for a rather productive player.

Four, Tampa fans observed that he also had a fair amount of 3rd line usage so he clearly wasn't a top-line fixture which the other TOI stats bear out.

So yes, you're technically correct in who he had a lot of ice-time with but that clearly isn't the only thing worth looking at.

It also shows that he should do better here just due to getting the ice-time he deserves and won't end up playing fewer minutes than players he's out producing.

He spent a quarter of the season on the 3rd line.

He had more PP time than ever before in his career.
He spent almost all of that PP time with Stamkos and Kutcherov.

His most common 5on5 linemate was Stamkos.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Yeah he’s a good player who can play all over the lineup in multiple roles but he got lots of opportunities in offensive roles with the best players. That’s the point with two of his top 3 forward line mates being 130 and 98 point players. I recognize he wasn’t their line mate all season but he played with them a lot.

I’d say those minutes with those players had a major factor on his p/60, and I don’t really like per 60 rates anyways. I don’t think it means all that much, but in this instance i think it has the opposite effect to what you’re saying.

You do realize that his P/60 has been very similar across his career, right? It was 2.50 ins 16-17 (his 22-year-old season with NYR), 2.49 in 17-18 (the year he was traded to TBL at the deadline), and 2.56 in 18-19 (this last season with Tampa). That seems to suggest that his reduced ice time, rather than any major fault with his play, was the primary reason for his decline in production.

Unless you have some reason to think that his very consistent per 60 rates are a fluke yu must surely agree that Miller is a very consistent player. The fact that these rates hold across two teams, dozens of linemates, and TOI/G ranges between 17:01 per game and 14:40 per game doesn't suggest that will change with the Canucks. The only issue I can see is that his current TOI/G in Vancouver is 18:54 which is a career-high by nearly 2-minutes and might lead to a P/60 decrease if his conditioning isn't up to seeing that much ice.

As for your dislike of P/60 metrics, I'd like to see your logic there. It seems to be consistent for a player as a year to year stat example Horvat from 16-17 to 18-19 with P/60 rates of 2.14, 2.13, and 2.14 respectively. You can also look at the steady decline of a player like Henrik from the 09-10 season where he was the best player in the league to when he retired. If you do so you'll see two blips that don't fit the trend, one was the Torts nightmare season and the other was 17-18 when it was becoming clear that the Sedins needed to play second-line minutes as they simply didn't have the legs for 18+ minutes per game anymore.

These examples seem to show that P/60 can be a useful indicator of what a player should produce year to year barring some drastic change.

He spent a quarter of the season on the 3rd line.

He had more PP time than ever before in his career.
He spent almost all of that PP time with Stamkos and Kutcherov.

His most common 5on5 linemate was Stamkos.

Miller is a player who tends to produce at a steady rate. In his case, I'd suggest that ice-time plays a larger role in his production than linemates do (assuming that you're not sending him out with 4th line plugs). As shown above, this is born out in steady P/60 numbers across three seasons, two teams, and dozens of linemates.

 

[4Twenty]

You do realize that his P/60 has been very similar across his career, right? It was 2.50 ins 16-17 (his 22-year-old season with NYR), 2.49 in 17-18 (the year he was traded to TBL at the deadline), and 2.56 in 18-19 (this last season with Tampa). That seems to suggest that his reduced ice time, rather than any major fault with his play, was the primary reason for his decline in production.

Unless you have some reason to think that his very consistent per 60 rates are a fluke please tell me that this isn't a player who's game produces predictable results with TOI/G ranges between 17:01 per game and 14:40 per game. His current TOI/G in Vancouver is 18:54 which is a career-high and might lead to a P/60 decrease if his conditioning isn't up to seeing that much ice. Assuming that he does maintain a steady ~2.50 P/60 we would see a 65 point season from Miller which would also be a career-high.



Miller is a player who tends to produce at a steady rate. In his case, I'd suggest that ice-time plays a larger role in his production than linemates do (assuming that you're not sending him out with 4th line plugs). As shown above, this is born out in steady P/60 numbers across three seasons, two teams, and dozens of linemates.

I'm just not a big proponent of using p/60.

