What is Rick Nash's legacy as a Blueshirt?

[Siamese Dream]

I had a very love/hate relationship with Nash. There were games when he was by far the standout player, when he carried the puck and got it deep and drove to the net, making goalies poop themselves, creating chances even when he wasn't getting the numbers on the board. Then there'd be games when he would be invisible and just didn't have the confidence to do that. He was quite a well-rounded player who you could trust in his own end though.

In the end my biggest disappointment for Nash was how poor his finishing was in front of the net when he got a pass, he was always most dangerous with the puck on his stick, and didn't really fit in on a team filled with mostly pass-first playmakers. He either rendered everybody else useless by carrying the puck himself, or was useless himself when others had the puck.

 

[mike14]

Rightly or wrongly, his 'legacy' will be 3 goals and 10 points in a run to the cup that fell just short mainly due to a lack of offense when it counted.
Take away the concussions and we got the player I thought we were getting; a slightly overpaid complementary scorer who could dominate shifts (and games) but wouldn't make those around him better.
For a myriad of reasons, instead of using him in that role the Rangers decided that they'd use him as the focal point of their offensive strategy, and while he produced at a rate about what was expected.

I'm happy enough with Nash's Ranger career, and will always have the 'what if he didn't get concussed' question to ponder, but I still would have rather traded for James Neal 2 seasons prior and run a top 6 that included him, Gaborik and Richards

 

[cheech70]

open net finals overtime hits defensmens stick

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

If you don't really care then don't take it way too seriously in a multi paragraph rant...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Then he hibernates in the advanced stats thread posting about everyone hurting his passive aggressive feelers.

Who is "he"? Bc this doesn't even remotely apply to me but I'm the one he was responding to

 

[silverfish]

If you don't really care then don't take it way too seriously in a multi paragraph rant...

The reason I "blew past" his playoff performance is because I have a hard time judging anyone on their playoff performance. The sample size is too small. Adding up a bunch of small sample sizes across a multi-year period doesn't really tell me anything, either. I think it's fine if people choose to evaluate players that way, but I do not.

You'll notice if you read the thread though that most people are saying that Nash under performed offensively, playoffs or regular season, during his time as a Ranger. It is the regular season I chose to focus on because of the above.

Recall that I'm one of JT Miller's biggest skeptics. You'll never see me seriously hold it against Miller that he can't seem to score in the playoffs. I joke about it a lot, because it is hilarious and baffling and interesting, but it's not something I seriously hold against him. For the same reasons I don't hold Nash's playoff performances against him to the point where they completely cloud anything that he's done for this team in the regular season, which of course, was a lot.

I chose to troll you with a gif rather than actually respond because I have this thread on ignore now because it's filled with some truly terrible takes. However, seeing @ReggieDunlop68 's usual bullshit, I felt the need to elaborate. I hope this helps shine some light on why I posted what I posted the way that I did.

 

[Irishguy42]

He was a very different player than anyone expected so it's not fair to compare him to the expectations. I don't mean that in a bad way.

Right. He was expected to be great at one thing, but then he ended up being good at doing a bunch of other things.

Sooooooooo...it's like...

It doesn't change the expectations, but simultaneously I don't think you can be mad about it because he did well in a lot of other things with the team.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Who is "he"? Bc this doesn't even remotely apply to me but I'm the one he was responding to

No you

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Right. He was expected to be great at one thing, but then he ended up being good at doing a bunch of other things.

Sooooooooo...it's like...

It doesn't change the expectations, but simultaneously I don't think you can be mad about it because he did well in a lot of other things with the team.

Things and stuff

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

The reason I "blew past" his playoff performance is because I have a hard time judging anyone on their playoff performance. The sample size is too small. Adding up a bunch of small sample sizes across a multi-year period doesn't really tell me anything, either. I think it's fine if people choose to evaluate players that way, but I do not.

You'll notice if you read the thread though that most people are saying that Nash under performed offensively, playoffs or regular season, during his time as a Ranger. It is the regular season I chose to focus on because of the above.

Recall that I'm one of JT Miller's biggest skeptics. You'll never see me seriously hold it against Miller that he can't seem to score in the playoffs. I joke about it a lot, because it is hilarious and baffling and interesting, but it's not something I seriously hold against him. For the same reasons I don't hold Nash's playoff performances against him to the point where they completely cloud anything that he's done for this team in the regular season, which of course, was a lot.

I chose to troll you with a gif rather than actually respond because I have this thread on ignore now because it's filled with some truly terrible takes. However, seeing @ReggieDunlop68 's usual bull****, I felt the need to elaborate. I hope this helps shine some light on why I posted what I posted the way that I did.

