2015 Offseason & Lineup Discussion Part III

[Sojourn]

Last year while with the Ducks, Sekac had a .125 shooting percentage. He was 4th on the team behind only Perry, Getzlaf and Beleskey. In addition, .125 is over 3% higher than the average shooting percentage league wide. I would consider that evidence of finishing ability.

Where are you getting that number?

And furthermore, are you really suggesting 2 goals, over just under 20 games, is actually evidence of finishing ability?

I'm absolutely not going to say it's evidence to the contrary, but I think you need to consider the size of the sample here, and the numbers we're talking about. He has two goals, while wearing an Anaheim uniform. If we include the playoffs, that's two goals in 26 games. Without them, it's two goals in 19. Either way, I have a tough time concluding that, in any way, supports the claim he has finishing ability.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Last year while with the Ducks, Sekac had a .125 shooting percentage. He was 4th on the team behind only Perry, Getzlaf and Beleskey. In addition, .125 is over 3% higher than the average shooting percentage league wide. I would consider that evidence of finishing ability.

Homeboy had two goals. Don't abandon common sense in pursuit of cleverness.

 

[91Fedorov]

Where are you getting that number?

And furthermore, are you really suggesting 2 goals, over just under 20 games, is actually evidence of finishing ability?

I'm absolutely not going to say it's evidence to the contrary, but I think you need to consider the size of the sample here, and the numbers we're talking about. He has two goals, while wearing an Anaheim uniform. If we include the playoffs, that's two goals in 26 games. Without them, it's two goals in 19. Either way, I have a tough time concluding that, in any way, supports the claim he has finishing ability.

My mistake. The .125 shooting percentage was from this year in Montreal. That percentage was over 50 games.

I think the point is still relevant.

 

[Sojourn]

My mistake. The .125 shooting percentage was from this year in Montreal. That percentage was over 50 games.

I think the point is still relevant.

Considering the 19 games that followed, it could also be evidence he just had a hot stretch. You're taking those 50 games, but removing the 19 games that followed. That 12.5 shooting percentage dropped to 10.6% in a hurry. Really, what that is, is evidence that a larger sample size is important. Over the course of multiple seasons.

Andrew Cogliano's first season saw him shooting at a ridiculous 18%. And that was over 82 games. His NHL totals are nowhere close to that. Would you say Cogliano is a finisher? Even considering he has scored 21 goals in a season, there is no way I would say that. Having seen so much of him in Anaheim, what I would say though, is that he occasionally has some hot stretches where everything he touches turns to gold. But a finisher? No way.

Edit: My basic point is that a player is what he plays like most of the time. Any player can go hot or cold. Sekac doesn't have a large enough body of work in the NHL to say that he is a finisher. He also doesn't have a large enough body of work to say he isn't one. However, his goal scoring throughout his career thus far does not, in any way, suggest he is a finisher. I also don't think his time in Anaheim so far has suggested that either. I didn't see him in Montreal, so I can't really comment on that, but I suspect he wouldn't have had to worry about getting dropped down the line-up as a Canadien if he was viewed as one. Call it a hunch. But as far as evidence he is a finisher? There is little, to none. Considering we're talking about years of hockey(Pre-NHL hockey, but hockey) here, I'd consider that evidence he isn't one.

 

[TheJoeMan]

The very fact he isn't taking more shots should tell you something. A natural finisher is not just someone with a great shot. Giguere joked that Teemu Selanne didn't have a great shot, but he was absolutely a natural finisher. It wasn't just the fact he found ways to get the puck past the goaltender. It was also his mentality. He knew he could score if given the opportunity. That's a natural finisher.

You would need to conclude that Sekac is ignorant to his ability to think otherwise. Not only that, you'd have to conclude that the coaches who he played for were also ignorant to it. There is just no evidence he is a natural finisher, and that, in itself, is evidence he isn't. Is he talented? Of course he is. It's the NHL. But he hasn't displayed a natural scoring ability at, well, any level of high level hockey, unless we're counting a Czech underage league. That is all evidence.

Exactly. Opportunity. Sekac barely averaged over a shot per-game last season. You as well are equating lack of shots is the same as lack of finish. How can we really know he lacks finish if he doesn't get the puck on net? Not shooting the puck is a completely separate issue. And he has displayed a natural scoring ability, he just hasn't done a lot of it at this level. Six of his nine goals last year were either wrist shots or dekes. That may not be a lot of examples but they exist. What isn't there are examples of him putting muffins into a goalie's chest. I know this is the third time I've mentioned that but you don't seem to understand that those are necessary to give any kind of credence to the claim he lacks finish.

