Barzal vs Hischier + Zacha

[The Burdened]

Zacha is a non factor. His ceiling is a replacement level player,

So it's basically Barzal vs. Nico. Barzal wins. No insult to Nico tho.

 

[LordNeverLose]

Zacha is a non factor. His ceiling is a replacement level player

Disagree. Voted Barzal here and agree Zacha isn't a huge factor in this poll. But I do think Zacha still has the potential to be a good top 6 player.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Zacha is a non factor. His ceiling is a replacement level player,

So it's basically Barzal vs. Nico. Barzal wins. No insult to Nico tho.

Are you from the future?

 

[Mrb1p]

Im not even sure if Barzal is better than Hischier let alone both.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Are we supposed to just ignore the difference at their ages?

Hischier had a better D+1 AND it was only his second season on NA ice...

Right, but there's no guarantee that just because he's made the NHL at a younger age, that he'll match Barzal's season he just had at age 20.

That's my point. Making the league at a younger age doesn't automatically mean that player will be better going forward. Just like just because RNH was scoring 52 points in 62 games as an 18 year old didn't mean he'd match Claude Giroux's career peak, even though Giroux didn't even make the league until later.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Right, but there's no guarantee that just because he's made the NHL at a younger age, that he'll match Barzal's season he just had at age 20.

That's my point. Making the league at a younger age doesn't automatically mean that player will be better going forward. Just like just because RNH was scoring 52 points in 62 games as an 18 year old didn't mean he'd match Claude Giroux's career peak, even though Giroux didn't even make the league until later.

I think it mainly is pointed out because some think Barzal's floor and ceiling are automatically higher than Hischier's. If that were the case you'd think he'd have been better at their equal ages. Since he wasn't (yet), one can assume Hischier has the ability to do as well as Barzal at that age (so not this coming season but next). Thats how Id see it at least. Barzal is better now but Id choose Hischier personally.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I think it mainly is pointed out because some think Barzal's floor and ceiling are automatically higher than Hischier's. If that were the case you'd think he'd have been better at their equal ages. Since he wasn't (yet), one can assume Hischier has the ability to do as well as Barzal at that age (so not this coming season but next). Thats how Id see it at least. Barzal is better now but Id choose Hischier personally.

I have no issue if someone takes Hischier. I, myself, will wait until I see both guys for at least another season to decide who looks like they'll be better going forward.

I just don't think the "D+1" argument is a good one, period. Not just in this situation, but every time it's brought up. There is no strong evidence that I've seen that the correlation between who has the better D+1 and who has the better overall career exists.

 

[swissexpert]

I know people like to bring up what players did in their D+1 year to argue they'll be a better player, even in situations like this where Barzal's D+3 season was so good, but is there evidence that that actually is the case?

For example, a former 1st overall Ryan Nugent-Hopkins had a much, much better D+1 year than Claude Giroux. But he's never come close to matching Giroux's career peaks. So if you'd compared them in RNH's rookie year, anyone saying "yeah, Giroux had the better year, but just wait until RNH is older because his D+1 blew Giroux's out of the water" would look foolish now.

Are there more examples of cases where it suggests Hischier will end up better by virtue of him having a better D+1?

Your example doesn't work. Yes RNH > Giroux looks foolish now but it's a rare example because RNH had a fantastic rookie year compared to his following years.
Most of the time, it's the other way around that the better rookie will also be the better player.
Would you trade Matthews for M. Rantanen?

You can only compare what they have actually done, so yes it's pretty fair to look at the similar parts of their careers.
Who knows if Hischiers development curve is as steep as Barzal's and if Barzal can go PPG again..

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I think it mainly is pointed out because some think Barzal's floor and ceiling are automatically higher than Hischier's. If that were the case you'd think he'd have been better at their equal ages. Since he wasn't (yet), one can assume Hischier has the ability to do as well as Barzal at that age (so not this coming season but next). Thats how Id see it at least. Barzal is better now but Id choose Hischier personally.

You are assuming development curves are the same for all players. That's not the case.

It's also not a fact that Hischier was better at 18. Did you watch Barzal at 18? He was tearing the WHL to shreds, carrying an extremely young, mediocre, offensively starved team to the finals.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Your example doesn't work. Yes RNH > Giroux looks foolish now but it's a rare example because RNH had a fantastic rookie year compared to his following years.
Most of the time, it's the other way around that the better rookie will also be the better player.
Would you trade Matthews for M. Rantanen?

You can only compare what they have actually done, so yes it's pretty fair to look at the similar parts of their careers.
Who knows if Hischiers development curve is as steep as Barzal's and if Barzal can go PPG again..

