Discussion in 'New York Rangers' started by Brooklyn Rangers Fan, Jul 22, 2019.
As with the Fox thread I just started,
here’s a player discussion thread for Trouba.
Just replying to something someone mentioned at the end of the last thread about long term deals always being bad in the end...I don't think that's really the case and don't think it applies to Trouba in particular, given his age.
Long term deals can be tough when you're signing a guy in his late 20's or early 30's. Panarin's deal might be rough at the end of it. Trouba however is 25 years old and his contract will end when he's 32. These are literally his prime years and then the contract ends before he will likely fall off too much. He's really the perfect kind of situation to give a guy a long term contract like this one.
The question is more about whether he's worth the cost NOW or in the next few years. Is he really good enough for that much money? Can he get a bit better? Hopefully yes. Some people love this guy, some people are more wary.
I like him but I want to see him step up and become that leader on defense now that he's not stuck behind Byfuglien
That's the chance that Gorton is taking. He has made Trouba the focal point of the defense. $8m is in the neighborhood of what a top end, defensive linchpin would be paid. The injury history worries me and the big question you bring up. Can he become that leader of a defense? Settle the rest into their roles? We shall see. The deal was worth the assets given up. He will need to live up to his new status.
Does Trouba have a history of serious injuries? Or have they mostly been random ones? Concussions?
Random. (Plus people tend to forget about the holdout and assume that was injury time as well.)
If you take out the holdout, he still spent half of his career missing significant times. At some point, random injuries or not, one needs to examine the ability to stay on the ice. There are reasons why some players are just injury prone, despite having injuries that one would summarize as random.
As a Jets fan his injuries weren’t really a concern to me. I didn’t consider him fragile as much as he played a pretty hard game and picked up some injuries because of that style. Nothing that I would consider recurring or chronic to this point.
That first head/neck injury was scary as hell but after that most of the time he missed within reason IMO.
I'm looking into some fancy new analytics.
This guy kinda sucks defensively but his team shoots like a machine gun when he's on the ice so I don't really care.
I like to have an offensive side and a defensive side because it makes your pairs extremely flexible 5v5. We should be hoping for/tagerting defensive-minded LHD.
I’m looking at your posting analytics and I think we might have to buy your ass out if you keep relying on advanced statistics when trying to evaluate a player.
Trouba does not suck defensively.
His goals against impacts over a three year sample are bad. They're not terrible, but they're bad.
GGI doesn’t mean much to me. Matter of fact, most advanced stats don’t in hockey.
Interesting data to look and evaluate but it’s not what determines a good or bad hockey player.
What determines a good player if it's not shots and goals?
Watching them actually play hockey instead of looking only at analytics, which is what you clearly do.
If you did a little bit of both I’d be less critical.
Tell me, what is it about his game specifically that makes him bad defensively..?
He's extremely aggressive and gets caught out of position trying to make plays. Which is much better than the slew of guys that have been on the Rangers who are pinned in their own zone all the time because they can't do anything.
And Trouba not shy about sticking up for teammates along with the skill he has.
There are many good dmen in this league guilty of the same thing.
That doesn’t explain to me how he’s a bad dmen.
Wait...you're telling me there are actual reasons for his "fancy cats" to look bad?!?!?!
You aren't just looking at spreadsheets and making stuff up?!?! The corgi's actually correlate with how a player does and is able to represent the entire body of their work in an easily digestible format?!?!?!
He didn’t say he’s a bad player, he’s said he’s bad defensively
That’s what I was asking - but failed to add defensively.
His team giving up a considerable amount more goals when he's on the ice makes him kinda bad defensively. He gets away with it because of his physicality.
He's outstanding offensively and is a net positive player. I don't think anything I've said is outlandish. Trouba has never had the reputation of being a shutdown player or an all-situations bonafide #1.
I’m not that, Anti Advanced-Stats poster who’s refuses to acknowledge the significance of underlying numbers.
I’m also not the Poster that believs the Eye Test trumps everything and is the only thing that matters.
I’m kind of in-between.
Having said that, Trouba is not a bad NHL dmen. Not even close.
Like many physical players he takes himself out of play sometimes going for a hit, but his technique and ability defensively isn’t bad. He has fine gap control and for a bigger frame he moves and skates very well. He’s solid along the board and wins a lot of 1-on-1 battles down low and in front of the net.
Aside for his questionable decision making when to go for a hit and sometimes pinch, he has a good IQ and generally does a good job with his read and positioning.
MH, he’s not geat offensively either. Not sure why you would suggest that. ADA, for example would run circles around him offensively, and I wouldn’t label ADA as someone who’s great offensively.
I do worry about a Skjei-Trouba pairing though because I think both players would play better with a partner who’s more of a mainstay defensively. Trouba definitely has areas he can and should improve, but he’s by no means a bad defenseman.
Nobody is saying he's a bad defenseman.
You actually compared Fox to Pionk.
Your opinion on anything hockey related dropped 174 points.
Your Corsi must be terribly low after a statement like that.
Separate names with a comma.