Simply failing to get pucks on net is not an indictment that a player is incapable of scoring goals. Not when the goals he has scored have mostly been of the sniping variety. If all nine of his goals came off of deflections or just by jamming it in off of a rebound you might have a point. But they didn't and you don't.

Let me ask you this: would you categorize Silfverberg as a finisher? We know he has a great shot and gets a lot on goal but his shooting percentage isn't great. Him and Sekac actually had same shooting percentage with the Ducks last year.

 

[Sojourn]

Exactly. Opportunity. Sekac barely averaged over a shot per-game last season. You as well are equating lack of shots is the same as lack of finish. How can we really know he lacks finish if he doesn't get the puck on net? Not shooting the puck is a completely separate issue. And he has displayed a natural scoring ability, he just hasn't done a lot of it at this level. Six of his nine goals last year were either wrist shots or dekes. That may not be a lot of examples but they exist. What isn't there are examples of him putting muffins into a goalie's chest. I know this is the third time I've mentioned that but you don't seem to understand that those are necessary to give any kind of credence to the claim he lacks finish.

Simply failing to get pucks on net is not an indictment that a player is incapable of scoring goals. Not when the goals he has scored have mostly been of the sniping variety. If all nine of his goals came off of deflections or just by jamming it in off of a rebound you might have a point. But they didn't and you don't.

Let me ask you this: would you categorize Silfverberg as a finisher? We know he has a great shot and gets a lot on goal but his shooting percentage isn't great. Him and Sekac actually had same shooting percentage with the Ducks last year.

You continue to miss the major point, TJM. If he's a finisher, why isn't he trying to get more shots on net? Why doesn't he favor shooting more to begin with? Selanne didn't wait for the opportunities. He took them. He made them. Sometimes he made them out of nothing. That's a finisher's mentality. It isn't just waiting for the right shots. And really, we're talking about the NHL here. Every player has talent. George Parros hit 4 of 4 in the Anaheim skills competition multiple times, and he sucked. You think 3rd and 4th line players lack talent in this league? They don't. Those are terrific players. It's just that the true talent, the star and superstar players, in the NHL, are unbelievably good.

No, I wouldn't call Silfverberg a finisher. He does have a world class release, but he doesn't have a scoring touch. What he does have is a good work ethic and talent level. I do think he could find a way to score more goals, and take advantage of that release.

Edit: And, for the record, if a player was consistently going to the right spots and finding ways to bury loose pucks, I'd absolutely call them a finisher. I don't care if they are redirects, or rebound opportunities. I mean, you're basically describing part of Perry and Selanne's game. The puck found/finds them. Consistently. You think a finisher is just someone who has a great wrist shot? No. It's someone who finds ways to score.

If you want to see the difference between a legitimate NHL finisher, and someone like Sekac, see the 2007 playoffs. Perry had 6 goals in 21 games. Those are solid numbers, but they are hardly amazing. But you could tell he had a finisher's mindset, and that he was on the verge. How many close calls did he have, just by driving the net and taking shots? Just by playing with the mentality that every time he had the puck he could score. Even now, if he goes through a rough patch, you can usually tell when he's about to get going again, because those chances start to pile up. The same was true of Selanne before him. Forget the numbers for a minute. Just watch how Sekac plays. Do you see that in him? I'm not saying Sekac can't score, or that he can't put up some decent numbers, but there is no evidence at all that he is a finisher, and he certainly doesn't play with a finisher's mindset. Yeah, I'm going to say that's evidence he isn't one.

 

[snarktacular]

Exactly. Opportunity. Sekac barely averaged over a shot per-game last season. You as well are equating lack of shots is the same as lack of finish. How can we really know he lacks finish if he doesn't get the puck on net? Not shooting the puck is a completely separate issue. And he has displayed a natural scoring ability, he just hasn't done a lot of it at this level. Six of his nine goals last year were either wrist shots or dekes. That may not be a lot of examples but they exist. What isn't there are examples of him putting muffins into a goalie's chest. I know this is the third time I've mentioned that but you don't seem to understand that those are necessary to give any kind of credence to the claim he lacks finish.