But at all strengths:

2015-16 - 2.09
2016-17 - 2.5
2017-18 (NYR) - 2.29

Then a really nice 20 game sample gave him 3.13 (playing on the 1st line with Stamkos and Kucherov for context)

2018-19 - 2.56

I think if he's not getting assignments with elite players, he's not likely to carry that forward in more minutes. I'm not saying it's a fault in his play, he's just not an elite offensive player, he's a really good all around player who his coach can put on any line and he'll help it float. I don't think Pettersson and Boeser are as good as the talent he's played with in Tampa either.

I just don't really care much about P/60 rates. It's a little piece of the story, but I doesn't capture much else and playing on a team like Tampa who scored ~40 more goals than any other team and 100 more goals than the Canucks is a bigger driving force of his scoring rate.

 

[Tables of Stats]

I'm just not a big proponent of using p/60.

But at all strengths:

2015-16 - 2.09
2016-17 - 2.5
2017-18 (NYR) - 2.29

Then a really nice 20 game sample gave him 3.13 (playing on the 1st line with Stamkos and Kucherov for context)

2018-19 - 2.56

I think if he's not getting assignments with elite players, he's not likely to carry that forward in more minutes. I'm not saying it's a fault in his play, he's just not an elite offensive player, he's a really good all around player who his coach can put on any line and he'll help it float. I don't think Pettersson and Boeser are as good as the talent he's played with in Tampa either.

I just don't really care much about P/60 rates. It's a little piece of the story, but I doesn't capture much else and playing on a team like Tampa who scored ~40 more goals than any other team and 100 more goals than the Canucks is a bigger driving force of his scoring rate.

Note, that I edited my post for clarity and to provide a reason why I feel P/60 is a worthwhile stat. You might want to go back and give it a second read to make sure nothing in the edit changes anything.

----

1. I don't care if you find P/60 stats useful or not if you can't give a logical reason for it backed up with examples I'm not going to take your objection to them seriously. So with that said, do you have evidence to suggest that P/60 isn't a useful stat?

2. Why include his 21-year-old season, his first full season in the NHL, in your sample size?

3. What makes the 20 game TBL sample size in 17-18 any different than a similarly hot streak of 20 games with the same team in 18-19?

4. The linemate argument ignores that he had a 2.50 P/60 rate with Kevin Hayes and Michael Grabner as his linemates in 16-17 with New York. Are you trying to say that those two are better players than Pettersson and Boeser or even Horvat and Pearson?

5. If you feel his scoring rate is so heavily propped up by his time in Tampa explain his 2.50 P/60 rate in New York on a team that only scored 253 goals. For reference, Tampa scored 290 and then 319 in the two years he was there

 

[4Twenty]

Note, that I edited my post for clarity and to provide a reason why I feel P/60 is a worthwhile stat. You might want to go back and give it a second read to make sure nothing in the edit changes anything.

----

1. I don't care if you find P/60 stats useful or not if you can't give a logical reason for it backed up with examples I'm not going to take your objection to them seriously. So with that said, do you have evidence to suggest that P/60 isn't a useful stat?

2. Why include his 21-year-old season, his first full season in the NHL, in your sample size?

3. What makes the 20 game TBL sample size in 17-18 any different than a similarly hot streak of 20 games with the same team in 18-19?

4. The linemate argument ignores that he had a 2.50 P/60 rate with Kevin Hayes and Michael Grabner as his linemates in 16-17 with New York. Are you trying to say that those two are better players than Pettersson and Boeser or even Horvat and Pearson?

5. If you feel his scoring rate is so heavily propped up by his time in Tampa explain his 2.50 P/60 rate in New York on a team that only scored 253 goals. For reference, Tampa scored 290 and then 319 in the two years he was there

I don't really care to argue about p/60. I don't think it's linear. Especially in all situations.

You're projecting 65 points based on it, I think that's high. Content to leave it at that.

 

[Bankerguy]

Who cares what he did in Tampa, He's playing like a legit first line star winger here.

Maybe he's not be the same player that he was in Tampa. Maybe he improved or changed his off-season training regime. Maybe their system didn't vibe with this style of play. I don't care really. As long as he keeps grinding in the corners, scoring goals and setting up plays for Petey and Boeser.