norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,158
- 16,471
If Larkin ever gets a winger as good as Ov he might have a shot at it.
YZERMAN: "We’re building a nucleus of young prospects that are going to be part of this team."
- Thread starter Henkka
- Start date
Euro Twins
Healthy Scratch
- Mar 19, 2016
- 898
- 783
jkutswings
hot piss hockey
- Jul 10, 2014
- 11,551
- 9,579
NHL Statistics - Stats of the National Hockey League
Get the latest statistics for every Natinal Hockey League (NHL) player. Filter by Forwards, Defencemen, Goalies as well as aggregated Team Stats. See where your favourite team ranks.
www.tsn.ca
I'm not counting wingers because they specifically asked for a 1C. Turns out my guess was bang on, since exactly 20 centers scored more points than Larkin this year.
And as for Nate, every projection I've seen is something along the lines of, "great two-way play, floor of a 3C, chance at a 2C". If Detroit ends up getting a center with great two-way play who can score at a 1C pace at #9 overall...maybe that's not historic, but it's absolutely a huge steal. We're talking about a guy ranked somewhere between an Anthony Cirelli and a Yanni Gourde but becoming the next Bergeron.
AlwaysSunnyInDetroit
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2021
- 806
- 1,273
our own current 1c was picked at 15, and i don't think i've ever heard someone call larkin a historic draft stealNHL Statistics - Stats of the National Hockey League
Get the latest statistics for every Natinal Hockey League (NHL) player. Filter by Forwards, Defencemen, Goalies as well as aggregated Team Stats. See where your favourite team ranks.
I'm not counting wingers because they specifically asked for a 1C. Turns out my guess was bang on, since exactly 20 centers scored more points than Larkin this year.
And as for Nate, every projection I've seen is something along the lines of, "great two-way play, floor of a 3C, chance at a 2C". If Detroit ends up getting a center with great two-way play who can score at a 1C pace at #9 overall...maybe that's not historic, but it's absolutely a huge steal. We're talking about a guy ranked somewhere between an Anthony Cirelli and a Yanni Gourde but becoming the next Bergeron.
and i'm sorry, but who exactly is projecting nate's career high to be somewhere between 45 and 64 points? that's news to me
Last edited:
Gniwder
Registered User
Doesn't have to be historic, just as good as Larkin is currently. Bo Horvat was picked #9, Barzal 16, ROR 33, Kuz 26, JT Miller 15, Trochek 64, Hertl 17, Guentzel 77, Point 79 (historic draft steal), Aho 35, and Robert Thomas at #20. From a draft perspective, no reason why Nate can't become a 1C.
He's got size and skating, his defensive game is there, it's really a matter of how much his offense translates to the NHL level. Admittedly, I have him penciled in as 2C and not 1C, but I hope he exceeds my expectations.
His drug habits took such a toll so quickly, people tend to forget he was a point per game center just 3 years ago. All 4 centers, Kuz, Backis, Eller, and Beagle (defensively) played extremely well in that playoff.
That team is an example of the one hit wonder that was being discussed earlier.... I'd take that over years of mediocrity.
SirKillalot
Registered User
You have any point at all?
Idk why you are getting caught up in these teams, as you want to be 6th to 8th in the conference and flip your lucky coin and hope for the best.
Here are Stanley Cup winners since 1971.
Then we can add 2nd, 5th (though 1st in West that season) and 4th to it from 2022,2023,2024.
Now, my kind of team that I hope for in the...I can even split it from 1st to 5th so your side 6th you 13 get team number advantage. My kind of team have about 39 Stanley Cup wins. Your kind of team has about 14 Stanley Cup Wins.
And the Vegas win also proves my point that you don't understand nor manage to separate between league and conference, as Vegas who came out as the best team in the West both in the regular season and Western Conference Championship was the best team in the West, and Stanley Cup, was the best team in the league, and overall "just" 5th in the league on the regular season standings. Mostly because of slightly differences in who they play and how the strength of opponents is in the divisions and conferences compared to who they play most etc.
Last edited:
I guess salary cap was introduced in 1971. And the league also expanded to 32 teams in 1971.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,158
- 16,471
Two points.
1. Find where I stated the bolded. My references to not needing to be top 5 to be successful was referring to league wide rankings not conference. I cleared that up a few posts ago.
2. In what world do the 70s Canadiens or 80s Islanders/Oilers curb-stomping the league from beginning to end have any bearing on what's possible in the current salary-capped NHL? You can hope for the dynasty Canadians all you want, you're not getting them in the cap era. Teams outside of the top 5 have made the Final more often than teams within the top 5.
SirKillalot
Registered User
Salary cap or no salary cap, the better team you have the better shot you got, as statistically proven.