Simply failing to get pucks on net is not an indictment that a player is incapable of scoring goals. Not when the goals he has scored have mostly been of the sniping variety. If all nine of his goals came off of deflections or just by jamming it in off of a rebound you might have a point. But they didn't and you don't.

Let me ask you this: would you categorize Silfverberg as a finisher? We know he has a great shot and gets a lot on goal but his shooting percentage isn't great. Him and Sekac actually had same shooting percentage with the Ducks last year.

He has 6 years on record in hockeydb. His career high on any level is 18. He has broken double digits twice.

No, Silfverberg is not a finisher either. In fact I would say his goal scoring has been a disappointment based on his tools. Basically he has problems shooting in traffic.

 

[Sojourn]

Small correction, but he is listed as having scored 38 goals in a Czech u17 league, but I have absolutely no idea how that league compares with others. It's tough to really get an idea of what those numbers mean without context.

 

[snarktacular]

Ha. That's the 7th year prior, which wasn't in hockeydb.

Looking at that year, his 38 goals is 3rd in the league. And 9 people total broke 30. And looking up and down a year, his total would be 5th in those 3 years. So he has shown some goalscoring there.

 

[Sojourn]

Ha. That's the 7th year prior, which wasn't in hockeydb.

Looking at that year, his 38 goals is 3rd in the league. And 9 people total broke 30. And looking up and down a year, his total would be 5th in those 3 years. So he has shown some goalscoring there.

The problem is it's so far back, and there is really no idea of how competitive it is. It could be Tier 3 youth hockey, in which case the numbers are almost meaningless because there just isn't much to compare it to. Being a better player in a lower tier league isn't really a feather in his cap.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Rakell and Sekac are both decent playmakers IMO. They need someone that can finish on that line.

Agreed. The whole team is short on finishers. It's one reason that I like the concept of him on the top line, because he's fast, tenacious, and can see the openings to get the other two (who are good finishers) the puck, as opposed to teams being able to focus on making Perry and Getzlaf pass to Maroon, who might be able to do something with it.

Assuming Perry and Getzlaf aren't forcibly separated.

Well, if he has a finish (which seems to be the debate) just how long do you keep trying to set up guys who can't score instead of just scoring yourself?

This is to the rest of you...

I have nothing against Sekac. But people like Sauced nation orgasm over him like he is an established vet. It borders on Ducksgo/Etem level worship. How about we actually see something resulting in consistent offensive production before we declare him Kobe Bryant rather than just a Harlem Globtrotter, NBA wanna be?

I'm not convinced he's much of a finisher, so I'd say quite a while. Getzlaf is still giving the puck away and it's going on 13 years since he's been drafted, so...

 

[Static]

That is one reason I'm not really a fan of moving Palmieri. Consistency issues aside, he was one of the only pure finishers on the roster. Now, our list of 'shooters' really looks like this:

Perry
Kesler
Vatanen

I'm not comfortable putting anyone else on it. The rest of the players are more distributors or don't have the shooting talent to be labeled as a 'shooter'. Silf is the closest to that, but he doesn't look to shoot nearly enough to be there.

It'll be interesting to see who scores goals this year, as Beleskey would have been on that list as well. Losing two finishers on a team with very few is dangerous.

 

[IDuck]

That is one reason I'm not really a fan of moving Palmieri. Consistency issues aside, he was one of the only pure finishers on the roster. Now, our list of 'shooters' really looks like this:

Perry
Kesler
Vatanen

I'm not comfortable putting anyone else on it. The rest of the players are more distributors or don't have the shooting talent to be labeled as a 'shooter'. Silf is the closest to that, but he doesn't look to shoot nearly enough to be there.

It'll be interesting to see who scores goals this year, as Beleskey would have been on that list as well. Losing two finishers on a team with very few is dangerous.

i agree with you...i do think silf COULD be on that list too, but he needs to use his shot more.

 

[Ducks Nation*]

That is one reason I'm not really a fan of moving Palmieri. Consistency issues aside, he was one of the only pure finishers on the roster. Now, our list of 'shooters' really looks like this:

Perry
Kesler
Vatanen

I'm not comfortable putting anyone else on it. The rest of the players are more distributors or don't have the shooting talent to be labeled as a 'shooter'. Silf is the closest to that, but he doesn't look to shoot nearly enough to be there.

