Player Discussion Filip Chytil: Part II (Chytil to miss rest of 2023-24 Season)

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
Kreider, while a very good player, never quite seemed to reach his offensive potential. Could in part be due to unrealistic expectations. But still think his potential ceiling was higher than his actual output.

Ideally, I’d consider him more a 2nd line talent, but one that could play 1st line also depending on partners. Top 6 forward for sure though.

In that regard, I think Chytil has the potential to be a much greater offensive force than Kreider. Don’t think he’s quite at Kreider level yet though. But his potential I’d think ranges from 60 point player to PPG player, or anywhere in between. Time will tell.

In regards to the Rangers needs. I wouldn’t complain if they took a high ceiling Center in the next draft, but I definitely don’t think it’s a priority. Now that Strome has revived his career (knock on ice that it lasts), they realistically have 4 nhl centerman at different stages in their careers, with Lias being a possible 5th. Zibanijad, Chytil, Strome and Howden being the 4 that could be arranged in a few different orders. And then Strome and Chytil can play on the wing even if need be, allthough id atleast rather see Chytil stick at C. Strome might be more flexible. Howden seems to me to be an ideal 3c or 4c depending how he progresses. Lias maybe ends up similarly.

But yea, I don’t really want them taking a Center with their 1st Pick is unless it’s a high high ceiling C. Someone who could be special or at least unique relative to what we have. Would much rather see them taking a power forward (wing) if possible I think. Mostly because we don’t know where Lemieux and Kreider will be in a few years, and they are probably our only real PFs. But also because we have Panarin, Kakko, Kravtsov, Buchnevic and then Chytil and Strome. Also Lemieux I guess now. All who are more scoring players than power forwards. Except Lemieux I guess. Although Kakko and Chytil probably have some upside in the power department.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Buch, but he’s surprised me this year with his play. I’m still not sold on him long term. He’s likely ending up a top 6 forward, but I think we could do better, more well rounded. Buch seems more an offensive specialist to me. Or at least I think he might be a bit too soft at times. Surprised he has as many hits as he does already.

And we seem pretty set in D and GK, so I don’t think I’d want them to draft either unless it’s a super high ceiling and unique D, like Quinn Hughes or Dahlin lol. We seem to have very good depth at D both in prospect and nhl ready form. Don’t see a lot of room for additions there. I’d think unlikely either way.

Since we really do have real depth at all positions though, I’d expect them to take the best player available regardless of position. At least I think that makes most sense. Any way it goes, we probably would have to trade or not re-sign a player or two to make room at any position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Musto

Mac n Gs

Gorton plz
Jan 17, 2014
22,588
12,852
My concern with Chytil is that I feel like there's desire to really push him to the moon when he's on a hot streak. It's one of the reasons I'm hesitant to do too much projecting with him as to how the rest of the season plays out.

Even now, he came up scoring, but has leveled off considerably --- 3 points in his last 9 games.

I agree that it's pretty easy to overestimate what some of our young players will become, but I think if all things break well for him, he can become a 60 point 2C. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect that either based on his current trajectory. Maybe there will be a season or two at 70 points, but I generally think he'll be more of a 20-40/25-35 type of player for us.

You are right. That is not my intent. I just want to pump the breaks a bit before we declare a 20 year old a bona fined 2C in the NHL. Or at least, I am not yet ready to declare that, as I cannot speak for others.

I am not disagreeing with what bodes well for him as far as a ZBad-like trajectory. But he is not there yet. Or so I believe.

I agree, but it is at least encouraging to see that he's pacing slightly ahead of Zibanejad at the same point in their NHL careers. He still needs to grow into his frame, and I don't think we'll see him hit his peak until he's in that same D+5/6 as Zibanejad was before breaking out.
 

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
I agree that it's pretty easy to overestimate what some of our young players will become, but I think if all things break well for him, he can become a 60 point 2C. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect that either based on his current trajectory. Maybe there will be a season or two at 70 points, but I generally think he'll be more of a 20-40/25-35 type of player for us.