It goes for the same, you just want a team that makes the playoffs and "fights their best" and hope it works. Basically the Islanders a few years back. Fine, cheer for them.
Not listed anywhere that I hope for a dynasty, but yes don't we all secretly hope for that? Realistically I hope for a consistent top 5 team (I'll add 5-6, given top 3 conference) that is top 3 in the conference and contend in the playoffs every year for numerous years, with the goal of winning more than one Stanley Cup.
HisNoodliness
Good things come to those who wait
This argument feels like it is mis-centered to me. Everyone mostly agrees here. The best team in the league is the most likely to win the cup, and there is sufficient randomness in hockey that even "just good" teams win it fairly often. We all agree that certain players are more effective in the playoffs than regular season, and some are less. We all want to maximize our odds of winning the cup, and thus we all want to be the best team in the league for as long as possible.
I think the big difference comes into play on how to actually do that and whether there are realistic paths to the top of the league without excessive lottery luck or strange circumstances. Furthermore, there is some difference on how predictable a player's playoff to regular season ratio will be.
The team seems to believe that a player's playoff performances are relatively predictable and we've invested a lot into targeting the qualities that they feel "winners" have. Most around here disagree at least somewhat with this philosophy, feeling that you're more likely to get a "winner" by finding someone that produces really well and hoping/teaching them to have the right habits for the playoffs. Others seem to think that we should target guys with the right habits and hope/teach them how to produce enough to be effective. Some think that you're unlikely to do either so you should only build around guys that everyone agrees will be both a "winner" and a "producer." Generally you can only get those guys at 1st-3rd overall and thus the pessimist crowd wants to tank in perpetuity until they have that nucleus. Those that feel we need more "producers" are afraid that the Kaspers, Danielsons and MBNs on our team will be good enough winners to get us into the playoffs, without a realistic shot at actually winning there because we simply can't produce enough. The crowd that only wants "winners," like Red Wings management, feels that we're doing a good job of filling that out in the rebuild and isn't particularly concerned if our lack of production makes us a team that doesn't produce enough to dominate the regular season because we'll dominate the playoffs. Furthermore, that lack of regular season domination may deflate salaries and lead to a longer window.
So I think that's what we should debate. Are the guys like Kasper. MBN and Danielson actually more effective in the playoffs? What fraction of winners have a lack of high end production? What fraction of winners have a lack of high end character guys? Do we feel that the Lightning couldn't win under Yzerman because they were all skill, no grit, and then JBB fixed that when he brought in Coleman and Goodrow? Or did those guys contribute as much as most third liners would have and it was more just the inevitability of "the most skilled team" getting its cups after enough rolls of the dice? I tend to feel that the latter is more true.
Similarly is there a path to the top of the playoffs that involves overperforming every playoffs with a team that's only "good" in the regular season? The LA Kings team from the 2010s seems to suggest that there is such a path. The lack of such teams historically seems to suggest that that may be a very difficult path to emulate. There are many more examples of teams that won by bottoming out for stars, so it makes sense that many would prefer to keep trying that until we're convinced that we have a nucleus of future star players. Personally, I think that ship sailed when Raymond and Seider made immediate impacts in the NHL, so we're going to have to hope that the Red Wings are being clever with their character driven draft strategy.
I don't think you understand the concept of representativeness of data used for your "statistical proof", otherwise how you can explain that 1st place team won only 2 cups in 19 tries, which is 35% of your sample. Looking at your "evidence" this would mean that before 2004 1st team won 15 out of 33
HisNoodliness
Good things come to those who wait
It is worth pointing out that 2/19 or a 10 percent win rate is really good when there's 30-32 teams. Even if we break it down to just playoff teams, the first place team is winning nearly twice as often as the average playoff team. Expand our criteria to teams that finished top 4 in league standings and you have 50% of cup winners over the last 20 years (from just 1/4 playoff teams). Among the non-top 4 winners, the average position was 8th overall- indicating a heavy skew towards the top even among those that are bucking the trend. I'm not sure that I want our strategy to be replicating the 2010s Kings run, but that's what a "playoffs team" looks like.
That was not the point. Point was that nobody cares about 70ies and 80ies anymore, those data points are irrelevant.
But even if we would like to go into statistics of last 19 years - 50% from outside of top 4 is a lot. It does demotrate level of parity in the league. It is not the case that teams that are winning Cup are weak and lucky, and we are supposed to get lucky. The thing is, even if you are good you are not assured of finishing in the top 4 anymore, just because there are lot of good teams. Nobody would have been surprised if Oilers won it, or Colorado, or Dallas, or Canes, or Rags... and so on, and i guess not all of them were in the top 4.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
The problem, as highlighted by you, is that when you make such an arbitrary black/white distinction about what constitutes success/failure you have to constantly move goalposts and twist yourself into knots trying to avoid and dismiss all the exceptions that disprove the rule.
