Player Discussion Bo Horvat

[WetcoastOrca]

9 points in 9 games with 7 goals.
Looks like a breakout season offensively for him. Once Pettersson is back and Boeser the poweplay should be improved and he should get more assists.

 

[Canucks1096]

Bo definitely seems to have hit another level this year. More impressive than the goals last night was the OT backcheck on Marchessault. He wasn't doing that effectively in the -30 season.

His development curve to date has been much more of a punctuated equilibrium than anything else. After a 100 games or so of seemingly stagnating (hence the "Bozak" talk that was floating around), if he can genuinely maintain this level of play, that would go a huge way to being a legitimate team in the next decade.

Agreed that his Ryan Kesler vs Nashville swagger dangles are a little annoying, but I think the team should do everything to maximize his abilities in that area rather than trying to Willie-style coach it out of him. A huge reason Bo has looked good is genuinely because he isn't getting murdered on the PK this year.

I'd really explore moving him to LW though to pursue more of a Taylor Hall style game than keeping him at center where his playmaking just isn't up to the standards of a first line center. Would be very curious about pairing him with Gaudette moving forward, especially once Pettersson is back. In the interim, have Bo continue to take faceoffs to insulate Gaudette, but plan to have him and EP as the 1-2 centers going forward rather than Bo and EP.

Gaudette is the future 3rd line center or traded or doesn't make it to the nhl full time. Botchford even once said most people in the organization don't see Gaudette as a top 2 line center. His upside is a bottom to middle 6 center.

10 regular season games and 3 preseason games. Not even 1 point.

 

[F A N]

It strikes me as odd because it's just as accurate to say that he is improving offensively whether he has identified his offensive play as an area of weakness or not. Neither point really has any bearing on anything we're talking about.

Not every exchange needs to devolve into disparaging insults.

Actually you were talking about his defense being the most pressing weakness/concern and suggesting that Horvat needs to at least mention it as a weakness and work on it. I disagreed saying that the most pressing concern is for him to continue to improve his offensive production because his expected role this season is to be a #1 C.

You stated that the biggest limitation currently holding back his offensive game IS his defensive game and pretty much suggesting that Horvat's offensive production has peaked relative to his talent level. I said that Horvat is proving you wrong and making a joke out of your post. My apologies if you took that as a disparaging insult.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Remember when people said they would rather have Brock over Bo?? Lol. Some real nutters on the web.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Gaudette is the future 3rd line center or traded or doesn't make it to the nhl full time. Botchford even once said most people in the organization don't see Gaudette as a top 2 line center. His upside is a bottom to middle 6 center.

10 regular season games and 3 preseason games. Not even 1 point.

Gaudette looks like another miss of a pick. 13 NHL games (including preseason ) and not a point. Doesn’t really do anything exceptional.

 

[Shareefruck]

Actually you were talking about his defense being the most pressing weakness/concern and suggesting that Horvat needs to at least mention it as a weakness and work on it. I disagreed saying that the most pressing concern is for him to continue to improve his offensive production because his expected role this season is to be a #1 C.

You stated that the biggest limitation currently holding back his offensive game IS his defensive game and pretty much suggesting that Horvat's offensive production has peaked relative to his talent level. I said that Horvat is proving you wrong and making a joke out of your post. My apologies if you took that as a disparaging insult.

I wasn't putting a ceiling on his potential, I was implying that his production is appropriate based on his general talent level. In other words, you wouldn't look at his skill-set and think "he really should be producing more than this", which you would with his defense. If he hypothetically stayed at his existing level offensively, it would be really unreasonable to consider it a disappointing, under-achieving result.

I'm arguing that between making a conscious effort to learn to play the way he should be able to play defensively and dramatically increasing his natural skillset, the former seems a lot more reasonable of an expectation/demand (despite both being possible), and is probably the most low-hanging-fruit way to improve his production.

As I mentioned earlier, he's already appropriately effective and productive in the offensive zone, relative to his talent level. If he plays well enough defensively to be in the offensive zone more often (which you would think he's more than capable of), his production would greatly benefit from it.

I didn't watch the game you're referring to, but from the responses I'm reading, it sounds like he played like a beast at both ends of the rink, which I think helps his offensive game a fair bit. Correct me if that wasn't the case.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not calling it a critical, pressing concern either. He's obviously a good enough player that he's valuable on the team even if he never improves anything ever. But his defensive game has been a clear weakness that he seems most safely capable of improving, even within his current mental and physical limitations, and would probably yield the most attainable reward. It would be a shame if he didn't acknowledge it as an area of focus.

 

[Spectrefire]

Gaudette looks like another miss of a pick. 13 NHL games (including preseason ) and not a point. Doesn’t really do anything exceptional.

Did you forget the to add the /sarcasm tag?

 

[VanJack]

It's interesting that last year, despite a blueline decimated by injuries, the Canucks were able to hang around the playoff chase for awhile. But once Horvat went down in November, it was lights out on the season. Better pray there's no repeat this time around.

 

[F A N]

I wasn't putting a ceiling on his potential, I was implying that his production is appropriate based on his general talent level. In other words, you wouldn't look at his skill-set and think "he really should be producing more than this", which you would with his defense. If he hypothetically stayed at his existing level offensively, it would be really unreasonable to consider it a disappointing, under-achieving result.

You're conflating things. Saying his production is appropriate based on his general talent level is putting a ceiling on his potential. If you are saying that Horvat is overachieving in relation to his general talent level you are not saying his ceiling is where his overachieving totals indicate. A player can underachieve in relation to his potential or talent and still not be a disappointment as well.