I agree, but it is at least encouraging to see that he's pacing slightly ahead of Zibanejad at the same point in their NHL careers. He still needs to grow into his frame, and I don't think we'll see him hit his peak until he's in that same D+5/6 as Zibanejad was before breaking out.

There’s a difference between “could become” and “will become”. I do think most posters are intending the “could” and not the “will”. The biggest difference is one is completely plausible to theorize and the other is impossible to determine until it happens.

I totally get lowering “expectations” a bit, but he obviously has the potential to be greater or lesser than predictions. At his current pace and trajectory I think there is just as much chance he equals or surpasses Zibanijad as there is ending up a 60 point 2C. There’s no real value in trying to figure out which will turn out as it’s an impossible task. I think most agree relatively on the range for his possible outcome. And I’m sure most are hoping for the high end. It’s too early to relegate him to being a 2C as it is too early to declare he will be a PPG player.

But I don’t think it’s too early to suggest 60 point player is probably on the low side of what he can achieve. So, I definitely do expect more from him based on his current rate of progress and how he looks this season compared to last. 60 point player would honestly be a bit disappointing. I’d take it, but I’d hope for more.
 

aufheben

#Norris4Fox
Jan 31, 2013
53,587
27,265
New Jersey
I wouldn't say Chytil is quite as good as Zibanejad from age 18-20, but it's in the ballpark. The similarities are there, (although Chytil is shooting at 20% this season).

Mika Zibanejad Stats for Years 2012 to 2014
GPGAPTS+/-PIMEVPPSHGWEVPPSHSS%TSATOIATOIFOWFOLFO%HITBLKTKGV
120233154-9261760024702559.0447167513:5736442646.1215524726
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
-
Filip Chytil Stats for Years 2018 to 2020

GPGAPTS+/-PIMEVPPSHGWEVPPSHSS%TSATOIATOIFOWFOLFO%HITBLKTKGV
101201636-211617304124019410.3329143714:1415624638.8363336 55
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
-
Here are their age-20 RAPMs. Again—sample size—but some bumps in similar areas.
upload_2019-12-4_17-1-4.png
upload_2019-12-4_17-1-12.png
 
Last edited:

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
But I don’t think it’s too early to suggest 60 point player is probably on the low side of what he can achieve. So, I definitely do expect more from him based on his current rate of progress and how he looks this season compared to last. 60 point player would honestly be a bit disappointing. I’d take it, but I’d hope for more.
See, and there is where I have the issue. Not so much in your analysis or point of view, but rather what numbers like that mean. At 60 points, you are talking about a top line player. Debate where on the scope of those that is, but that IS a top line player. As such, the pick is a home run. And being disappointed in the fact that you have developed a top line center, seems a bit......off to me. Just my take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greg02

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
See, and there is where I have the issue. Not so much in your analysis or point of view, but rather what numbers like that mean. At 60 points, you are talking about a top line player. Debate where on the scope of those that is, but that IS a top line player. As such, the pick is a home run. And being disappointed in the fact that you have developed a top line center, seems a bit......off to me. Just my take.

I think we have different ideas on “top line” player in today’s nhl. So I’ll use a different word. He has the potential to be a star at this point, not just a top line player. The potential is there. Right now, I think it’s fairly irrelevant where he was drafted. From the potential he’s shown, from where we are at this season at his age.

Like Dylan Strome for instance. Was drafted in the top 3 with huge expectations. Then as he developed, the expectations lowered. Now that he looks like a 60-65 point player, fans are probably greatful. But compared to draft expectations, maybe disappointed.

And yes, I think Chytil has the potential to be better than Dylan Strome. It’d be fine if he turned out to be his equal even. But he can be more. I mean, when you buy a lotto ticket and expect to lose, as people should when buying lotto tickets, don’t you still get a bit disappointed when you don’t win? Even though it was fully expected. Even if say you won 100,000$ in a lottery which prizes run into the millions, wouldn’t you still be a bit disappointed? $100,000 would be amazing, but you won somthing you’ll prob never win again in your life, something you were that close to so much more than $100,000. I think it’s possible to be both greatful and disappointed at the same time, for the same thing.