It'll be interesting to see who scores goals this year, as Beleskey would have been on that list as well. Losing two finishers on a team with very few is dangerous.

You forgot cogs

 

[KaseMeOutside]

i am willing to put some faith in silf making the jump this year, in a cap world you will seldomly have a perfect roster and need some things to go right. the kings and blackhawks had younger players step up at the right time to be the critical depth their teams needed, no different here really.

i am not really worried about the forwards, there is star power, and depth, i am more concerned with how young our blueline is and how bieksa fits in and whether he can replace beauchemin.

we are pretty much relying on 4 young guys to carry the defense, sure would be nice to have that veteran top pair stabilizer(and no beauchemin was not it either, not with his injury concerns)

 

[HanSolo]

I think Rakell with Perry seems to work. So if they want go try splitting the twins maybe go

Cakes-Getz-Stew
Hags-Kes-Silf
Cogs-Rak-Perry
Santa-Horcoff-maroon

 

[Ducks Nation*]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/games-685331-hagelin-game.html

Hagelin ready to go

 

[TheJoeMan]

You continue to miss the major point, TJM. If he's a finisher, why isn't he trying to get more shots on net? Why doesn't he favor shooting more to begin with? Selanne didn't wait for the opportunities. He took them. He made them. Sometimes he made them out of nothing. That's a finisher's mentality. It isn't just waiting for the right shots. And really, we're talking about the NHL here. Every player has talent. George Parros hit 4 of 4 in the Anaheim skills competition multiple times, and he sucked. You think 3rd and 4th line players lack talent in this league? They don't. Those are terrific players. It's just that the true talent, the star and superstar players, in the NHL, are unbelievably good.

No, I wouldn't call Silfverberg a finisher. He does have a world class release, but he doesn't have a scoring touch. What he does have is a good work ethic and talent level. I do think he could find a way to score more goals, and take advantage of that release.

Edit: And, for the record, if a player was consistently going to the right spots and finding ways to bury loose pucks, I'd absolutely call them a finisher. I don't care if they are redirects, or rebound opportunities. I mean, you're basically describing part of Perry and Selanne's game. The puck found/finds them. Consistently. You think a finisher is just someone who has a great wrist shot? No. It's someone who finds ways to score.

If you want to see the difference between a legitimate NHL finisher, and someone like Sekac, see the 2007 playoffs. Perry had 6 goals in 21 games. Those are solid numbers, but they are hardly amazing. But you could tell he had a finisher's mindset, and that he was on the verge. How many close calls did he have, just by driving the net and taking shots? Just by playing with the mentality that every time he had the puck he could score. Even now, if he goes through a rough patch, you can usually tell when he's about to get going again, because those chances start to pile up. The same was true of Selanne before him. Forget the numbers for a minute. Just watch how Sekac plays. Do you see that in him? I'm not saying Sekac can't score, or that he can't put up some decent numbers, but there is no evidence at all that he is a finisher, and he certainly doesn't play with a finisher's mindset. Yeah, I'm going to say that's evidence he isn't one.

There's little evidence that he isn't either. You can't label a player, who just played his rookie year mind you, a non-finisher if he barely got the puck on net. You're assuming that. Until he starts shooting the puck more we really don't know. You're making the assumption that since he hasn't scored much he can't score much and that's just wrong given the fact he barely shoots the puck. Basically you're surmising that Sekac knows he can't score goals so he doesn't bother shooting the puck. That's nonsense. We know Getzlaf can score but he looks for the pass first. Perhaps that's just Sekac's game. We're so programmed to correlate passer with center that we tend to be very dismissive of wingers who prefer to be dishers rather than shooters. But if we need him to score more he needs to shoot more. Concluding he can't simply because he hasn't, yet, is wrong. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence in this case. I've challenged you several times now to provide instances when he had a chance to score but blew it. That's the evidence you need.

 

[caliamad]

I think Rakell with Perry seems to work. So if they want go try splitting the twins maybe go

Cakes-Getz-Stew
Hags-Kes-Silf
Cogs-Rak-Perry
Santa-Horcoff-maroon

Not bad, balances the lines out definitely.

So you see Wagner/Jackman as the extra forwards. Not impressed with Ritchie enough to play him over the Stew?

