Player Discussion J.T. Miller Part II

[NickyFotiu]

Everyone knows Nash is a warm weather scorer.

If it's so plainly obvious that Ovechkin has been a better 5-on-5 scorer than Nash over that time period, I should be seeing some better arguments as to why.

I'll get you started:
Ovechkin is better than Nash at 5-on-5 because he's better at __________

Ovechkin is better than Nash at 5-on-5 because he's better at video games than JT Miller

 

[Thirty One]

Ovechkin is better than Nash at 5-on-5 because he's better at video games than JT Miller

That's very funny. You're a regular Brad Garrett.

 

[NickyFotiu]

That's very funny. You're a regular Brad Garrett.

I'm actually Richard Dean Anderson but I still make jokes.

 

[Thirty One]

I'm actually Richard Dean Anderson but I still make jokes.

If I gave you some cleaning fluid, three-hole punch, and some moth balls would you be able to make it into an argument?

 

[NickyFotiu]

If I gave you some cleaning fluid, three-hole punch, and some moth balls would you be able to make it into an argument?

I would only need a rubber band and some chewing gum but I prefer not to argue in general. If I gave you the same would you be able to stop being rude to people online?

 

[Thirty One]

I would only need a rubber band and some chewing gum but I prefer not to argue in general. If I gave you the same would you be able to stop being rude to people online?

Are you really crying rudeness after coming in and sticking your nose up at the conversation?

 

[True Blue]

I haven't thought much about Nash vs. Ovechkin in that situation. You seem to prefer Ovechkin. Sell me on why.

Because he is better. Period. Use whatever friggin' logic you do not want to see. You may be the only person who watches the NHL that would think this is even up for debate.

Crosby, Malkin, and Kane both are much more likely to set up a goal than Nash, so I would rather them for sure.

The issue here is that you do not truly believe your own BS. You trumpet /60 as evidence that Nash is the most proficient goal scorer in the league at 5v5. But then you come up with reasons as to why you would rather have less proficient players on the ice.

And how exactly are you determining the fact that they are much more likely to set up a goal and pass up the opportunity to shoot? Not that this matters for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[True Blue]

5-on-5, with less room to move, I would go with Nash.

I stand corrected. There two people who watch the NHL that would prefer Rick friggin' Nash to Alex Ovechkin 5v5.

This also means that over the course of a whole game, you would prefer to use Nash over Ovechkin due to the fact that the majority of the game is spent 5v5. I think that now I have truly seen everything on this board.

In NO version of ANY universe can Nash even begin to think about carrying Ovechkin's jockstrap.

 

[silverfish]

Because he is better. Period. Use whatever friggin' logic you do not want to see. You may be the only person who watches the NHL that would think this is even up for debate.

The issue here is that you do not truly believe your own BS. You trumpet /60 as evidence that Nash is the most proficient goal scorer in the league at 5v5. But then you come up with reasons as to why you would rather have less proficient players on the ice.

And how exactly are you determining the fact that they are much more likely to set up a goal and pass up the opportunity to shoot? Not that this matters for the purpose of this discussion.

Proficient != Efficient/Productive

It does seem like you accidentally mashed the word I was using (Productive) and the word 31 is using (Efficient) into a word that no one is using (Proficient).

 

[True Blue]

It does seem like you accidentally mashed the word I was using (Productive) and the word 31 is using (Efficient) into a word that no one is using (Proficient).

Then let's just make him the most proficiently efficient 5v5 goal scorer.

 

[silverfish]

Then let's just make him the most proficiently efficient 5v5 goal scorer.

Or we can just make him exactly what he is. The guy who leads the league in goals per 60 during 5v5 play since 2012-2013. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[True Blue]

Or we can just make him exactly what he is. The guy who leads the league in goals per 60 during 5v5 play since 2012-2013. Nothing more, nothing less.

And that is exactly what he is. Once again, my sole issues are when the stat is utilized as the evidence to present him (or anyone else) as something that he is not.

 

[silverfish]

And that is exactly what he is. Once again, my sole issues are when the stat is utilized as the evidence to present him (or anyone else) as something that he is not.

You need to understand that leading the league in that metric proves he is the most efficient 5v5 goal scorer.

There is no one in the league in that timeframe and meeting the minutes requirement of the sample (I think I usually use 2000 mins minimum) who scores more goals per 60 than Nash during 5v5 play. Ipso facto, he is the most efficient 5v5 goal scorer in the league in this study.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

You need to understand that leading the league in that metric proves he is the most efficient 5v5 goal scorer.

There is no one in the league in that timeframe and meeting the minutes requirement of the sample (I think I usually use 2000 mins minimum) who scores more goals per 60 than Nash during 5v5 play. Ipso facto, he is the most efficient 5v5 goal scorer in the league in this study.

I think if he was a decent PP player and AV didn't roll every line equally, Nash's tenure here would look a lot better to a lot of people

 

[Ail]

Because he is better. Period. Use whatever friggin' logic you do not want to see. You may be the only person who watches the NHL that would think this is even up for debate.

Yes, but how are you justifying this belief? He is better, period? Wow that's really convincing.