One other thing. 10 to 15years ago, 60 point players were definitely top line. I think that has changed the past 10 years or so. We now see players in that echelon scoring 70 - 75 points instead. It’s a difference of 10 points, but I think the NHL has changed in that direction. 60 - 65 points isn’t worth what it was then. Player inflation I guess.
 
Last edited:

Luger

Registered User
Aug 21, 2016
309
241
Clearwater, FL
But yea, I don’t really want them taking a Center with their 1st Pick is unless it’s a high high ceiling C. Someone who could be special or at least unique relative to what we have. Would much rather see them taking a power forward (wing) if possible I think.

If there's a clear BPA or a kid with the highest ceiling, take him. If there's multiple similar prospects, LW is the way to go. Zibanejad, Chytil, Strome, Howdie and maybe Lias is very good at C. There's no point in cheating (by taking a lesser player) just to get another C. Kakko, Buchnevich, Kravtsov will be good RWs, also maybe Pajuniemi or Lettieri. I think RW is set.

But LW only has Panarin at #1 and Lemieux at #3. Then a maybe for Lias and Barron. The #2 seems wide open right now.

RHD is great plus Nils and Keane. LHD will depends on Miller.

All things being equal, if no draftee clearly stands out, a high scoring LW or LHD seem to be the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brakeyawself

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
I think we have different ideas on “top line” player in today’s nhl. So I’ll use a different word. He has the potential to be a star at this point, not just a top line player. The potential is there. Right now, I think it’s fairly irrelevant where he was drafted. From the potential he’s shown, from where we are at this season at his age.
That is my point. Top line or star, if that is what he will become, the pick was a home run.
One other thing. 10 to 15years ago, 60 point players were definitely top line. I think that has changed the past 10 years or so. We now see players in that echelon scoring 70 - 75 points instead. It’s a difference of 10 points, but I think the NHL has changed in that direction. 60 - 65 points isn’t worth what it was then. Player inflation I guess.
In today's day and age, being a consistent 50 point player gets you top line billing.
 

Kovalev27

BEST IN THE WORLD
Jun 22, 2004
21,419
25,622
NYC
I think Chytil becomes a puck possession two way 55- 65pt horse of a center. I don’t think he’s a great finisher that will hold him back from being a 70 plus pt top line center but I think he’ll get his 20 plus goals and I think the assists start coming with more opportunity and ice time. But I actually think his defensive game is going to surprise people. He’s going to get better and better defensively with the wheels to do it like Mika does now.
 

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
I think Chytil becomes a puck possession two way 55- 65pt horse of a center. I don’t think he’s a great finisher that will hold him back from being a 70 plus pt top line center but I think he’ll get his 20 plus goals and I think the assists start coming with more opportunity and ice time. But I actually think his defensive game is going to surprise people. He’s going to get better and better defensively with the wheels to do it like Mika does now.
Agreed – though I think his finishing can improve, if he puts the work in. Especially the shot.

He needs to put the time in shooting, shooting, and shooting some more. Maybe Panarin can take him under his wing in that regard.
 

Kovalev27

BEST IN THE WORLD
Jun 22, 2004
21,419
25,622
NYC
That’ll definitely help but more than his shot. It’s more around the net I don’t think he’s as slick. Breakaways stuff like that. Just doesn’t seem like a great finisher. He’s actually blown some pucks clean by goalies which says his shot is more underrated than maybe given credit for. But around the net I wish he was a bit more polished. Could be the difference between being a 20 25 goal guy vs a 30 goal guy
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare

Brooklyn Rangers Fan

Change is good.
Aug 23, 2005
19,237
8,238
Brooklyn & Upstate
That’ll definitely help but more than his shot. It’s more around the net I don’t think he’s as slick. Breakaways stuff like that. Just doesn’t seem like a great finisher. He’s actually blown some pucks clean by goalies which says his shot is more underrated than maybe given credit for. But around the net I wish he was a bit more polished. Could be the difference between being a 20 25 goal guy vs a 30 goal guy
Part of the fun (for me anyway) of watching this rebuild is watching guys like Buch and Chytil put it together. I'm not projecting superstardom for him or anything, but I'm not putting any limits on him yet either.
 