I'm arguing that between making a conscious effort to learn to play the way he should be able to play defensively and dramatically increasing his natural skillset, the former seems a lot more reasonable of an expectation/demand (despite both being possible), and is probably the most low-hanging-fruit way to improve his production.

But I can turn your argument around. What's his "natural skillset?" At the NHL level, he's been closer to being a #1 C level offensive producer than a shutdown C. Seems to be that the low-hanging-fruit is to improve his offensive production rather than"dramatically improving his natural skillset."

As I mentioned earlier, he's already appropriately effective and productive in the offensive zone, relative to his talent level. If he plays well enough defensively to be in the offensive zone more often (which you would think he's more than capable of), his production would greatly benefit from it.

That talk about his talent level again. As I mentioned earlier, Horvat is proving you wrong and making a joke out of your post.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not calling it a critical, pressing concern either. He's obviously a good enough player that he's valuable on the team even if he never improves anything ever. But his defensive game has been a clear weakness that he seems most safely capable of improving, even within his current mental and physical limitations, and would probably yield the most attainable reward. It would be a shame if he didn't acknowledge it as an area of focus.

But you kind of did:

it's a far more pressing concern than some other areas I've heard him mention trying to improve (like foot speed, for example).

It looks to me that working on continuing to increase his offensive production is an attainable reward.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Gaudette looks like another miss of a pick. 13 NHL games (including preseason ) and not a point. Doesn’t really do anything exceptional.

Does anyone at this point actually read your postings here and think: "Ah. There is an interesting and educated take on the current events of Ice Hockeys."

 

[Shareefruck]

You're conflating things. Saying his production is appropriate based on his general talent level is putting a ceiling on his potential. If you are saying that Horvat is overachieving in relation to his general talent level you are not saying his ceiling is where his overachieving totals indicate. A player can underachieve in relation to his potential or talent and still not be a disappointment as well.

No it isn't. That assumes that talent/skill is static, which it isn't. He can possibly improve his skill and thus have more potential than what relying purely on his current skill-set can produce. I'm saying that I think improving your ability to optimally play within your existing limitations is probably a safer bet than increasing your raw skill.

But I can turn your argument around. What's his "natural skillset?" At the NHL level, he's been closer to being a #1 C level offensive producer than a shutdown C. Seems to be that the low-hanging-fruit is to improve his offensive production rather than"dramatically improving his natural skillset."

The bolded is a fair question-- it is inevitably somewhat subjective what you judge a player's raw skill level to be, and I think that it's fair to agree to disagree on that point. However, framing it as choosing between a #1 C and a shutdown C is a false dichotomy and a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. We're not talking about turning him into a defensive player or turning him into an offensive player based on which one he's closer to. We're talking about how fair it is to expect him to take a big step offensively vs. taking an equal step defensively, each from the same starting point.

That talk about his talent level again. As I mentioned earlier, Horvat is proving you wrong and making a joke out of your post.

It's not the first time Horvat has had near-PPG 10-game stretches through sheer force of will, and it won't be the last (in fact, it would be difficult to be a 60 point player and not have these stretches). In the past, those stretches came in spite of weaker defense. It's debatable whether or not the way he plays during those stretches can be sustainable over a full season. I think that's a lot to ask and demand from one's body, personally.

In this case (or so I've heard), he's doing it by being more of a two-way presence, which I have higher hopes for when it comes to sustainability. If he continues being a two-way force, and his production increases as well, that wouldn't be inconsistent with my argument.

If his defensive game remained more of a weakness but he ended up lighting it up all year with no visible improvement in tools/skill-set, then yeah, that would poke a hole in my argument and I'd have to reconsider the validity of it.

Saying that you find an argument disagreeable or irrational is one thing, but there's no need for clearly antagonizing remarks. I'm not throwing them at you.

But you kind of did: "it's a far more pressing concern than some other areas I've heard him mention trying to improve (like foot speed, for example)."

Being more of a concern than an area that clearly isn't a concern at all (his footspeed) does not suggest that something is a concern overall. It's a limitation that holds him back from being as good as he can be, but it's not enough to prevent him from being very effective overall.

It looks to me that working on continuing to increase his offensive production is an attainable reward.

I never suggested that it wasn't an attainable reward, just that it's probably less easily attainable than improving his defensive game (something which nothing about his current skillset/hockey IQ/physical tools suggests to me that he might be held back from being able to do at this point in time).

 

[F A N]

No it isn't. That assumes that talent/skill is static, which it isn't. He can possibly improve his skill and thus have more potential than what relying purely on his current skill-set can produce. I'm saying that I think improving your ability to optimally play within your existing limitations is probably a safer bet than increasing your raw skill.

So you're saying a player can improve his general talent level with summer training as long as he identifies it as an area to work on?

The bolded is a fair question-- it is inevitably somewhat subjective what you judge a player's raw skill level to be, and I think that it's fair to agree to disagree on that point. However, framing it as choosing between a #1 C and a shutdown C is a false dichotomy and a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. We're not talking about turning him into a defensive player or turning him into an offensive player based on which one he's closer to. We're talking about how fair it is to expect him to take a big step offensively vs. taking an equal step defensively, each from the same starting point.
It's not the first time Horvat has had near-PPG 10-game stretches through sheer force of will, and it won't be the last (in fact, it would be difficult to be a 60 point player and not have these stretches). In the past, those stretches came in spite of weaker defense. It's debatable whether or not the way he plays during those stretches can be sustainable over a full season. I think that's a lot to ask and demand from one's body, personally.

He has been increasing his offensive production every year. Going into the summer he was the anointed #1 C with the #1 PP time to go along with it. Again, that's the expected role not shutdown C. His main concern is to how he can produce like a #1 C when placed in that role not whether or not he has declared his D game as a weakness as you suggest.