Examples? I asked for examples in my previous post, but didn't get any.

Also, if we're talking about "better rookie", Barzal had a better rookie season. So I'm not sure that's exactly what I was arguing against. I was arguing against this idea that if a player has a better D+1 season, that means he'll surpass the other player, who actually had a much better season, but at an older age.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

You are assuming development curves are the same for all players. That's not the case.

It's also not a fact that Hischier was better at 18. Did you watch Barzal at 18? He was tearing the WHL to shreds, carrying an extremely young, mediocre, offensively starved team to the finals.

I am 100% sure Hischier was better at 18. Youre joking right?

Like i give a crud about WHL play

 

[swissexpert]

Examples? I asked for examples in my previous post, but didn't get any.

Literally my next sentence to the one you bolded. Rantanen had a high last year that Matthews hasn't reached so far but in the comparable seasons he's been much better and most would take AM easily over MK right now.

 

[I am not exposed]

I know people like to bring up what players did in their D+1 year to argue they'll be a better player, even in situations like this where Barzal's D+3 season was so good, but is there evidence that that actually is the case?

For example, a former 1st overall Ryan Nugent-Hopkins had a much, much better D+1 year than Claude Giroux. But he's never come close to matching Giroux's career peaks. So if you'd compared them in RNH's rookie year, anyone saying "yeah, Giroux had the better year, but just wait until RNH is older because his D+1 blew Giroux's out of the water" would look foolish now.

Are there more examples of cases where it suggests Hischier will end up better by virtue of him having a better D+1?

Some people really don't understand that progression isn't always linear.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Literally my next sentence to the one you bolded. Rantanen had a high last year that Matthews hasn't reached so far but in the comparable seasons he's been much better and most would take AM easily over MK right now.

Examples, plural, because nothing is 100% this or 100% that. So there will always be exceptions.

And that example isn't even that strong since Matthews was on pace for 83-84 points if didn't miss time with injury. So it's not like your example saw a player finish over 30 points higher than the other (factoring in missed games), like is the case with Barzal and Hischier.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I am 100% sure Hischier was better at 18. Youre joking right?

Like i give a crud about WHL play

I'm not at all joking. How can you be 100% sure he was better when you didn't even watch Barzal play lol.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

I'm not at all joking. How can you be 100% sure he was better when you didn't even watch Barzal play lol.

No amount of WHL scoring would be better than Hischier's rookie year in the NHL

So quit the shit

 

[HyPnOtiK]

eh it depends if barzal last year is the actual barzal then him if not then nico+zacha.
Nico might be one of the better two way top picks in awhile, other then matthews cant think of a recent top 3 pick that had a notable two way game as a prospect, and hes shown it in the big league too.

The guy picked right behind him in his draft

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

The guy picked right behind him in his draft

nico has shown his two way talent in the league, patrick hasnt done much of anything so far..

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

No amount of WHL scoring would be better than Hischier's rookie year in the NHL

So quit the ****

Really? A 200 point season wouldn't do it for you?

You're relentlessly clueless.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Really? A 200 point season wouldn't do it for you?

You're relentlessly clueless.

Keep thinking Barzal was more impressive in the WHL then Hischier in the NHL at 18 lmfao

Barzal was so impressive he didn't even make his team's stsrting roster the next year!

 

[Tripod]

nico has shown his two way talent in the league, patrick hasnt done much of anything so far..

In fairness...from the end of Jan to the end of the season, Nico and Nolan had almost identical stats. Both paced for 50+ points during that time.

As for the poll...Zacha is the wildcard. He seems to have way more to give than being a 25 point guy. No reason he can't be a 40+ point guy. But I think both Nico and Matt end up being 70-80 point guys.

 

[BillNy]

Barzal I think has a much higher ceiling than Hischier, and while I think some folks calling Zacha a "plug" are being unfair - to me these polls are about the stars. You don't trade Barzal for Hischier/Zacha because Barzal has the highest ceiling, and while he's a fine player, you can find a Zacha without a high draft pick. The Islanders are lucky a Mat Barzal was available where he was. So, yeah, maybe if we had a WAR sorta thing, Hischier/Zacha total up more than Barzal, but the first wins above replacement per roster spot are significantly easier to find than the latter ones.

 

[BillNy]

Keep thinking Barzal was more impressive in the WHL then Hischier in the NHL at 18 lmfao

Barzal was so impressive he didn't even make his team's stsrting roster the next year!