 

[Sojourn]

Jesus, TJM, it's not like being a rookie in the NHL means you just started playing hockey. He has years of hockey statistics to look at. I'm done with this discussion. I've provided plenty of evidence, in that there is no evidence he is a finisher. Not in the stats, and not on the ice. You can resort to pedantry here, or try to argue some technicality, but it's pretty clear he is not a finisher. What you're looking for is evidence he is just isn't a good player. Every NHL player is capable of finishing, but very few are finishers.

Edit: This isn't some court room, where reasonable doubt applies. This is common sense, dude. It's logic. If a player has no history of finishing, at any level, he isn't a finisher. An absence of evidence to the contrary is evidence. He's had years to show otherwise. He hasn't. Period. The End.

 

[TheJoeMan]

Jesus, TJM, it's not like being a rookie in the NHL means you just started playing hockey. He has years of hockey statistics to look at. I'm done with this discussion. I've provided plenty of evidence, in that there is no evidence he is a finisher. Not in the stats, and not on the ice. You can resort to pedantry here, or try to argue some technicality, but it's pretty clear he is not a finisher. What you're looking for is evidence he is just isn't a good player. Every NHL player is capable of finishing, but very few are finishers.

Edit: This isn't some court room, where reasonable doubt applies. This is common sense, dude. It's logic. If a player has no history of finishing, at any level, he isn't a finisher. An absence of evidence to the contrary is evidence. He's had years to show otherwise. He hasn't. Period. The End.

Okay so let's quit splitting hairs here with semantics and clarify what you mean by "finisher" which is clearly an elite goal-scorer. Fine. Sekac is not that and neither is every player on this team not named Perry. But what the rest of us were referring to is probably not nearly so stringent a definition. And it's also not a distinction that's necessary to be the top left wing on this team. You can continue to claim that this player is just completely incapable of scoring goals despite the fact he scored nine goals last season. Whatever. But we don't need an elite goal-scorer in that position. I still prefer Maroon in that role but if Cakes continues to win puck-battles and make smart passes like he has so far in the preseason than I'm fine with him in that spot. Didn't realize that he needed to have 40-goal potential to deserve that spot though.

 

[Paul4587]

Finishing is as much instincts and tendencies as it is quality of shot. Perry and Selanne have weak shots, they're both great finishers. Silfverberg has a laser, he is not a finisher.

 

[KickHisAssZegrass]

Changing it up a bit here... Anyone else debating whether Khudobin is good or even better than Freddie?

 

[Duck Off]

Changing it up a bit here... Anyone else debating whether Khudobin is good or even better than Freddie?

way too early to make that call, but he was great against LA. He got too deep on their goal, but aside from that he was excellent. I was very impressed. Hopefully he keeps it up.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Okay so let's quit splitting hairs here with semantics and clarify what you mean by "finisher" which is clearly an elite goal-scorer. Fine. Sekac is not that and neither is every player on this team not named Perry. But what the rest of us were referring to is probably not nearly so stringent a definition. And it's also not a distinction that's necessary to be the top left wing on this team. You can continue to claim that this player is just completely incapable of scoring goals despite the fact he scored nine goals last season. Whatever. But we don't need an elite goal-scorer in that position. I still prefer Maroon in that role but if Cakes continues to win puck-battles and make smart passes like he has so far in the preseason than I'm fine with him in that spot. Didn't realize that he needed to have 40-goal potential to deserve that spot though.

That's not what he's saying at all. being a finisher is a combination of state of mind AND ability. Sekac has shown neither to this point, and it's a more defensible position to say that he hasn't shown he's a finisher at this point than to say there's not enough evidence that he won't become one. There's no evidence that he won't become a surgeon, either. (Hyperbole for effect to make a point)

As far as the bolded, as usual - nobody is making that argument but you. At some point you will hopefully learn that completely hyperbolically misrepresenting what people are saying neither disproves their point nor convinces anyone of yours.

Not having a good (not elite, just good) goal scorer on the top line LW resulted in a loss. In spite of all of your protestations to the contrary as to who should be blamed, that was the end result - a loss. So there's no actual evidence that you're correct that we can win a Cup with Maroon at the LW. You're fond of saying that our stars carry the team. Im aware that you refuse to consider the concept that when the stars don't shine that you can still win if you have other players who can step up, but I'm not sure how you can argue that playing with a better player won't make it easier for the stars to shine brighter.