In this case (or so I've heard), he's doing it by being more of a two-way presence, which I have higher hopes for when it comes to sustainability. If he continues being a two-way force, and his production increases as well, that wouldn't be inconsistent with my argument.

Actually no. Remember the comment you found odd? You're now just agreeing with me. Your argument was that he didn't declare his D game as a weakness and worked on it. I said that his defensive game has improved without him making such declarations and placing great focus on improving that aspect of his game because like I said it's not like he's a defensive liability and he's shown improvement. It's not a pressing concern.

If his defensive game remained more of a weakness but he ended up lighting it up all year with no visible improvement in tools/skill-set, then yeah, that would poke a hole in my argument and I'd have to reconsider the validity of it.

If his defensive game remains a weakness and hasn't improved then I would agree with you that he should look to identify that part of his game as a weakness and put some work into improving that aspect of his game. But again, that's not a pressing concern right now. You seem to think otherwise though.

Saying that you find an argument disagreeable or irrational is one thing, but there's no need for clearly antagonizing remarks. I'm not throwing them at you.
Being more of a concern than an area that clearly isn't a concern at all (his footspeed) does not suggest that something is a concern overall. It's a limitation that holds him back from being as good as he can be, but it's not enough to prevent him from being very effective overall.
I never suggested that it wasn't an attainable reward, just that it's probably less easily attainable than improving his defensive game (something which nothing about his current skillset/hockey IQ/physical tools suggests to me that he might be held back from being able to do at this point in time).

I don't see how my remarks are any more antagonizing than you calling a point I made odd. But if you you feel that saying Horvat is proving you wrong or making a joke out of your post to be antagonizing then I apologize. I'm a Canucks fan. There's no offense when a Canucks player proves a poster wrong in his remarks.

 

[Grub]

Well one thing is certain...

We are set with center depth for the future.

Pettersson and Horvat is a good 1-2 punch.

 

[Shareefruck]

So you're saying a player can improve his general talent level with summer training as long as he identifies it as an area to work on?

No. I'm saying that it's within the realm of possibility to increase your skill-set/physical tools/hockey sense through hard work/dedication, but that type of improvement shouldn't be as expected/demanded as more coachable improvements that are already within the capabilities of someone's physical tools/skill-set/hockey sense.

He has been increasing his offensive production every year. Going into the summer he was the anointed #1 C with the #1 PP time to go along with it. Again, that's the expected role not shutdown C. His main concern is to how he can produce like a #1 C when placed in that role not whether or not he has declared his D game as a weakness as you suggest.

I think there's a fundamental disagreement here regarding how black and white a player's role should be. What matters to me is how effective these players are overall relative to how much icetime they're given and how well they're able to fare against high level competition. To me, adding 20 points to Tanev isn't any less useful than adding 20 points to Horvat, and similarly, improving Horvat's defensive game isn't any less useful than improving Tanev's defensive game. There's no part of me that thinks that Tanev should focus on working on his defensive game and Horvat should focus on working on his offensive game simply because of their roles. If anything, given the choice, I would give the 20 point improvement to Tanev and the defensive improvement to Horvat, to become a more well rounded team with fewer weaknesses.

You have a point when it comes to the powerplay, but I don't place nearly as much weight on that as I do their 5-on-5 game.

Actually no. Remember the comment you found odd? You're now just agreeing with me. Your argument was that he didn't declare his D game as a weakness and worked on it. I said that his defensive game has improved without him making such declarations and placing great focus on improving that aspect of his game because like I said it's not like he's a defensive liability and he's shown improvement. It's not a pressing concern.

As I explained earlier, I said that I found the argument odd because his offensive game has naturally improved over time as well, so that difference wouldn't suggest that he should swing his focus more or less in either direction. I didn't say that I found it odd because I denied the possibility for his defensive game to gradually (or even rapidly, potentially) improve on its own. What he identifies and prioritizes as an area of focus simply influences how quickly or likely the success of that process is. I would never suggest that it's a prerequisite to improvement.

If his defensive game remains a weakness and hasn't improved then I would agree with you that he should look to identify that part of his game as a weakness and put some work into improving that aspect of his game. But again, that's not a pressing concern right now. You seem to think otherwise though.

As I mentioned earlier, it's not the case that I think it's a huge pressing concern. Despite gradual modest improvement, it is still his biggest weakness right now. He has made at minimum gradual improvement in every area of his game, though, so when he speaks of improving his game, it would be preferable (and I would argue most plausible and have the greatest snowballing effect) if that's the area he improves, for all the reasons that have been mentioned.

I don't see how my remarks are any more antagonizing than you calling a point I made odd. But if you you feel that saying Horvat is proving you wrong or making a joke out of your post to be antagonizing then I apologize. I'm a Canucks fan. There's no offense when a Canucks player proves a poster wrong in his remarks.

Well, you apologized earlier, but you just did it again anyways.

With disagreements about the validity of opposing arguments, you're always going to step on each other's toes-- it's unavoidable to some degree.

However, do you seriously not see how repeatedly calling someone's view "a proven joke" is needlessly antagonistic and disparaging, especially when they're perfectly willing to argue/defend every point in good faith without resorting to the same thing? I don't see how "strikes me as odd" is the same thing at all. It's merely an expression of confusion and an inability to make sense of something. I didn't declare that "your point is drivel and the proof is in the pudding."

Perhaps if there was bad blood between us, that might be reasonable, but as far as I was concerned, it seemed like a pretty innocuous disagreement about a pretty minor point.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Well one thing is certain...