The Islanders decided not to rush a 16th overall pick, and that season had 45 wins and 100 points, and started the season with John Tavares, Frans Nielsen, Mihail Grabovski, and Casey Cizikas as the centers on the roster. Hischier was the first pick, and while the Devils actually came close to the 2016 Islanders, and played fine, no other center on the roster cracked 30 points, and Brian Boyle was going to miss time with cancer. Fair to mention that Travis Zajac missed time, but he's looked cooked for a while now. Hell, even his 40+ point seasons seem like "he gets ice time on a terrible team" sorta deal. He hasn't topped either 20 goals, or 50 points since 2010. There's also Adam Henrique, who started with the Devils, but like, especially if you're missing Boyle, you can't say no to the 1OA because your center depth goes Henrique-Zajac-Zacha-...Gibbons or Coleman?

Your argument here is mostly based on draft position. Players are wayyy more likely to be given a shot if they were a higher pick. Hischier was from a weak draft, Barzal went behind at least a half dozen guys who are already legitimate stars (McDavid, Eichel, Marner, Provorov, Werenski, and Rantanen), and it's not really his fault he didn't get kept up. It's harder to judge right now, given that Hischier is 20 months younger than Barzal, but it's not flatly unfair to argue that someone's 18 year old WHL season is more indicative of future success than someone's 18 year old NHL season.

(That said, if you use NHLe, which is a rough-math sorta thing that tells you about how many points you'd expect from a guy playing outside the NHL had he played in the NHL, I've got Barzal's 18 y/o season in Seattle at about 37 points, but the translation [30% of the points/game] may be off, teammates/ice time can still throw this very simple/only decently indicative metric off, and I actually don't know for sure if the translation factor takes into account that a player going to the NHL from junior is a year older at a high-development age, and if it doesn't, then you'd actually expect Barzal to score 37 at 19 based on his 18 year old season, rather than 37 had he played in the NHL at 18 - but clearly the metric isn't perfect, since his last junior season would have predicted 47 points.)

 

[BillNy]

In fairness...from the end of Jan to the end of the season, Nico and Nolan had almost identical stats. Both paced for 50+ points during that time.

As for the poll...Zacha is the wildcard. He seems to have way more to give than being a 25 point guy. No reason he can't be a 40+ point guy. But I think both Nico and Matt end up being 70-80 point guys.

Hischier vs Patrick is actually interesting here. I think "since the end of January" is kind of a goofy argument, because it's like "oh, well if we use a smaller sample size" sorta deal, but Patrick scored 60% of the points in 75% of the minutes. If Patrick got 1/3 more points because he got 1/3 more minutes, which would have him at Hischier's ice time, all of a sudden he's at 40 points on the year. Granted, Hischier's 5on5 pts/hour numbers are way better (2.0 primary points/2.4 total points for Hischer to 1.0 primary points/1.5 total points for Patrick). Hischier also had a better oiSH% at 10.8% to 7%, which isn't gonna keep itself up. Then there's the fact that Hischier played 80% of his 5on5 minutes with Taylor Hall, and Patrick played half his minutes with Voracek/Simmonds (honestly have no idea if that was together or if it was that one of them was on the ice with him most of his time this season, a Flyers fan could clarify), and then doesn't really have anyone super-regular, but the other forwards he played 100+ minutes with are Weal, Lindblom, Weise, and Konecny, so it's hardly a group of world-beaters there.

A lot of noise in judging rookies by numbers. That's the main thing. I don't know if development really diverges as much as people think, or if it's just that after just one season, it's really hard to parse things like shooting luck, teammates, usage, etc, especially with no long-term reputation, and with these kids usually getting less ice time than they will at 22. I assume Hischier is a lot better because he looks a lot better, but I'm interested to see how they both come along.

 

[Castle8130]

In fairness...from the end of Jan to the end of the season, Nico and Nolan had almost identical stats. Both paced for 50+ points during that time.

As for the poll...Zacha is the wildcard. He seems to have way more to give than being a 25 point guy. No reason he can't be a 40+ point guy. But I think both Nico and Matt end up being 70-80 point guys.

In terms of offensive production they were fairly even at the end of last year, maybe even give a sleight edge to Patrick, but Hischier is one of the most perfectly positioned centers. His defensive hockey iq is through the roof. I might be too high on Hischier, but that kid can really play a good 5v5 and eventually I can see him being a good penalty killer.

I personally like Hischiers two-way ability more than Barzals offensive ability and Barzal is a couple years older than Hischier. Barzal has a lot of speed and has incredibly soft hands that are needed against the top teams. I just think that Barzals play style is less defensive and is more aggressive in the offensive zone. In the playoffs, I could see his type of play getting exposed.