If he was the only person who watches the NHL who thought this was up for debate (I doubt he is) it would only be because all of the people watching the NHL were looking at it myopically and focusing on Ovechkin's goal totals for all of his NHL seasons. However this is at 5v5. How many people have ever been asked to compare the two at even strength? How many people would be able to without the bias of Ovechkin being a premiere goal scorer in the league since he entered it, and being sold on it every season via media hype. Not to say that he isn't a premiere goal scorer, he very obviously is, but again this factors in ALL of his goals. I'm sure the very reliable memory and eye test so many of these same people would be relying on to crown Ovechkin markedly better 5v5 AINEC would be clouded by the fact he's scored a lot of goals in his career, period.

 

[True Blue]

You need to understand that leading the league in that metric proves he is the most efficient 5v5 goal scorer.

There is no one in the league in that timeframe and meeting the minutes requirement of the sample (I think I usually use 2000 mins minimum) who scores more goals per 60 than Nash during 5v5 play. Ipso facto, he is the most efficient 5v5 goal scorer in the league in this study.

If that is what it proves, then when your team needs a goal and it is 5v5, you want him on the ice head of Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby & Kane. There is no way to get around that. Either you believe that the metric proves or you do not. If you sate that is a fact, you have to believe it.

 

[True Blue]

Yes, but how are you justifying this belief? He is better, period? Wow that's really convincing.

Ok. Who do you think is better?

If he was the only person who watches the NHL who thought this was up for debate (I doubt he is) it would only be because all of the people watching the NHL were looking at it myopically and focusing on Ovechkin's goal totals for all of his NHL seasons. However this is at 5v5.

5v5. 4v4. 4v3. 5v2. Makes no difference. Maybe I travel in very small circles, but until today I knew of NO ONE that would prefer to have Nash instead of Ovechkin on the ice.

 

[Raspewtin]

Good god this cancerous debate is back.

Nash is better at goal scoring 5 on 5 than Alex Ovechkin. There's no point to be made otherwise other than DURRRRR BUT He"S OVI AND NASH DOESNT ZCORE IN HTE PLAYOFSZ

 

[silverfish]

If that is what it proves, then when your team needs a goal and it is 5v5, you want him on the ice head of Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby & Kane. There is no way to get around that. Either you believe that the metric proves or you do not. If you sate that is a fact, you have to believe it.

You understand that goals can also happen if a player sets up a goal, yeah? Assists?

For this wild vacuum scenario. Tie game, 3 minutes left in the third, 5v5 play, the player I'd probably most like to put on the ice is Sidney Crosby, and his 2.76 points-per-60. Not to mention Sid's +12.16 relative shot attempts for per 60 metric and 54.59% CF%, meaning with Sid on the ice, in this tie-game scenario, more than likely, my team will be the one shooting the puck.

If I could have Nash on the ice with Crosby, even better.

 

[True Blue]

You understand that goals can also happen if a player sets up a goal, yeah? Assists?

For this wild vacuum scenario. Tie game, 3 minutes left in the third, 5v5 play, the player I'd probably most like to put on the ice is Sidney Crosby, and his 2.76 points-per-60. Not to mention Sid's +12.16 relative shot attempts for per 60 metric and 54.59% CF%, meaning with Sid on the ice, in this tie-game scenario, more than likely, my team will be the one shooting the puck.

If I could have Nash on the ice with Crosby, even better.

Am pretty sure that I am aware of how the game works. However, if he is the most efficiently proficient, then he has the best chance of scoring. And you should get the player that has the best chance of scoring on the ice.

Are you also going to another to tell me that in a 5v5 you would put Nash on the ice ahead of Ovechkin?

 

[SA16]

If that is what it proves, then when your team needs a goal and it is 5v5, you want him on the ice head of Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby & Kane. There is no way to get around that. Either you believe that the metric proves or you do not. If you sate that is a fact, you have to believe it.

Entirely incorrect.

This is analysis again, not statistics.

Nash may have a higher Goal/60 than Ovechkin at even strength but that does not necessarily imply that it will be higher going forward. If you get a really large sample you can probably have good enough confidence that it is but it's not necessarily the case and is certainly not an absolute like you state it is.

 

[Raspewtin]

I don't imagine there's a team that's sent less players to the World Championships than the Rangers in recent history.

Yeah but where's the fun in facts

This whole fanbase hates facts. They're not fun or fluffy.

 

[silverfish]

Am pretty sure that I am aware of how the game works. However, if he is the most efficiently proficient, then he has the best chance of scoring. And you should get the player that has the best chance of scoring on the ice.

Are you also going to another to tell me that in a 5v5 you would put Nash on the ice ahead of Ovechkin?

Bolded: No. That's not what it means. Again, we run into the misunderstanding of metrics vs analysis.

It just means that in the sample, Nash has the best goals for per 60. Anything else you derive from that is analysis.

Red: I can't answer this. I need more information.

 

[Thirty One]

Am pretty sure that I am aware of how the game works. However, if he is the most efficiently proficient, then he has the best chance of scoring. And you should get the player that has the best chance of scoring on the ice.

Are you also going to another to tell me that in a 5v5 you would put Nash on the ice ahead of Ovechkin?

Most effifciently proficient, haha.

It can't be that difficult to understand that a player can be less likely to be the one who scores the goal, but still be more likely to create the goal.

 

[Machinehead]

Ovechkin actually isn't even close to Nash at even strength. Like, there is not even an argument to be made.

Ovechkin is a huge weapon that I would love on the Rangers, but he's s powerplay specialist if I'm being honest.