Prospect Info: Matthew Tkachuk or PL Dubois (Round 3)

[iFan]

Tkachuk is a perfect fit for the Oilers, him on McDavids wing would be too hard for them to pass on, he brings that winning drive the Oilers need. Dubios and his ability to play centre and being a big power forward guy fits what the Canucks are building. It's a pretty perfect matchup, fully expect this time next week that Dubios is a Canuck.

 

[Shareefruck]

Bolded may be true but it's the doldrums of summer so I'm good with it

As for your Lawyer analogy, technically saying someone is a Lawyer does simply mean they meet at least the minimum criteria required to earn the designation. It doesn't mean they aren't crooked or terrible, simply that they are a Lawyer. That said there are standards and oversight that would support your assumption that they aren't terrible or crooked. Just like calling someone a 1st liner, it simply means they meet the minimum criteria of a 1st liner and are in fact not a 2nd liner or 3rd liner in terms of their relative production level.

If you want it to mean more, then you need to qualify it by saying a high-end 1st liner / Lawyer. After all, if the 30th scoring Centre in the league doesn't meet your definition of a 1st liner, then what do you call them? A 2nd liner? Which isn't correct either, so the most correct label is to still call them a 1st liner.

shareefruck I agree with you I think 99% of the time, but in this case I think the flaw is in the term "1st line centre" and that its just an inadequate paradigm for most of these convos

I'm on my phone so **** quoting, but cana's unusally incisive point: if #30 isn't a 1st liner, what is he? perfectly expresses what I mean

In a professional setting like a legal court case, sure, terms need to be rigid and unambiguous, but in the context of fans discussing what caliber of projection in a prospect they expect, I think it's implied that what is discussed are adequate versions of these roles (something that doesn't deviate too far from the expected mean). As a fan, why would you project a prospect to be a 1st liner if you wouldn't want someone like that on a 1st line?

That's basically how I see it and why I think it's overly pedantic/literal to insist on the more technical definition.

 

[rypper]

Oilers will take Tkachuk at 4, then move RNH, Eberle, and/or Yakupov in an effort to shore up their defense.

 

[CanaFan]

In a professional setting like a legal court case, sure, terms need to be rigid and unambiguous, but in the context of fans discussing what caliber of projection in a prospect they expect, I think it's implied that what is discussed are adequate versions of these roles (something that doesn't deviate too far from the expected mean). As a fan, why would you project a prospect to be a 1st liner if you wouldn't want someone like that on a 1st line?

That's basically how I see it and why I think it's overly pedantic/literal to insist on the more technical definition.

???

I don't see how I'm being 'pedantic'. I'm saying the term "first liner" covers a range of quality players, from the best forward in the league to the 30th. Beyond 30th they are into another tier of quality ("2nd liners") and so forth.

You are the one who is trying to impose fairly arbitrary standards on the term by saying it should only apply to those at or above the median, as if being the 16th or 17th scorer isn't good enough or something.

I'm applying a definition that is purely technical - there are 30 first lines in the league so the top 30 players would set the bar for a "first liner" - while you are bringing personal nuance and bias into it. What if people want an even tighter definition than yours - maybe it should only apply to the top 10 centres. Or maybe a bit looser - like the top 23. Whatever the argument, it ends up changing the definition to suit the tastes of the person.

I'm merely saying to peg it to something objective - 30 first lines is as good as anything - and take the personal subjectivity out of it. That way we can all use the term with a common frame of reference, rather than get sidetracked like we are now.

And I'm baffled by your comment about "not projecting a 1st line prospect that I wouldn't want on my first line". How do you make that leap? If I can draft a kid who projects to put up 60 points a year - making him a lower end "first liner" - I'd absolutely draft him. Why wouldn't I? 60 points is still good production relative to every player in the league. Are you suggesting you wouldn't draft a low end first liner because that somehow would "weaken" you first line? What would you rather draft? A 54 point "high end second liner" instead?

I think you're taking these terms too literally. It is a general measure of quality yes, but a low end first liner is still a damn good player and you draft him every time unless a better player was there instead.