What is a top 5 team? Are we talking being that level for one season? Is it a sustained run? How long? 3 years? 5 years? 10? Is it top 5 in regular season wins? Playoff wins? Does goal differential and advanced metrics matter, or is it purely wins/losses?
This smells a little bit too much like the hyper binary size/compete vs. skill debate. I don't think the brass necessarily thinks it is ignoring skill. Kasper and Danielson were taken to address a very hard to fill position and were likely the most skilled of those expected to play that position in the NHL. I also don't think Edvinsson and MBN are dumb, stone-handed rubes. But as we have discussed at length, in this binary world you can only be skilled or physical/high motored. There is no middle ground.
For the record we absolutely do need more higher-skilled offensive players. The question becomes how do you access them at this point.
HisNoodliness
Good things come to those who wait
It's obviously not a pure binary. That's just an easy way to talk about it. To be a "winner" you have to produce a lot. You can't just focus on playing defense and working hard. That's not how that works. Similarly, you can never produce if you don't have the puck. If all you can do is skate, dangle, shoot and pass, your team will never have the puck. Crosby was the best player of the last generation and he's the epitome of "the world's most skilled grinder."
But I do think that we can talk about priorities and see that the Wings are clearly not setting production as their highest priority (or less dominantly so than most teams). In the Kasper draft, Matt Savoie was taken with the next pick. He may be less likely to be a center, and honestly his development has been just okay since, but at the time of the draft, he was the higher skill, more productive option. We took Kasper. You can make similar arguments with Danielson and Benson. You can make similar arguments with MBN and Eiserman (or Hage or whoever). And we're seeing how that can play out, both MBN and Danielson have been showing a higher skill tier than at the time of their draft, and thus they look to be well on their way to fulfilling the promise of a "winner" and a "producer." Kasper, it's harder to say, but we seem pretty likely to end up with at least a decent third liner.
Essentially, it's much less that the players themselves are binary as much as our drafting strategy is (which also isn't a pure binary of course). In general if two guys seem to have a similar expected value, we're taking the guy whom is having more of that value come from his defense and character.
To me, Edvinsson is a lottery pick quality player- does it all and has the qualities to be an elite, productive winner. We've slow burned him and that's hurt his perception, even in hind sight, but I don't think the Red Wings compromised on anything with him. I also think that the drafting philosophy around D and F are too different for this to be too useful for this discussion.
I think Yzerman has shown a clear way for him to acquire high skill guys. He's great at collecting productive wingers in trade and free agency. Kane and Debrincat are at the top of the list, but he's also brought in Perron, Fabbri, and Tarasenko. I'm not sure if that's the way that he conceives of this whole deal, but it wouldn't be surprising to me if he had a game plan: "draft big, two way D first. Then draft your two-way character centers. Draft a goalie every year. If I end up without enough productive wingers, I can just get them through trade/FA."
Theirs a lot to be excited about in the next 2-3 years. It’s going to be sick to inject these high end prospects while Seider and Raymond just keep getting better and better. If Raymond pops off for 90 point season and Seider goes PPG the wings will be the real deal cup contender. Theirs a road map
Maybe not next year or the year after but sometime before their 35th birthdays
Maybe not next year or the year after but sometime before their 35th birthdays
Theirs a certain quality about Raymond/Seider that stand out as elite to me. How they stepped in and done everything asked of them and more while the team was in real rough shape. No short cuts on theirs or the wings side. They could have catered offense to them at the expense of the team but they earned their spot and now theirs no denying these guys role. It’s only going to take one season where the perspective changes and we look at this team differently
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,611
- 11,148
Matthew Tkachuk has 1 Cup thus far, lets not pretend he guarantees you anything. Seider isn't afraid of anyone, that is at least 1 at the very least that won't put up with that kind of crap.
Euro Twins
Healthy Scratch
- Mar 19, 2016
- 898
- 783
He's 26... And he's been to the finals back to back. Nothing is guaranteed, that man EARNS every inch of it my friend.
I can't see seider ever being a ppg player. I can see him being a good consistent 60 point player like Nick. You don't need to be Makar, there's already a Makar, there's already a Hughes. We need a seider.
Seider is a lock to be around 60 points in his prime when the team is humming that almost feels like the floor for him to me. Do you see Ray being a 90 point winger? These guys are special to me you don’t see players this polished at this age and the base they have to build out their game off is already so high. I think we’ll look back at how they entered the league and transformed the franchise and think of course they were going to be superstars
I think Ray in his prime will be a yearly 80-90'sh. Maybe 1-2 peak years of 91-96 points lets say.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,611
- 11,148
He is heavily overrated. His team has been back to back finals, not just him. What did he do in Calgary?