We are set with center depth for the future.

Pettersson and Horvat is a good 1-2 punch.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Horvat has defensive issues, as does Pettersson in terms of battling low. That doesn’t scream contender level centres to me. Both have work ahead of them.

Gaudette hasn’t really established himself either...

@Shareefruck: A very patient approach, but ultimately futile. You’re wasting your time IMO.

 

[Knight53]

Looking at the Western Conference, for the future, you have McDavid/Draisaitl as the best 1-2 punch down the middle than I would have Pettersson/Horvat second best.

I don't see strong enough centres behind MacKinnon/Scheifele.

McDavid-Draisaitl
Pettersson-Horvat
MacKinnon-Jost*
Scheifele-Roslovic*
Couture-Hertl

 

[F A N]

No. I'm saying that it's within the realm of possibility to increase your skill-set/physical tools/hockey sense through hard work/dedication, but that type of improvement shouldn't be as expected/demanded as more coachable improvements that are already within the capabilities of someone's physical tools/skill-set/hockey sense.

Okay. But don't you think what you're really doing is putting a cap on Horvat's offensive ceiling? You seem to think you're not doing that but what you're saying is "look at Horvat's talent level" and then making comments like "expecting him to improve a lot more offensively is not a reasonable expectation." You also lump in the "Horvat has had stretches like this." - I'm paraphrasing here.

I really don't see how Horvat putting focus on taking over the #1 C role and trying to improve his game so that he can produce offensively in line of the demands of that role is somehow a type of improvement that shouldn't be expected or demanded out of him. Is it because you think it's outside of his capabilities? He's shown progression offensively every year where offensively he's been producing like a 1st line C the past two years. Before he got injured last season he was scoring at a 29+ goal 58+ point pace. While there are certainly worries, I don't see how we shouldn't optimistically expect him to to continue to progress offensively while taking over the #1 C role.

Horvat has had people putting a cap on his ceiling for years. That includes me. In his draft eligible season people were worried that he simply had a good run. He was never projected to be a #1 C but he has been proving doubters wrong with his offensive production.

I think there's a fundamental disagreement here regarding how black and white a player's role should be. What matters to me is how effective these players are overall relative to how much icetime they're given and how well they're able to fare against high level competition. To me, adding 20 points to Tanev isn't any less useful than adding 20 points to Horvat, and similarly, improving Horvat's defensive game isn't any less useful than improving Tanev's defensive game. There's no part of me that thinks that Tanev should focus on working on his defensive game and Horvat should focus on working on his offensive game simply because of their roles. If anything, given the choice, I would give the 20 point improvement to Tanev and the defensive improvement to Horvat, to become a more well rounded team with fewer weaknesses.

Your example is hardly helpful in the discussion though. Tanev is in a different stage of his career. If your post was about Tanev I would have agreed. When healthy and at his best he is an established first pairing Dman. Offensively he seemed to have maxed out as a 5 goal 20 point guy over 82 games and hasn't shown an ability to produce on the PP (I would say his offensive production sucks in comparison to his level of talent and skill). Adding 20 points to Tanev's production makes Tanev a completely different Dman. If Tanev can simply work on his game and add 20 points to his offensive production I would say that's what he should work on, but at this point in his career I'm not sure he can do that (granted there are Dmen who has managed to surprisingly put together offensively productive seasons at Tanev's age and older). Horvat is in a different situation. His offensive and defensive game have shown improvements. He hasn't plateaued. Horvat adding 20 points to his game means he's near 80 points over 82 games.

I am confused as to why you think improving Horvat's defensive game isn't any less useful than improving Tanev's defensive game. I thought your entire post is that Horvat's defensive game is his most glaring weakness and something he should be focused on improving? Tanev is considered (at least by Canucks fans) to be one of the best defensive Dman in the league. Sounds to me there's more value to Horvat improving his defensive game than Tanev becoming better defensively when he Tanev is already among the best.

You have a point when it comes to the powerplay, but I don't place nearly as much weight on that as I do their 5-on-5 game.
As I explained earlier, I said that I found the argument odd because his offensive game has naturally improved over time as well, so that difference wouldn't suggest that he should swing his focus more or less in either direction.

A player does progress naturally but our whole discussion was centered around what Horvat identified as areas he wanted to work on/improve on. In the past he has been focused more on things like foot speed, but every player focuses on getting quicker. I think improving physical attributes like foot speed has a global effect. But I think we can both agree that Horvat's focus thus far has been to be a better offensive player (the merits of which we are disagreeing on here). So I don't think it's fair for you to say that Horvat improved his offensive game naturally when your posts has been critical of him for not placing improving his defensive game as a priority.

As I mentioned earlier, it's not the case that I think it's a huge pressing concern. Despite gradual modest improvement, it is still his biggest weakness right now. He has made at minimum gradual improvement in every area of his game, though, so when he speaks of improving his game, it would be preferable (and I would argue most plausible/beneficial) if that's the area he improves, for all the reasons that have been mentioned.

I think for me, it's not like Horvat is a defensive liability. For whatever reason, the numbers suggest he's poor defensively but watching him play I don't see him as bad defensively in a way where I can identify a specific area that he needs to work on (e.g. he needs to work on his defensive positioning). Maybe he can spend some time with Brent Sutter?

In terms of preference, I prefer that he takes another step forward offensively. It's what the team needs. He isn't like Goldobin where his defensive game is make or break. I guess for me it actually stems from something we agree on: I think Horvat has the talent and skill set to be a much better defensive player so I am not worried about that aspect of his game.

Well, you apologized earlier, but you just did it again anyways.

With disagreements about the validity of opposing arguments, you're always going to step on each other's toes-- it's unavoidable to some degree.