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
That is my point. Top line or star, if that is what he will become, the pick was a home run.

In today's day and age, being a consistent 50 point player gets you top line billing.

Really? Which teams have players that top out at 50 points, even 55 points, that are consistently on their 1st line? Don’t get me wrong, there’s a few. They’re not quite unicorns but certainly in the minority. In today’s nhl, being a 50 point player gets you 2nd or in some cases even 3rd line.

The majority of 1st line players are 60 points and above. And 60 still is no guaranteed 1st line. Accounting for injury/games played of course. Not counting guys who score 51 points but only play 60 games.

The Devils? Arizona? I think you are confusing 2019 with 1999. And I don’t mean players that are occasionally on their teams top line. Sure, that happens. But players who are on the top line year after year? When their team is fully healthy?

Kreider maybe? Um, Palmieri? Maybe one on the Islanders. Minny probably the main team I can think of with that PROBLEM, and they’ve been one of the worst offensive teams for years now. They’de kill to get some top line talent. Montreal? They’ve been searching for top line players, most specifically a center for quite some time. No team with more than one 50 point top lineplayer is happy about it. And the teams with one 50 point player on their first line are probably seeking an eventual replacement.

There are very few 50 point players, all of whom offer a significant contribution in other areas, that deserve to remain on their teams top line. They certainly aren’t on that line for their point production.

If you max out in the 50s in today’s nhl, chances are you’re only holding that spot until your team can find an upgrade, or you provide a special duty, like protecting the teams franchise player. Even then, less than like 30% of nhl teams have one of those as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
Really? Which teams have players that top out at 50 points, even 55 points, that are consistently on their 1st line? Don’t get me wrong, there’s a few. They’re not quite unicorns but certainly in the minority. In today’s nhl, being a 50 point player gets you 2nd or in some cases even 3rd line.
Look at the top scoring. When you start to get to the lower third of the top 90 or so forwards, you will see point totals that are below even your 55 point threshold. Break down even further and take centers out of the equation and you will see Kreider's name in the range. Or are there not 66 top line wings in the entire NHL?
The majority of 1st line players are 60 points and above. And 60 still is no guaranteed 1st line. Accounting for injury/games played of course. Not counting guys who score 51 points but only play 60 games.
This only works if your premise is that not every single team has a top line.
The Devils? Arizona? I think you are confusing 2019 with 1999. And I don’t mean players that are occasionally on their teams top line. Sure, that happens. But players who are on the top line year after year? When their team is fully healthy?
Again, simply look at top 93 scoring forwards from last year. Unless you will be subjective and start to claim that Team A does not really have a top line and instead has 2 2nd lines, the argument fails on pure numbers.
Kreider maybe?
Look at where his point totals are. We can debate where he is on the overall arch of top line players, but a top line player he is. And that is based on production alone. Once you get beyond production, the entire argument becomes subjective.
There are very few 50 point players, all of whom offer a significant contribution in other areas, that deserve to remain on their teams top line. They certainly aren’t on that line for their point production.
About a quarter of the NHL ices a top line that has players on it with 55 and fewer points. When you further stratify the number into wings, Krieder's name is solidly in the range. We can debate where he is on that spectrum, but he is there.
 

