Ararana
Registered User
71.8%? Good lord, the next best is Monahan at 67.7%
I'm assuming these are 2017-2018 stats?
2018-2019 Around the league thread #1
- Thread starter Freudian
- Start date
- Status
71.8%? Good lord, the next best is Monahan at 67.7%
I'm assuming these are 2017-2018 stats?
- Apr 25, 2006
- 49,563
- 52,723
22FUTON9
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 3,257
- 2,375
Im on my phone but I think it came from an article from tsn and it was just looking at the top goal scorers
burgundynblue
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2005
- 1,907
- 3
I forgot who it was that was wondering about Jerabek or which thread it was and maybe it was already mentioned but Jerabek signed with the Oilers
Foppa Frossa
Registered User
Thanks. Unfortunately it is just a graphic in the article as well. And I misread it at first. I had read it as shooting % by shot type, which it is not. It is just % of goal type, with each player adding up to 100%. Which just means that Nate uses his other shot types less often, or less effectively, than other players; he relies on the most common type of shot most often (and it is rather deadly).
Wow, I knew Borgstrom was good, but Pronman labeled him as an "elite NHL prospect" in his farm system rankings. Dude is THAT good?
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,191
- 25,362
I don’t think I’d call him an elite prospect, but I do like his upside. He was one of the best college players throughout his time at Denver.
Florida is very nicely set up down the middle. They got Barkov, Trocheck, McCann, Borgstrom, and in a pinch they could shift Bjugstad back to center if need be. If they hadn't already traded for Hoffman I could see the Cats and Habs trying to make a deal for Pacioretty.
I figured Borgstrom would be a decent 3rd/2nd line option, didn't see him as a high-end player even though he lit it up in the NCAA.
- Feb 24, 2012
- 62,975
- 47,231
I'm with Pronman... Borgstrom has every bit the look of a well rounded #1C. Might not be a 70+ point guy, but he could be a 60-65 point guy with a very good 2 way upside.
Borgstrom is amazing and I say this as a CC fan. Picture a 6'3" player with Jonathan Huberdeau's mobility and stickhandling, he's going to be hard to handle when he puts more meet on his frame. In another sense, he has a lot of similarities to Filip Forsberg and being a solid 60 point player in his prime isn't too far out of the question.
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,191
- 25,362
My friend grew up playing with Troy Terry and said he was the best player he’d ever played with/against. Well through that connection he’s played with Henrik a couple times and said he was multiple levels above Terry as a player. Really looks like he’ll be a fantastic player.
hockeyfish
Registered User
I'm not all that sure if 60-65 points is enough in today's NHL to be considered a 1C. That's Larkin/O'Reilly territory, high end 2C.
- Feb 24, 2012
- 62,975
- 47,231
It isn't all points with #1Cs... it is a part of it surely, but there can be a 60 point #1C and a 60 point #2C... IE Bergeron really isn't more than a 60-65 point center and is a fully legit #1C. ROR is just barely a notch below offensively and isn't a #1C, but a high end #2C as you stated. It just isn't cut and dry to say once a player hits 70 points he is a #1C, but lower than that he isn't. There is more to the role than that.
And I know that last year's scoring looks odd with those numbers, but we have seen those blips before in the NHL. Longer term outlooks puts 60-65 production in the top 20 reliably. I would say that a #1C probably has to consistently put up 55+ (or ++) to be offensively at a high enough level to pull that sort of role and they have to be able to do it against the best competition. Kind of the bare minimum and they have to be a great player outside of that to start getting #1 consideration at that lower level of offensive production.
Last edited:
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,347
- 31,515
How is Borgstrom a #1C because he's capable of 60-65 points but ROR isn't? Especially if the bar for a #1C is consistently putting up 55+ points? ROR is both.
Taking out the 20 points in 29 games the year he held out, he hasn't put up less than 55 points on a season since his sophomore year in 2010-11. Also putting up 64, 60, and 61 point seasons in that span.
I think this shows just how inconsistent definitions of #1C's and #2C's are.
Wait, so Borgstrom will be a #1C with 60-65 points because of other things he brings to the game, but ROR is not despite consistently putting up 60-65 points as a center, while being one of the best defensive forwards in the game (top 10 IMO), and the best faceoff guy in the league (tied)? What exactly does playing center entail aside from offense, defense, and faceoffs?
- Feb 24, 2012
- 62,975
- 47,231
Being able to drive the play offensively and defensively against top matchups at even strength (or being absurd offensively to the point where average defense can be overlooked... Borgstom doesn’t have that level of talent). ROR’s points are a power play mirage. He’s simply not a top tier offensive player at even strength... and we will disagree with ROR’s defense. He’s very good, but he isn’t top 10... probably closeish in the teens though. A big step down from the Bergeron/Kopitar/Barkov sort of elite defensive forwards.
Also... I didn’t say will be. I say he has the look. In other words the potential to be that type of player. If he fulfills his potential, he’s a player in the mold of Bergeron.
Last edited:
They had Rod Brind'Amour on NHL Radio the other day and he was pretty cut-and-dried when it came to Scott Darling, basically saying he showed up out of shape. Wonder if we'll see a bounceback or at least noticeable improvement from him based on that alone.
dahrougem2
Registered User
I mean he might have come out of shape, but the kind of goals he let in on regular basis have nothing to do with fitness. I haven't seen a goalie so out of position on even basic plays in I don't know how long.
- Status