Thanks. And I really appreciate this type of discussion. You seem to actually consider arguments even if you don't change your mind rather than trying to argue fallacy or using a consensus of bloggers argument like a certain poster and moderator here.

However, do you seriously not see how repeatedly calling someone's view "a proven joke" is needlessly antagonistic and disparaging, especially when they're perfectly willing to argue/defend every point in good faith without resorting to the same thing? I don't see how "strikes me as odd" is the same thing at all. It's merely an expression of confusion and an inability to make sense of something. I didn't declare that "your point is drivel and the proof is in the pudding."

Perhaps if there was bad blood between us, that might be reasonable, but as far as I was concerned, it seemed like a pretty innocuous disagreement about a pretty minor point.

Fair point. I think I do remember you "targeting" some of my posts in the past that influenced the tone of my posts towards you but I think this has been a good discussion. So my apologies for any comments that you found to be needlessly antagonistic and disparaging.

 

[Bleach Clean]

People should really take a minute to read the exchange above and note when and how concessions are being made. It reveals a great deal about the motivations and intellect of each party. A good study, IMO.

 

[M2Beezy]

Gaudette looks like another miss of a pick. 13 NHL games (including preseason ) and not a point. Doesn’t really do anything exceptional.

What the hell is this whats wrong with you have you ever thought of thinking before posting???

 

[Shareefruck]

Okay. But don't you think what you're really doing is putting a cap on Horvat's offensive ceiling? You seem to think you're not doing that but what you're saying is "look at Horvat's talent level" and then making comments like "expecting him to improve a lot more offensively is not a reasonable expectation." You also lump in the "Horvat has had stretches like this." - I'm paraphrasing here.
I really don't see how Horvat putting focus on taking over the #1 C role and trying to improve his game so that he can produce offensively in line of the demands of that role is somehow a type of improvement that shouldn't be expected or demanded out of him. Is it because you think it's outside of his capabilities? He's shown progression offensively every year where offensively he's been producing like a 1st line C the past two years. Before he got injured last season he was scoring at a 29+ goal 58+ point pace. While there are certainly worries, I don't see how we shouldn't optimistically expect him to to continue to progress offensively while taking over the #1 C role.
Horvat has had people putting a cap on his ceiling for years. That includes me. In his draft eligible season people were worried that he simply had a good run. He was never projected to be a #1 C but he has been proving doubters wrong with his offensive production.

There's a difference between putting a cap on someone's ceiling (what you think is possible) and having an expectation (what you think is realistic), and basing preferred decisions on the latter doesn't suggest the former, nor do I think it's unreasonable. It's why I'm using terms like "safe bet" rather than "guaranteed".

As impressive as Horvat's career and progression has been, I don't know if I would say that he's shattered what most fans optimistically expected his peak to be just yet. What's surprising is how quickly he's gotten there and how mature he's been from the start. If you told me at the time of the draft that Horvat would end up a 60 point forward on raw skill alone, I'd be ecstatic, but wouldn't think it's entirely outside the bounds of expectation. Even if he did stretch beyond that, I wouldn't throw my hands up in the air and think "Well, he proved my expectations wrong, so I guess the sky's the limit now,"-- There are still limitations to his current skill-set that resist the probability of the sky being the limit, and the further he pushes past that, the more challenging and improbable success will become (even if it's technically possible). I fundamentally disagree that taking additional steps in that direction can be low-hanging fruit. What makes "proving doubters wrong" so impressive is precisely that it isn't.

Also, I'm not sure how "Horvat has had stretches like this." relates to putting a cap on his ceiling.

Your example is hardly helpful in the discussion though. Tanev is in a different stage of his career. If your post was about Tanev I would have agreed. When healthy and at his best he is an established first pairing Dman. Offensively he seemed to have maxed out as a 5 goal 20 point guy over 82 games and hasn't shown an ability to produce on the PP (I would say his offensive production sucks in comparison to his level of talent and skill). Adding 20 points to Tanev's production makes Tanev a completely different Dman. If Tanev can simply work on his game and add 20 points to his offensive production I would say that's what he should work on, but at this point in his career I'm not sure he can do that (granted there are Dmen who has managed to surprisingly put together offensively productive seasons at Tanev's age and older). Horvat is in a different situation. His offensive and defensive game have shown improvements. He hasn't plateaued. Horvat adding 20 points to his game means he's near 80 points over 82 games.

It would be unhelpful if I were using it as an analogy for the entire nuanced argument we're having (which seems to be how you're addressing it), but I think it's perfectly appropriate as an analogy for the specific point I was contending (the influence of a player's role on usefulness, ignoring likelihood).

I agree with most if not all of your breakdown regarding how useful/likely Tanev's improvements would be, but notice how it isn't really influenced by his role is as a pure shutdown defenseman, it's interested in what makes him the best overall player, period. That's basically what I'm saying about Horvat.

"If your post was about Tanev I would have agreed." <-- did you mean to say someone else?

I am confused as to why you think improving Horvat's defensive game isn't any less useful than improving Tanev's defensive game. I thought your entire post is that Horvat's defensive game is his most glaring weakness and something he should be focused on improving? Tanev is considered (at least by Canucks fans) to be one of the best defensive Dman in the league. Sounds to me there's more value to Horvat improving his defensive game than Tanev becoming better defensively when he Tanev is already among the best.

I think you may have misread that double-negative. "Isn't less useful" means the same thing as "Is equally or more useful" (maybe I should have said that instead). So yeah, I'm arguing that it is more useful for Horvat to improve his defensive game than Tanev, even though that area of improvement has more to do with Tanev's role. Similarly, it's more useful to improve Tanev's offensive game than Horvat, even though that area of improvement has more to do with Horvat's role.