Since he’s probably retiring, and you @silverfish don’t really care , here’s “muh...bullshit” for 2014 one last time.

 

[silverfish]

Since he’s probably retiring, and you @silverfish don’t really care , here’s “muh...bull****” for 2014 one last time.

It's a total mystery why we're bleeding a ton of good posters on here.

 

[eco's bones]

Nash vs. Recent HOF Inductees

Nash – 437 – 358 – 805
Kariya – 402 – 587 – 989
Lindros -- 372 -- 493 – 865
St. louis – 381 – 642 -- 1033
Pronger – 157 -- 541 -- 698

The overall disadvantage is that Nash has not won a cup.

The fact that Lindros is there without a Cup gives Nash a chance (IMO, of course).

Lindros was very arguably the best forward in the league for 3-4 years in a row before injuries derailed his career. Kariya was derailed by injuries too but there was never any real fade out with him like the last 3 years of Nash. St. Louis is the saint of smaller forwards and a league MVP with a Stanley Cup. Pronger was a d-man.

 

[Elliman]

What I thought we were getting in my mind and what we got were 2 different players. I was disappointed but he grew on me and I came to like the man. I can’t quite put my finger on what held him back. So skillful. At times it felt like a young Kovalev who had it all but couldn’t put it together in NY. Maybe Nash needed a world class center for us to fully see his best.

 

[JT Kreider]

It's a total mystery why we're bleeding a ton of good posters on here.

Buncha bandwagoners jumping ship now that we are rebuilding.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

During his Ranger tenure Nash was..

26th in the league in goals
93rd in the league in points
led the Rangers in total scoring once (finished close runner up to Step in 2013)
produced like garbage in the playoffs

The rate at which he scored 5on5 goals argument is pretty pathetic. They don't ask at which strength goals come or how efficient you were in scoring them. He simply didn't get anywhere close to enough of them and espeically so in the playoffs.

Advanced stats folks are all about value, the guy was making 8 million dollars when 8 was closer to 10 million all for what, scoring 5v5 goals effecieintly...? Not carrying a team offensively in all situations? That's definitely the guy they thought they were getting in Nash. He wasn't that piece.

 

[Section311]

I doubt he retires yet. Once his head feels fine he will sign with Columbus.

I could see him signing a one year deal late in the year with a team he feels has a good shot at the cup

 

[Rempe73]

On one hand, he generated scoring chances like a man possessed. It was awesome to see. On the other hand, it was laughable how he couldn't finish on so many of them (towards the end of his Rangers career).

 

[SA16]

Rick Nash had a 10.06 5v5 sh% his last 5 years with CBJ. He took 11.13 shots/60.

Rick Nash had a 10.32 5v5 sh% as a Ranger. He took 11.98 shots/60.

On the PP in CBJ he got 2.97 mins/game and scored 1.47 Goals/60

As a Ranger he got 2.31 mins/game and scored 1.68 goals/60.

So actually he scored at a better rate on the PP here just lol @ AV's ice time.

He also had the best 5v5 goal/goal in the entire NHL over that timeframe (or well, he did until Matthews/Laine passed him).

He's simply a case of people having faulty expectations and hating him because of a bad playoff run.

So to recap as a Ranger: He shot and scored at a higher 5v5 rate than he did his last five years in Columbus. He scored at a higher 5v4 rate than he did his last five years in CBJ. But somehow he should have scored more? Were you expecting him to be Jaromir Jagr?

I wonder why the year he had his best pts/game was in 2012-2013...maybe it's because Torts was the coach and he played 19:58/game? Then AV came in and he never surpassed 17:27 again (and that included 1:21 SH TOI/Game which is a waste)

Oh and for reference over the last five years do you know how many players played under 17 mins/game and scored 70 points? The answer is ONE. Laine last year. And Laines ice time is all 5v5+PP with no PK.

If you don't like him because of playoff failures that's fine but if you don't like his regular season results you're objectively wrong.

 

[eco's bones]