Edit: And again I'll ask you a simple question: If you draw a line at the term meaning an "above average first liner" meaning the 15th highest scorer or higher, then what term would you use to describe the 16th-30th highest scorers? Second liners doesn't work, since that would only apply to the top 15 second line scorers (31-45) if you are being consistent with you terms. Also since many of the 16-30 scorers likely actually do play on a team's "first line", it would be factually incorrect to call them second liners. So what would you call them?

 

[Verviticus]

In a professional setting like a legal court case, sure, terms need to be rigid and unambiguous, but in the context of fans discussing what caliber of projection in a prospect they expect, I think it's implied that what is discussed are adequate versions of these roles (something that doesn't deviate too far from the expected mean). As a fan, why would you project a prospect to be a 1st liner if you wouldn't want someone like that on a 1st line?

That's basically how I see it and why I think it's overly pedantic/literal to insist on the more technical definition.

you're right - some people use the term incorrectly. expecting them to use it correctly isn't onerous, man

like, nth line player is one of the only specific terms in player discussion. everything else is vague ********. "good skater" "high hockey iq" "core/franchise player" is all garbage for discussion. i dont think its unfair to expect people to use the objective terms literally

furthermore, when a term has a very useful, specific definition, it seems weird to sometimes accept that someone is going to use it badly, so lets all just use it badly. i agree with you that people can be unnecessarily pedantic, but this isnt one of those cases

 

[Tinhorn1]

Maybe it's just me, but reading this it seems like the majority like Tkachuk better due to the fact he has a higher offensive upside.

Except for the fact that six out of five chose Dubois.

 

[biturbo19]

???

I don't see how I'm being 'pedantic'. I'm saying the term "first liner" covers a range of quality players, from the best forward in the league to the 30th. Beyond 30th they are into another tier of quality ("2nd liners") and so forth.

You are the one who is trying to impose fairly arbitrary standards on the term by saying it should only apply to those at or above the median, as if being the 16th or 17th scorer isn't good enough or something.

I'm applying a definition that is purely technical - there are 30 first lines in the league so the top 30 players would set the bar for a "first liner" - while you are bringing personal nuance and bias into it. What if people want an even tighter definition than yours - maybe it should only apply to the top 10 centres. Or maybe a bit looser - like the top 23. Whatever the argument, it ends up changing the definition to suit the tastes of the person.

I'm merely saying to peg it to something objective - 30 first lines is as good as anything - and take the personal subjectivity out of it. That way we can all use the term with a common frame of reference, rather than get sidetracked like we are now.

And I'm baffled by your comment about "not projecting a 1st line prospect that I wouldn't want on my first line". How do you make that leap? If I can draft a kid who projects to put up 60 points a year - making him a lower end "first liner" - I'd absolutely draft him. Why wouldn't I? 60 points is still good production relative to every player in the league. Are you suggesting you wouldn't draft a low end first liner because that somehow would "weaken" you first line? What would you rather draft? A 54 point "high end second liner" instead?

I think you're taking these terms too literally. It is a general measure of quality yes, but a low end first liner is still a damn good player and you draft him every time unless a better player was there instead.

Edit: And again I'll ask you a simple question: If you draw a line at the term meaning an "above average first liner" meaning the 15th highest scorer or higher, then what term would you use to describe the 16th-30th highest scorers? Second liners doesn't work, since that would only apply to the top 15 second line scorers (31-45) if you are being consistent with you terms. Also since many of the 16-30 scorers likely actually do play on a team's "first line", it would be factually incorrect to call them second liners. So what would you call them?

Insisting on this extremely literal, rigid definition of the term "1st line Center" as Top-30 scorers in the league because there are 30 teams definitely seems pedantic to me.

The easiest case of where this holds little water as a useful benchmark, is the Cup Champion Penguins, or a team like the Capitals, or the Stars or Bruins. They've each got TWO Centers who fall within the "Top-30" centers in the league for scoring. I'd suggest Crosby/Malkin/Backstrom/Kuznetsov/Seguin/Spezza/Bergeron/Krejci likely fall in the Top-30 Centers in the league by pretty much any metric you might reasonably apply. At which point you're effectively throwing out the "30 teams in the league" figure as pretty much arbitrary. The fact there is a set of 30 teams is largely irrelevant to your definition when some teams have multiple instances of #1C, and others have none. You're already conceding that the number of teams doesn't really have any direct correlation to the number of #1Cs in this arbitrarily rigid definition of #1C. It's not one #1C per team, which is the only reasonable case in which the number of teams would matter.