A player does progress naturally but our whole discussion was centered around what Horvat identified as areas he wanted to work on/improve on. In the past he has been focused more on things like foot speed, but every player focuses on getting quicker. I think improving physical attributes like foot speed has a global effect. But I think we can both agree that Horvat's focus thus far has been to be a better offensive player (the merits of which we are disagreeing on here). So I don't think it's fair for you to say that Horvat improved his offensive game naturally when your posts has been critical of him for not placing improving his defensive game as a priority.

I think that's a fair point that I'm willing to take back on those grounds (I suspect that Horvat's offensive game would gradually improve regardless, but you're right that there isn't evidence of that because he has identified it as a focus that he's gone out of his way to work on). However, what I was using it to communicate stands.

1) The purpose of that point was not to suggest that I think improvement without focusing on addressing a weakness is unlikely or impossible (I don't think that, and you accused it of being a contradiction in the previous post).

2) The fact that a player is making gradual improvement without focusing on it is not really a sufficient reason not to focus on it. There are merits to speeding that process up (especially when it's their biggest weakness), and players generally make gradual improvements in most areas, to some degree. For example (if we ignore the limbo he's currently in this year), a player like Brendan Gaunce has gradually become more assertive each of the past three years, but it's still clearly his biggest weakest and the area that would be most useful for him to improve.

I think for me, it's not like Horvat is a defensive liability. For whatever reason, the numbers suggest he's poor defensively but watching him play I don't see him as bad defensively in a way where I can identify a specific area that he needs to work on (e.g. he needs to work on his defensive positioning). Maybe he can spend some time with Brent Sutter?
In terms of preference, I prefer that he takes another step forward offensively. It's what the team needs. He isn't like Goldobin where his defensive game is make or break. I guess for me it actually stems from something we agree on: I think Horvat has the talent and skill set to be a much better defensive player so I am not worried about that aspect of his game.

I mean, neither improving his defense nor improving his offense are make or break. We're talking about optimizing someone who's already good.

I disagree with the notion that more offense from Horvat is specifically what the team needs, or that that's even a necessary consideration. It needs players to be as good as they can be in every area, and that goes for 1st liners or 3rd liners. In a few years, when the team is actually capable of competing, who knows what the makeup of the team or its needs will be. I have the same attitude about that as I do about drafting based on need, which I generally find foolish.

I prefer that he takes whatever is the most efficient/optimal route to becoming as strong and complete of a player as he can be, period.

Thanks. And I really appreciate this type of discussion. You seem to actually consider arguments even if you don't change your mind rather than trying to argue fallacy or using a consensus of bloggers argument like a certain poster and moderator here.
Fair point. I think I do remember you "targeting" some of my posts in the past that influenced the tone of my posts towards you but I think this has been a good discussion. So my apologies for any comments that you found to be needlessly antagonistic and disparaging.

And don't get me wrong-- I think there's a time and a place to be ruthlessly dismissive or disparaging. I just felt that there was enough nuance and respectful exchange in the disagreement that it wasn't warranted in this case.

 

[Regal]

Gaudette looks like another miss of a pick. 13 NHL games (including preseason ) and not a point. Doesn’t really do anything exceptional.

Gaudette was a 5th round pick. He's already a hit just being in the NHL

 

[F A N]

People should really take a minute to read the exchange above and note when and how concessions are being made. It reveals a great deal about the motivations and intellect of each party. A good study, IMO.

WTF man. I am having a civil debate with Shareefruck and here you are trolling with this BS post and asking other posters to compare our intellects? Either join the conversation or don't.

 

[F A N]

There's a difference between putting a cap on someone's ceiling (what you think is possible) and having an expectation (what you think is realistic), and basing preferred decisions on the latter doesn't suggest the former, nor do I think it's unreasonable. It's why I'm using terms like "safe bet" rather than "guaranteed".

Are we arguing semantics here though? I think these things are intertwined when it comes to talking about hockey players. You don't talk about a late round pick having first line ceiling or first pairing upside even though it's possible because the assessment at the time is that it wasn't a reasonable expectation.

As impressive as Horvat's career and progression has been, I don't know if I would say that he's shattered what most fans optimistically expected his peak to be just yet. What's surprising is how quickly he's gotten there and how mature he's been from the start. If you told me at the time of the draft that Horvat would end up a 60 point forward on raw skill alone, I'd be ecstatic, but wouldn't think it's entirely outside the bounds of expectation. Even if he did stretch beyond that, I wouldn't throw my hands up in the air and think "Well, he proved my expectations wrong, so I guess the sky's the limit now,"-- There are still limitations to his current skill-set that resist the probability of the sky being the limit, and the further he pushes past that, the more challenging and improbable success will become (even if it's technically possible). I fundamentally disagree that taking additional steps in that direction can be low-hanging fruit. What makes "proving doubters wrong" so impressive is precisely that it isn't.

I agree with your post mostly, but your language is still essentially putting a cap on his ceiling and labeling his success as an improbable success. That's like calling Martin St. Louis' success improbable when in reality he's been a stud that has been overlooked. I think we have to agree to disagree here. Your talk about raw skill really is besides the point. Horvat was drafted before Domi and is better offensively in the NHL not because of raw skill.

Also, I'm not sure how "Horvat has had stretches like this." relates to putting a cap on his ceiling.

It relates to you dismissing Horvat's current offensive output as a sign of offensive progression.