As mentioned before Nash is 160 all time NHL points as of right now today. If he never plays again he will drop even further--other players will catch him. There are 29 players over 1000 points who are not in the HOF--some are still playing--Joe Thornton, Marleau, Ovechkin, Crosby. Jagr and both Sedin's just ended their careers. All those guys with maybe the exception of Marleau will make the HOF. Other guys who will get there before Nash is even considered--Iginla 1300, Brind'amour 1184, Alfredsson 1157, Mogilny 1032, LeCavalier 949, Malkin currently at 930, Datsyuk 918, Getzlaf currently at 875, Kopitar and Kane both currently at 828, Kovalchuk currently at 816----Backstrom, Kessel, Bergeron and Giroux will all catch and pass him by--there are 3 defensemen with more career points not in the HOF--Gary Suter 844, Doug Wilson827, Sergei Gonchar 811. That's not counting other d-men like Chris Pronger. Pretty much all the above are way over Nash--the rest of the 1000 point field not in the HOF--Pierre Turgeon 1327, Jeremy Roenick 1216, Bernie Nicholls 1209, Vincent Damphousse 1205, Marian Hossa 1134, Theo Fleury 1088, Dave Taylor 1069, Keith Tkaczuk 1065, Ray Whitney 1064, Pat Verbeek 1062, Bobby Smith 1036, Doug Weight 1033, Alexei Kovalev 1029, Patrik Elias 1025, Brian Bellows 1022, Dale Hunter 1020, Steve Larmer 1012, Brian Propp 1004. I should mention Dean Prentice 860 point in the 1950's and 60's when numbers were a lot harder to put up. He's above Nash too.

I don't know about other people but most all the above players IMO belong in the HOF before Rick Nash does and there's very few defenseman and no goaltenders on the above list and there's still a bunch of other forwards ahead of him on the all time point scoreboard. 83 players right not above him not in the Hall of Fame--others that are going to catch and pass him by. No Stanley Cups--a playoff underachiever only one major award--a Maurice Richard trophy. IMO it's not nearly enough--he's not going to make it.

 

[SA16]

I would like to ask how many points in the regular season people were expecting from Nash if he played all 82 games?

Because over the last 10 years there have been a grand total of two players to score 70 points that played under 17 minutes a game. Nash played under 17 in 2 of his 6 seasons and then had a 17:06, 17:27, and 17:01. His ones over 17 are a bit of a farce because there was a good amount of SH ice time involved so his "scoreable ice time" was a minute or so less than that.

The two players are Laine last year (who played 6 seconds shorthanded the entire year) and Krejci 9 years ago (who got a lot of SH time and just had an unbelievable season where he was 2nd in the league in pts/60 above Malkin/Crosby etc.)

So if you were expecting him to be putting up 70 point seasons you were then expecting him to do something that has happened twice in ten years.

The problem was never Nash's play. It was a combination of injuries and an embarrassment of a head coach behind the bench.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

It's a total mystery why we're bleeding a ton of good posters on here.

Yeah...it wasn’t from me.

It was from the people in your thread, and now you have your own rubber room away from the “mouth breathers”, eye testers, and other people who just try to have a good time watching a game.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I would like to ask how many points in the regular season people were expecting from Nash if he played all 82 games?

Because over the last 10 years there have been a grand total of two players to score 70 points that played under 17 minutes a game. Nash played under 17 in 2 of his 6 seasons and then had a 17:06, 17:27, and 17:01. His ones over 17 are a bit of a farce because there was a good amount of SH ice time involved so his "scoreable ice time" was a minute or so less than that.

The two players are Laine last year (who played 6 seconds shorthanded the entire year) and Krejci 9 years ago (who got a lot of SH time and just had an unbelievable season where he was 2nd in the league in pts/60 above Malkin/Crosby etc.)

So if you were expecting him to be putting up 70 point seasons you were then expecting him to do something that has happened twice in ten years.

The problem was never Nash's play. It was a combination of injuries and an embarrassment of a head coach behind the bench.

Holy shit balls! Why do you keep talking about the regular season?

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Good guy. Good teammate. Just didn't have it in him to get to the next level. 40 goals only once, I'd honestly place Gaborik above him if we are talking all-time Rangers.

I was so pumped when we got him. I remember being so enamored by that trade that I misplaced where I parked my car that day and thought it had been stolen and didn't even care about the car. I was like "At least we got Rick Nash."

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It's a total mystery why we're bleeding a ton of good posters on here.

Everyone here is wonderful and rick Nash was a god on skates. A god I say.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I would like to ask how many points in the regular season people were expecting from Nash if he played all 82 games?

Because over the last 10 years there have been a grand total of two players to score 70 points that played under 17 minutes a game. Nash played under 17 in 2 of his 6 seasons and then had a 17:06, 17:27, and 17:01. His ones over 17 are a bit of a farce because there was a good amount of SH ice time involved so his "scoreable ice time" was a minute or so less than that.

The two players are Laine last year (who played 6 seconds shorthanded the entire year) and Krejci 9 years ago (who got a lot of SH time and just had an unbelievable season where he was 2nd in the league in pts/60 above Malkin/Crosby etc.)

So if you were expecting him to be putting up 70 point seasons you were then expecting him to do something that has happened twice in ten years.

The problem was never Nash's play. It was a combination of injuries and an embarrassment of a head coach behind the bench.

100s of pts per season or bust. If he cant beat my records in nhl13 what good is he? Average an ovechtrick