It's not really a big step further, and is actually a lot more precise to start talking about players that would be reasonably projectable as a #1C on a good team.

When you look at the Top-30 Centers in the league, you also have to subjectively draw some sort of line on for instance...guys who aren't even full-time Centers - guys who spend a noteworthy amount of time on the Wing. Where's the rigid line on that?

It's the NHL. It's full of blurred lines and subjectivity. There's an arbitrary quality to any definition of "#1C" you can reasonably come up with. Basing that arbitrary line on the number of teams in the league, when there isn't a relevant and even distribution is where you may like to draw your line...but it's still arbitrary and subjective just the same. Picking a cut-off number from an at best, tangentially related data set doesn't make it somehow definitive, or completely objective in any meaningful way.



As far as Dubois and Tkachuk go...

For me, Tkachuk is a guy where it's really hard to imagine he won't find his way onto a team's top line sooner or later...playing alongside whoever their best forward is. His style of play and ability to find amazing chemistry with a variety of types of high skill puckhandling players makes him extremely well-suited to play with a teams "#1C" or "best forward". That's where i see his best value fit. What i don't see as much with Tkachuk, is a high likelihood of him being the absolute anchor of a Top Line, or maybe not even a Second Line. He's an oddball sort of "complementary Top-3 Forward" for me. He's like a super-hotrodded version of your classic "complementary top-6 winger". Looks and plays like a grinder, but under the hood is the supercharged vision, smarts, and puck skills of a 1st line talent.

Whereas Dubois is a guy who looks to me more likely to really anchor a Top-6 line as the go-to guy...it just may not be the "Top Line" per se. His skillset seems more conducive to really carrying a 2nd line if he doesn't end up as a top line forward. Some of that may depend on where he ultimately settles in position-wise as well. As a Winger, i like his Top-line upside more...though the versatility of playing Center is very enticing and adds value to his overall upside for me.


I think your point about a 60pt low-end 1st liner vs a 55pt high-end 2nd liner might be sort of getting at the meat of it though. In today's NHL...the notion of "1st/2nd/3rd" line is becoming completely blurred anyway. You get duos and depth. Your 2nd or 3rd best forward is as likely to be anchoring a separate line of their own, as they are to be actually playing with your 1st best forward on your "Top Line".

That's where you get stuff where you might have a 55pt high-end 2nd liner who plays there even though they could be a 65pt 1st liner...because you've got another guy who can be a 60pt 1st liner, but only a 45pt 2nd liner. It's all very subjective and situational.

The NHL is just not a rigid definitions league...categorizing players is messy, multifaceted, and highly dependent on situation.

 

[Verviticus]

Insisting on this extremely literal, rigid definition of the term "1st line Center" as Top-30 scorers in the league because there are 30 teams definitely seems pedantic to me.

lol, what? im gonna start using the word forward to refer to defencemen because they sometimes occupy the same ice. any criticism is just pedantically insisting on an extremely literal, rigid definition of the term forward

 

[Verviticus]

lost in all this is sidney crosby being the best coach in the league because presumably sometimes he tells other players what to do

 

[biturbo19]

lol, what? im gonna start using the word forward to refer to defencemen because they sometimes occupy the same ice. any criticism is just pedantically insisting on an extremely literal, rigid definition of the term forward

Is Stamkos a #1C? He's certainly played a different position quite a bit.


You seem intent on taking things to absurd hyperbole trying to make a point. Why are you talking about defencemen and forwards and coaches all being interchangeable when that has nothing to do with the point at hand and literally nobody has ever suggested that?

Suggesting that the Top-30 scoring players who can play Center doesn't indisputably and completely objectively define a "#1C", isn't even remotely similar to whatever nonsense you're equating that to about forwards/defence/coaches being interchangeable.