TheDirtyH

Registered User
Jul 5, 2013
6,298
6,822
Chicago
Chytil got a mention in The Athletic's 16 Stats column:

I wasn’t sold on Filip Chytil filling the Rangers’ gaping hole at second-line center going into the season, but even I was surprised to see him sent down to the minors before the season started. He was called up on Oct. 29 and hasn’t looked back since, scoring eight goals and 10 points in 17 games, but more importantly controlling play on a team that struggles to do so. With Chytil on the ice, the Rangers have controlled 56 percent of the expected goals share, nearly six percentage points higher than the team’s next best player. Relative to his teammates, the Rangers earn a 1.25 expected goal differential per 60 with him on the ice compared to on the bench, a mark that ranks first in the entire league.
 

Kovalev27

BEST IN THE WORLD
Jun 22, 2004
21,419
25,622
NYC
Chytil got a mention in The Athletic's 16 Stats column:

goes back to what I’ve been saying. Play your best two centers the most mins. Again Strome is a solid player but matched against top centers he along with his line gets buried until Panarin creates some magic and produces a point or two per game for him.

you have to play Mika and Chytil big mins. That will help turn things around. And they do need to be turned around. We aren’t going to keep winning by the skin of our teeth.
 

TheDirtyH

Registered User
Jul 5, 2013
6,298
6,822
Chicago
goes back to what I’ve been saying. Play your best two centers the most mins. Again Strome is a solid player but matched against top centers he along with his line gets buried until Panarin creates some magic and produces a point or two per game for him.

you have to play Mika and Chytil big mins. That will help turn things around. And they do need to be turned around. We aren’t going to keep winning by the skin of our teeth.

I agree to an extent. I like the idea of rolling 3 'top 6 lines' instead of a clear 1-2-3-4. And I am also one who tends to view exceptional results (as far as their statistics measure) as a good reason to keep a player in the position and role that they're excelling within, especially if that player is 20 and the results are coming in such a small chunk of the season.

Strome has been good with Panarin. He hasn't 'hurt' us as 2C by any means. So, I'm of the camp that would say, let Chytil play in the role that's working right now. Keep feeding him the minutes he's improving within. Let him continue to grow and stabalize and hope that he can continue to dominate where he is, and by the deadline, when Strome might be gone -- but certainly all kinds of roster spots will be up in the air -- consider giving him a bigger slice of the pie.

just my opinion tho
 
  • Like
Reactions: brakeyawself

Kovalev27

BEST IN THE WORLD
Jun 22, 2004
21,419
25,622
NYC
Whatever line Panarin is on is the first line. They’re not getting matched like a second line they aren’t playing second line mins. they’re the line getting the match up and they are in fact hurting us outside of cashing in on their chances when they get them. Look at the metrics from last night as a perfect example. Buried badly. This line the worst by far. Strome cannot play against the top lines in the NHL. Mika can and should be doing so. Mika won’t get those matchups unless he’s playing with Panarin 23 mins a night like Strome is now.

Chytil is the best center we have when it comes to driving offense. He’s playing almost 10 mins less than Strome. How does that help us create offense? It doesn’t. It puts us on our heels every game. There’s a reason we get our doors blown off almost nightly when it comes to shots and chances against vs for. And it’s not because Strome and and Panarin have been this great duo. Panarin is great that’s why he’s kept us a float. He should be the MVP. But he’s played with Strome and Fast bottom 6ers almost every night against the leagues best and it’s a bad mix. With Mika back it’s unacceptable frankly. And if you want to separate Mika and Panarin while I don’t agree with it then put him with Chytil. The little time they’ve been together they generated tons of offense together as everyone does with Panarin and frankly everyone has done with Chytil.
 

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
Look at the top scoring. When you start to get to the lower third of the top 90 or so forwards, you will see point totals that are below even your 55 point threshold. Break down even further and take centers out of the equation and you will see Kreider's name in the range. Or are there not 66 top line wings in the entire NHL?

This only works if your premise is that not every single team has a top line.

Again, simply look at top 93 scoring forwards from last year. Unless you will be subjective and start to claim that Team A does not really have a top line and instead has 2 2nd lines, the argument fails on pure numbers.