I agree with most if not all of your breakdown regarding how useful/likely Tanev's improvements would be, but notice how it isn't really influenced by his role is as a pure shutdown defenseman, it's interested in what makes him the best overall player, period. That's basically what I'm saying about Horvat.

And my point was that Tanev is in a different stage in his career with a different track record and expectations. Our whole discussion started with us disagreeing what the "pressing concern" is. My point is that Horvat's summer should be focused on taking over the #1C role for the Canucks and to me that means continuing to increase his offensive production while playing against other team's top shutdown line and D pairing. That's not a small feat.

I think roles do matter to a certain extent and I hope that all players are given some sort of direction as to what their expected role is. Tanev shouldn't be spending his summer working on improving his ability to PP the QB if that's not what is expected from him. Likewise, if Green isn't planning on playing Horvat on the PK, he shouldn't be spending valuable time working on improving his PK abilities when there are other aspects to work on. It's different for prospects trying to get to the NHL as they need to figure out how to best get there. At the end of the day, this is a job. Goldobin's path and career in the NHL, for example, is going to be dependent on his ability to produce offensively and not be a defensive liability. Pettersson doesn't need to be elite defensively. The way Horvat is trending, he doesn't need to be elite defensively either.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have Horvat be a dominant 2-way C perennial Selke candidate who puts up good 2nd line numbers. But if he's not going to be that, I rather him put up 1st line numbers in a one two punch with Pettersson.

I think that's a fair point that I'm willing to take back on those grounds (I suspect that Horvat's offensive game would gradually improve regardless, but you're right that there isn't evidence of that because he has identified it as a focus that he's gone out of his way to work on). However, what I was using it to communicate stands.

Be careful there Shareefruck. Poster Ronning on Empty is going to see this as a "concession" as if it takes away from your intellect. But we know better.

The fact that a player is making gradual improvement without focusing on it is not really a sufficient reason not to focus on it. There are merits to speeding that process up (especially when it's their biggest weakness), and players generally make gradual improvements in most areas, to some degree. For example (if we ignore the limbo he's currently in this year), a player like Brendan Gaunce has gradually become more assertive each of the past three years, but it's still clearly his biggest weakest and the area that would be most useful for him to improve.
I mean, neither improving his defense nor improving his offense are make or break. We're talking about optimizing someone who's already good.

I think that besides the overall getting stronger getting faster/quicker type of work, players don't have a lot of time to improve all aspects of their game in the summer. They only have time to focus on some areas over the summer. I also see a difference between a player like Horvat and a player who needs to improve certain aspects of his game in order to stay in the NHL. Again, what I disagree with is that I don't think the most pressing concern for Horvat over the summer was to improve defensively.

I disagree with the notion that more offense from Horvat is specifically what the team needs, or that that's even a necessary consideration. It needs players to be as good as they can be in every area, and that goes for 1st liners or 3rd liners. In a few years, when the team is actually capable of competing, who knows what the makeup of the team or its needs will be. I have the same attitude about that as I do about drafting based on need, which I generally find foolish.

Like you, I think Horvat has all the tools to become better defensively and I am surprised that he isn't better stats wise. But as mentioned, at the NHL level, Horvat has been producing likely a #1 C offensively (albeit in a 2nd line C role) and he's far away from being a Selke candidate. So when you talk about the low hanging fruit, the low hanging fruit is having Horvat establish himself as a #1 C in that role. So to me, there's more value in Horvat cementing himself as a 1st line C offensive contributor than improving his defensive game.

And don't get me wrong-- I think there's a time and a place to be ruthlessly dismissive or disparaging. I just felt that there was enough nuance and respectful exchange in the disagreement that it wasn't warranted in this case.

I actually prefer discussions to always be civil and where only points are debated. It should never be personal. Unfortunately, too many posters here can't like a post from posters they have had disagreements with.

 

[Hyzer]

Does anyone at this point actually read your postings here and think: "Ah. There is an interesting and educated take on the current events of Ice Hockeys."

Honestly, now a days, everyone just goes for the tree's and miss the forest. 13 games without a point for a super young centre playing with not the best linemates and the sky is falling.

Honestly sometimes this place hurts me to read.

On a Horvat note, I'm concerned that hes focusing more on offense than defense. Defensively, he's okay but he seems to be taking more risks in the offensive zone in order to pinch up a little higher than he used too when he entered the league. I mean, he's still decent defensively (evidenced by tracking back, breaking up plays in OT a few games ago) but I don't want him to continue to risk his offensive ability while making riskier plays on the defensive end of his game. Unsure if anyone feels similar.

 

[Shareefruck]

Are we arguing semantics here though? I think these things are intertwined when it comes to talking about hockey players. You don't talk about a late round pick having first line ceiling or first pairing upside even though it's possible because the assessment at the time is that it wasn't a reasonable expectation.

Right, this is my point. Are you treating this as an example of "putting a cap on someone's ceiling"? Because this version of it sounds perfectly reasonable to me rather than something that should be avoided.

If you are not treating this as an example of "putting a cap on someone's ceiling", then clearly this semantic distinction makes an important difference.

I agree with your post mostly, but your language is still essentially putting a cap on his ceiling and labeling his success as an improbable success. That's like calling Martin St. Louis' success improbable when in reality he's been a stud that has been overlooked. I think we have to agree to disagree here. Your talk about raw skill really is besides the point. Horvat was drafted before Domi and is better offensively in the NHL not because of raw skill.

FYI, I'm using raw skill as shorthand for raw skill/physical tools/hockey sense. I assumed I made that clarification enough times in previous posts that this was clear.

If merely having a tentative assessment of probability of success is what you consider "putting a cap on someone's ceiling", then sure, I guess I would defend that. I certainly wouldn't advocate throwing my hands up in the air and treating every outcome as equally probable simply because any outcome is technically possible and a player is capable of pushing past their initial limitations

Martin St. Louis' success was an improbable success until the moment you saw that his size did not hinder him. With that knowledge in mind, knowing of the rest of his skillset/tools/iq, there was no reason to continue to think that where he ended up was unrealistic. As is the case with a player like Pettersson or Quinn Hughes. It's a question-mark until it isn't.

Even with his current high level of play, I don't really see that revelation with Horvat, though. I still see similar limitations to his current game that I don't know are trivial to correct. He can possibly charge past it, but I see it as a case of climbing a steeper uphill battle the more he extends past 60 points.

It relates to you dismissing Horvat's current offensive output as a sign of offensive progression.

I don't understand how noting that an impressive stretch is consistent with what he's been capable of in the past is an example of putting a cap on a player's ceiling.

And my point was that Tanev is in a different stage in his career with a different track record and expectations. Our whole discussion started with us disagreeing what the "pressing concern" is. My point is that Horvat's summer should be focused on taking over the #1C role for the Canucks and to me that means continuing to increase his offensive production while playing against other team's top shutdown line and D pairing. That's not a small feat.

I think roles do matter to a certain extent and I hope that all players are given some sort of direction as to what their expected role is. Tanev shouldn't be spending his summer working on improving his ability to PP the QB if that's not what is expected from him. Likewise, if Green isn't planning on playing Horvat on the PK, he shouldn't be spending valuable time working on improving his PK abilities when there are other aspects to work on. It's different for prospects trying to get to the NHL as they need to figure out how to best get there. At the end of the day, this is a job. Goldobin's path and career in the NHL, for example, is going to be dependent on his ability to produce offensively and not be a defensive liability. Pettersson doesn't need to be elite defensively. The way Horvat is trending, he doesn't need to be elite defensively either.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have Horvat be a dominant 2-way C perennial Selke candidate who puts up good 2nd line numbers. But if he's not going to be that, I rather him put up 1st line numbers in a one two punch with Pettersson.

As acknowledged, I agree regarding special teams and think it's a poor use of time for any player to focus on these situations, because it's so specific, doubly so if they aren't deployed that way.

However, I do not agree with you about the role of a player being that great of an influence on the usefulness of defense or offense-- both of those are huge influences regardless of your role. That specifically was the point of the Tanev analogy, and I don't see how inconsistencies regarding veteran status, likelihood, or track record have any relevance to that isolated logic. As mentioned, my analogy did not have anything to do with what "our whole discussion" was about, only one specific factor. I certainly would not agree that Tanev shouldn't spend a summer working on improving his offensive game simply because he's a shutdown defensemen (there are other irrelevant factors that may influence this in reality, but my point is that role wouldn't be one of them). If it helps to replace Tanev with a younger version of Tanev (with the assumption that improvement of offense is equally attainable as defense, which it isn't in reality), that's fine.

More importantly, though, I think we need to stop speaking in black and white, as if only point of improving defensively is the end goal of becoming a dominant 2-way Selke candidate. It's as irrelevant as the effect that Tanev's likelihood of ever becoming a high end offensive defenseman has on the usefulness of him improving his offensive game. The greys between those blacks and whites are extremely valuable on their own and are really what matters, IMO.

Essentially, I don't see how a Horvat that "is below average defensively but solidifies himself as a #1 center" is any better than a "Horvat that is average-to-above-average defensively and is almost a #1 center". I would take the latter, and the possibility of him becoming a Selke shutdown whatever isn't remotely a part of that consideration. Neither is whether or not he can hit the arbitrary milestone of #1 C.

Be careful there Shareefruck. Poster Ronning on Empty is going to see this as a "concession" as if it takes away from your intellect. But we know better.

Reading that post, I did not get the impression that "making concessions" was being treated as strictly a negative.

Like you, I think Horvat has all the tools to become better defensively and I am surprised that he isn't better stats wise. But as mentioned, at the NHL level, Horvat has been producing likely a #1 C offensively (albeit in a 2nd line C role) and he's far away from being a Selke candidate. So when you talk about the low hanging fruit, the low hanging fruit is having Horvat establish himself as a #1 C in that role. So to me, there's more value in Horvat cementing himself as a 1st line C offensive contributor than improving his defensive game.

Refer to my sentiments above on black-and-white goals. I do not see how his proximity to these extremes is relevant to the usefulness of equal improvements in those respective areas.

If you agreed with my earlier point that "What makes "proving doubters wrong" so impressive is precisely that <improving his offense is more challenging/improbable>", and you agree that he already has all the tools to become better defensively, then I don't see why you wouldn't agree that the latter is low hanging fruit and the former is reaching for a higher branch (one high enough that people would doubt he can reach it in the first place). I can fathom potential arguments that he SHOULD reach for the higher branch, but that doesn't seem to be the point you're arguing.

And just to put this out there, if your argument was instead just that he has greater motivation to reach for that higher branch, so we should respect that, even if it may not be as optimal (he'll need to work harder in comparison in order to successfully do it), and that we should not underestimate "interest/desire" as a factor, that would make a lot more sense to me and would be a position I would have an easier time getting behind. I don't know if I would agree with it, but it's worth considering.

I actually prefer discussions to always be civil and where only points are debated. It should never be personal. Unfortunately, too many posters here can't like a post from posters they have had disagreements with.

It's a good ideal to strive for, but I think there are exceptions when it comes to who you're dealing with, their willingness to engage reason, and how they actively present their motivations.

Extreme example, if I come out and tell you I'm just saying things in order to make you mad, there's really no need to be civil in response to that.