 

[Verviticus]

hes a first line forward. if hes playing centre, he's a first line centre. if hes playing wing, he's a first line wing. if hes playing d hes probably a top ****ing four defenceman, i dont know. and if hes coaching hes probably not good at it.

this is not hard to understand. why are you always confused by basic english?

You seem intent on taking things to absurd hyperbole

well, you take absurd positions. to me, its a measured response

 

[biturbo19]

hes a first line player. if hes playing centre, he's a first line centre. if hes playing wing, he's a first line wing. if hes playing d hes probably a top ****ing four defenceman, i dont know. and if hes coaching hes probably not good at it.

this is not hard to understand

So then what on earth does "30 teams" have to do with anything? How is that not an arbitrary line for "#1C"? You could have 3 number #1Cs on one line on one team by that definition...yet still hold to there be 30 overall...because there happen to be 30 teams?

 

[Verviticus]

So then what on earth does "30 teams" have to do with anything? How is that not an arbitrary line for "#1C"? You could have 3 number #1Cs on one line on one team by that definition...yet still hold to there be 30 overall...because there happen to be 30 teams?

it is not arbitrary because is it definitively not arbitrary. the distribution of skill is not relevant to the existence of 60 wing (30 for each side) slots and 30 centre slots that constitute all of the first lines in the league. you are implicitly right that the term is not very good - i mentioned that earlier - when you are discussing building a team, because it is not very precise

every other definition of nth line player is arbitrary, because it no longer means what the words say, instead being whatever the person speaking wants it to be. this makes the term even less useful

edit: there is actually a second, non-arbitrary definition of the term that would be ****ing insane to use, and that one involves just picking the top TOI centre on each team and compiling them into a list. i shouldnt have to say why this is wrong/bad

 

[Verviticus]

as a side note, hyperbole is fun. you should try it; maybe focusing on being funny will unintentionally help you make shorter, more succinct posts

 

[Verviticus]

what is the 30th best goaltender in the league? imo, they are a starting goaltender. are they actually a backup?

 

[biturbo19]

it is not arbitrary because is it definitively not arbitrary. the distribution of skill is not relevant to the existence of 60 wing (30 for each side) slots and 30 centre slots that constitute all of the first lines in the league. you are implicitly right that the term is not very good - i mentioned that earlier - when you are discussing building a team, because it is not very precise

every other definition of nth line player is arbitrary, because it no longer means what the words say, instead being whatever the person speaking wants it to be. this makes the term even less useful

The bolded is exactly where that definition of the term becomes pedantic and academic. Where you're arguing about the use of the term "#1C" from your personal dictionary, rather than what it might actually in common parlance refer to, or what specific traits or capability level it might refer to as a meaningful benchmark in the game of hockey. "#1C" is not absolutely defined as "the top-30 scoring centers in the NHL"...that's your definition of it. The terminology may be "literal", but the actual application of the term (the part that matters) becomes arbitrarily set at the number 30.

Which, as you're suggesting there, the distribution of skill is not relevant to the existence of 30 teams any more than it is to the existence of 30 top line center positions or 60 top line wing positions in the NHL. Just as there doesn't become 31 indisputable and objective #1Cs in the NHL the moment Las Vegas is made official.

Setting the cutoff point at 30 #1Cs is arbitrary, as it's based on a number that has no direct relevance to the distribution of skill in the league. It's a convenient, but arbitrary number when it comes to defining a term like #1C in a meaningful way.

Any definition of "#1C" is going to have a degree of subjectivity to it. Even if you arbitrarily pick a number like 30 that sounds nice and squared away, but has no real bearing on the actual talent distribution. I'm not saying my definition or anyone else's definition doesn't have a degree of subjectivity to it. I'm just saying that it's pedantic to lobby as though the magic number 30 somehow makes your specific meaning of the term definitive and completely free of subjectivity. Or superior in communicating actual meaning, to the more widely accepted understanding of the term in most hockey circles.

 

[biturbo19]

what is the 30th best goaltender in the league? imo, they are a starting goaltender. are they actually a backup?

How are you defining "best"?

There's always subjectivity. No matter how hard you cling to the number 30 as magical.

 

[Verviticus]

"#1C" is not absolutely defined as "the top-30 scoring centers in the NHL"...that's your definition of it.

no its not. you.. really don't read things, huh.

Which, as you're suggesting there, the distribution of skill is not relevant to the existence of 30 teams any more than it is to the existence of 30 top line center positions or 60 top line wing positions in the NHL. Just as there doesn't become 31 indisputable and objective #1Cs in the NHL the moment Las Vegas is made official.

that is exactly what happens, lmao

Setting the cutoff point at 30 #1Cs is arbitrary, as it's based on a number that has no direct relevance to the distribution of skill in the league. It's a convenient, but arbitrary number when it comes to defining a term like #1C in a meaningful way.

you do not know what arbitrary means. you need to look it up, because you are using a word you do not understand. my last post has a definition. please familiarize yourself.

Any definition of "#1C" is going to have a degree of subjectivity to it.

you should look up the word definition as well

 

[Verviticus]

How are you defining "best"?

There's always subjectivity. No matter how hard you cling to the number 30 as magical.

lol what the ****? best is a ****ing word. look it up as well, christ.

this conversation has enlightened me as to why, whenever you are talking to someone else, my eyes glaze over until their reply

 

[biturbo19]

lol what the ****? best is a ****ing word. look it up as well, christ.

What does the word mean in the application you're using it?

How are you defining what the word "best" means with regard to NHL goaltenders? That is a subjective definition. You could choose to base that assessment on any number of criteria, while still fitting the definition of the word "best" you find in the dictionary to the letter.

We're not trying to recite a dictionary here, we're discussing hockey. Best simply means best. How you ascertain which 30 goaltenders are the "best" is what matters, and it involves a degree of subjectivity.

 

[Verviticus]

yes, the word best has an objective definition. we dont redefine the word every time we discuss the best players.

the term nth line player also has an objective defintion. how we get to the list of 30 players involves subjectivity

imagine if every time you said you thought crosby was the best centre in the world because smarts/skill/whatever, someone said "well my definition of best is just synonymous with tall, so its actually brian boyle". that person would not be worth talking to - not because they care about brian boyle, but because they're too stupid to just use the word best like everyone else

 

[biturbo19]

yes, the word best has an objective definition. we dont redefine the word every time we discuss the best players.

the term nth line player also has an objective defintion. how we get to the list of 30 players involves subjectivity

imagine if every time you said you thought crosby was the best centre in the world because smarts/skill/whatever, someone said "well my definition of best is just synonymous with tall, so its actually brian boyle". that person would not be worth talking to - not because they care about brian boyle, but because they're too stupid to just use the word best like everyone else

Again, you're reaching to absurd hyperbole to try to make a point. It's not a convincing approach. Nobody is suggesting Boyle is the "best" center in the NHL just because he's tall.

Where there's some debate, is whether Crosby is the "best" center in the game. Right now, you probably get a pretty unanimous vote on that coming off a Conn Smythe and a strong end to his season. But other times, it's up for debate. As are questions like who the next "best" guy is, etc. The word "best" as per the dictionary, is still open to subjective interpretation when you're talking about NHL players, prospects, teams. Are we defining "best" by the number of points? The overall impact of a player? Any number of other metrics are entirely reasonable to consider. The application of words is vital to meaning.


However, you seem to have this overwhelmingly black and white view of "best" when it comes to hockey players. A view where not only do you believe your assessment of "best" is the best...you seem to believe it's purely objective and definitively correct. With zero room for debate or consideration of alternative perspectives.

It's highly detrimental to any sort of engaging discussion about an actual player, as you don't seem open to the idea that "best" might in fact have a subjective quality to it in hockey terms. It appears you'd prefer to venture into absurd hyperbole...rather than look at players in any light other than your own.

 

[Verviticus]

no, i dont think any of that, and you're getting more and more confused as we talk about this. dont worry about it dude - ill continue using the correct definition of nth line centre and you dont have to!

 

[banme*]

Arguing definitions is pretty pointless.

 

[ProviesGhost]

This thread makes Twitter look good.