Look at where his point totals are. We can debate where he is on the overall arch of top line players, but a top line player he is. And that is based on production alone. Once you get beyond production, the entire argument becomes subjective.

About a quarter of the NHL ices a top line that has players on it with 55 and fewer points. When you further stratify the number into wings, Krieder's name is solidly in the range. We can debate where he is on that spectrum, but he is there.

Hardly. You’re overcomplicating it, not accounting for games played and being very lose with what a “top” line is. And you are removing all context. The numbers by themselves don’t prove anything for various reasons which you obviously aren’t accounting for. Yea, if you blindly look at point totals as you’re doing. Not to mention, if you account for games played, injury replacement and developing prospects, the % of 50 point top liners diminishes significantly. You can’t just look at point totals without accounting for all that. A lot of terrible players have played on their teams top lines for many reasons. That doesn’t make them “top line players”. And if you want to get technical and suggest it does, then I refer back to calling them “stars” instead.

Yes, the lower 3rd. As I said, less than about 30% of the league. And those players, for the most part are there because there team either has no better option, their top player(s) was injured or they are still developing as prospects. Not to mention, many of those players you mentioned either had a down year (Keller for example) or played less than 82 games by some significant amount. The majority of those 50 point players who are on the top line, who don’t fall under one of the above mentioned categories, are NOT on that line because of their goals and assists. Without offering somthing else, it’s more than like.y those players are 2nd line. You can go through every teams top line and see this, last year, the year prior and so on.

In today’s nhl, you really should be a 60 point player or above to be a regular top line player, or be a young player who’s still developing in which case you’ll see year to year numbers fluctuate and probably escalate as they mature or you have to offer some other skill. Otherwise, it’s almost certain those players are temporary fillers on those top lines or Players those teams are looking to replace and move down a line.

It’s exactly as I said, 50 point top line players are the minority in today’s nhl. I was actually a lot closer to the percentage than I’d thought I’d be on a guess. You’re strawmanning the argument to fit your narrative now. 50 point players are generally 2nd line or less. The majority of those in that range.

Again, if a player ceiling is in the 50s and they are regularly on their teams top line it’s nearly always because of one of the following reasons: They are replacing a better injured player, they offer some other significant contribution outside of scoring, the team has no better player to fill the role or they are a prospect that the team is trying to develop. A player who’s ceiling is in the 50s and offers little else does not usually get to play on the top line. And that is the entire premise of your statement; that the player is on the top line BECAUSE of their scoring, BECAUSE they score in the 50s. And that is certainly not true or common.
 
Last edited:

True Blue

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
30,092
8,362
Visit site
Hardly. You’re overcomplicating it, not accounting for games played and being very lose with what a “top” line is. And you are removing all context. The numbers by themselves don’t prove anything for various reasons which you obviously aren’t accounting for. Yea, if you blindly look at point totals as you’re doing. Not to mention, if you account for games played, injury replacement and developing prospects, the % of 50 point top liners diminishes significantly. You can’t just look at point totals without accounting for all that. A lot of terrible players have played on their teams top lines for many reasons. That doesn’t make them “top line players”. And if you want to get technical and suggest it does, then I refer back to calling them “stars” instead.I
Once you start to look at things other than numbers, all you are doing is coming to conclusions based upon your own subjective beliefs. If you want to use the term "star", then sure I agree with you. Star forwards typically score more than 55 points.
Yes, the lower 3rd. As I said, less than about 30% of the league. And those players, for the most part are there because there team either has no better option, their top player(s) was injured or they are still developing as prospects. Not to mention, many of those players you mentioned either had a down year (Keller for example) or played less than 82 games by some significant amount. The majority of those 50 point players who are on the top line, who don’t fall under one of the above mentioned categories, are NOT on that line because of their goals and assists. Without offering somthing else, it’s more than like.y those players are 2nd line. You can go through every teams top line and see this, last year, the year prior and so on
That does not change the fact that they are top line players. If they are on the lower third rung, that does not change the fact that they are top liners. Again, they may not be the star players you are mentioning, but they are still top line players.
In today’s nhl, you really should be a 60 point player or above to be a regular top line player, or be a young player who’s still developing in which case you’ll see year to year numbers fluctuate and probably escalate as they mature or you have to offer some other skill. Otherwise, it’s almost certain those players are temporary fillers on those top lines or Players those teams are looking to replace and move down a line.
What should be and what is are two different things. Again, the fact of the matter is that in today's NHL 55 point players are considered top line. You may not consider them as such, and that is your prerogative. Some teams are lucky enough to have such players play on the second line because they have the star type players playing on the first line. That does not change the fact that this is not something that all teams are privileged to have.
t’s exactly as I said, 50 point top line players are the minority in today’s nhl. I was actually a lot closer to the percentage than I’d thought I’d be on a guess. You’re strawmanning the argument to fit your narrative now. 50 point players are generally 2nd line or less. The majority of those in that range.
A straw man argument is debating points under the guise of debating other points. That is not the case. Your statement was that these type of players are not top liners. I countered it by going to the numbers. Whether or not it is only a third of them, is an entirely different debate. That is what a straw man looks like. We are not debating the numbers of players that fit the criteria. We are debating what kind of players fit the criteria.
 

McRanger

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 20, 2005
4,890
2,252
Hardly. You’re overcomplicating it, not accounting for games played and being very lose with what a “top” line is. And you are removing all context. The numbers by themselves don’t prove anything for various reasons which you obviously aren’t accounting for. Yea, if you blindly look at point totals as you’re doing. Not to mention, if you account for games played, injury replacement and developing prospects, the % of 50 point top liners diminishes significantly. You can’t just look at point totals without accounting for all that. A lot of terrible players have played on their teams top lines for many reasons. That doesn’t make them “top line players”. And if you want to get technical and suggest it does, then I refer back to calling them “stars” instead.

Yes, the lower 3rd. As I said, less than about 30% of the league. And those players, for the most part are there because there team either has no better option, their top player(s) was injured or they are still developing as prospects. Not to mention, many of those players you mentioned either had a down year (Keller for example) or played less than 82 games by some significant amount. The majority of those 50 point players who are on the top line, who don’t fall under one of the above mentioned categories, are NOT on that line because of their goals and assists. Without offering somthing else, it’s more than like.y those players are 2nd line. You can go through every teams top line and see this, last year, the year prior and so on.

In today’s nhl, you really should be a 60 point player or above to be a regular top line player, or be a young player who’s still developing in which case you’ll see year to year numbers fluctuate and probably escalate as they mature or you have to offer some other skill. Otherwise, it’s almost certain those players are temporary fillers on those top lines or Players those teams are looking to replace and move down a line.

It’s exactly as I said, 50 point top line players are the minority in today’s nhl. I was actually a lot closer to the percentage than I’d thought I’d be on a guess. You’re strawmanning the argument to fit your narrative now. 50 point players are generally 2nd line or less. The majority of those in that range.

Again, if a player ceiling is in the 50s and they are regularly on their teams top line it’s nearly always because of one of the following reasons: They are replacing a better injured player, they offer some other significant contribution outside of scoring, the team has no better player to fill the role or they are a prospect that the team is trying to develop. A player who’s ceiling is in the 50s and offers little else does not usually get to play on the top line. And that is the entire premise of your statement; that the player is on the top line BECAUSE of their scoring, BECAUSE they score in the 50s. And that is certainly not true or common.

68 players scored 60 or more points last year.

68 players scored 60 or more points the year before.

39 players scored 60 or more points the year before that.

40 players scored 60 or more points the year before that.

50 players scored 60 or more points the year before that.

Over the last 5 years, 1/3 or more of the top line players do not meet your criteria for being a top line player.

Which probably means the criteria needs to be reevaluated.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad