Miscellaneous NHL Talk XLIII - April showers

[Striiker]

Who are you criticizing here because Clarke absolutely should be higher.

I’m critiquing the path, not the destination.

Saying Clarke should be higher is perfectly fine, however using team accomplishments to support that conclusion is what I have a problem with.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Ron Francis at 9 and Fedorov out of the top 15 is a take and a half. Whew.

Oh my god. Fedorov didn't finish in the top 25.

Beliveau finishing in the 30s is hilarious. Either you're counting only his post-expansion seasons and 4 years shouldn't sniff a list like this or he should be a clear #3. Nothing between is defensible.

 

[Rebels57]

Ron Francis at 9 and Fedorov out of the top 15 is a take and a half. Whew.

Oh my god. Fedorov didn't finish in the top 25.

Beliveau finishing in the 30s is hilarious. Either you're counting only his post-expansion seasons and 4 years shouldn't sniff a list like this or he should be a clear #3. Nothing between is defensible.

Its an atrocious list for sure

 

[Rebels57]

I’m critiquing the path, not the destination.

Saying Clarke should be higher is perfectly fine, however using team accomplishments to support that conclusion is what I have a problem with.

Team accomplishments like winning the Cup should be a factor if you're a massive reason why the team succeeded like Clarke was, but I agree that they shouldnt be weighted as heavily as they usually are.

 

[Striiker]

Team accomplishments like winning the Cup should be a factor if you're a massive reason why the team succeeded like Clarke was, but I agree that they shouldnt be weighted as heavily as they usually are.

I think the team accomplishments should be 0% of the players evaluation.

However, I think that when you list off the reasons why a specific player was so vital to the team accomplishments then you're already making a list of that players individual accomplishments, which is what we should be doing the whole time.

In other words, saying "Clarke won 2 cups" should NOT be an argument but instead "when Clarke won those two cups he scored this amount of points, played this quality of defense, and also did x/y/z that helped the team win". That would be a fair argument because it's listing his individual actions/results.

 

[renberg]

As much as I have an affinity for drizzle and clouds overhead (helps with my cricket bowling too!) I must admit that I would not pursue a similar climate on purpose going forward...

having now lived in Manchester, Sheffield, Lancaster, Utrecht and Copenhagen... which all have quite a similar climate, I kind of feel like Med life might be for me next. Haha.

In October there is a *chance* I will get offered a job back in Denmark. Maybe only a 25% chance... but a chance.

I love Copenhagen and would for sure think about going back, and if only option to have role for sure would. BUT there is a likelihood if it works out I can work remotely and choose where I live.

And while Copenhagen is an awesome city, and great for hockey too... five months a year where the weather negatively affects your life is annoying. Plus a Danish salary would go a loooong way in France, Spain, Italy or Portugal. And I could surf way more.

Not that I am getting ahead of myself here...

Danish ladies make the five months of bad weather a price worth paying.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Hopefully a barn is actually rented this time.

 

[Rebels57]

I think the team accomplishments should be 0% of the players evaluation.

However, I think that when you list off the reasons why a specific player was so vital to the team accomplishments then you're already making a list of that players individual accomplishments, which is what we should be doing the whole time.

In other words, saying "Clarke won 2 cups" should NOT be an argument but instead "when Clarke won those two cups he scored this amount of points, played this quality of defense, and also did x/y/z that helped the team win". That would be a fair argument because it's listing his individual actions/results.

We more or less agree.

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

I think the team accomplishments should be 0% of the players evaluation.

However, I think that when you list off the reasons why a specific player was so vital to the team accomplishments then you're already making a list of that players individual accomplishments, which is what we should be doing the whole time.

In other words, saying "Clarke won 2 cups" should NOT be an argument but instead "when Clarke won those two cups he scored this amount of points, played this quality of defense, and also did x/y/z that helped the team win". That would be a fair argument because it's listing his individual actions/results.

Team accomplishments matter because there is merit in performing at a high level deep into a playoff run.

If you never make it past the second round of the playoffs, it's difficult to see how you perform under the hardest conditions possible for an NHL player. Now, it's not that you judge a player for not getting there (see Alex Ovechkin pre-2018), but you can judge them for how they perform when the get there.

Bernie Parent is a legend for winning two Conn Smythe trophies and the judgment comes from how he performed specifically in the Final in those Cup runs. You review his career differently if the Flyers lose to the Rangers in 74 or the Isles in 75.

I get saying that winning the two Cups alone shouldn't be part of the evaluation, but when people say Player X is an all time great and include how many Cups he won, it is implied that the player actually played a significant role in making that happen.

When talking about Parent, you often hear about the two Cups being an accomplishment, but you never hear about guys like, say, Craig Adams using two Cups to measure his individual success.

So, basically I agree with you, in principle, but the players have to get to a stage where you can measure them in the most difficult circumstances they can face as hockey players. That requires team success. And guys who get there with their teams multiple times will have a bigger sample size to judge them in those conditions.

Top players are vital to team success and you rarely have team success without the best players executing to get their team to those levels.

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

Posted that long diatribe above, but was actually coming here to post this:

I have been listening to the Ray and Dregs podcast during this isolation and I just got through the episode with Jamie Baker, who talked about his year on the expansion Ottawa Senators, the second worst expansion team ever after the Caps.

For some reason the team gave out team awards at the end of the year that included the team's +/- winner, which was Baker with a -20.

As an aside, I cannot stand Darren Dreger, but I really enjoy listening to Ray Ferraro. They have had some good guests who have told some great stories. Well worth a listen, if you're looking for a hockey podcast.

 

[Rebels57]

Team accomplishments matter because there is merit in performing at a high level deep into a playoff run.

If you never make it past the second round of the playoffs, it's difficult to see how you perform under the hardest conditions possible for an NHL player. Now, it's not that you judge a player for not getting there (see Alex Ovechkin pre-2018), but you can judge them for how they perform when the get there.

Bernie Parent is a legend for winning two Conn Smythe trophies and the judgment comes from how he performed specifically in the Final in those Cup runs. You review his career differently if the Flyers lose to the Rangers in 74 or the Isles in 75.

I get saying that winning the two Cups alone shouldn't be part of the evaluation, but when people say Player X is an all time great and include how many Cups he won, it is implied that the player actually played a significant role in making that happen.

When talking about Parent, you often hear about the two Cups being an accomplishment, but you never hear about guys like, say, Craig Adams using two Cups to measure his individual success.

So, basically I agree with you, in principle, but the players have to get to a stage where you can measure them in the most difficult circumstances they can face as hockey players. That requires team success. And guys who get there with their teams multiple times will have a bigger sample size to judge them in those conditions.

Top players are vital to team success and you rarely have team success without the best players executing to get their team to those levels.

I think what he is really getting at is that if you're going to include a team accomplishment when ranking an individual player, you should include context. Lots of bad players have won Cups so you can't just use that alone. But a guy like Bernie's ranking is boosted by his incredible performances in his teams accomplishments.

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

I think what he is really getting at is that if you're going to include a team accomplishment when ranking an individual player, you should include context. Lots of bad players have won Cups so you can't just use that alone. But a guy like Bernie's ranking is boosted by his incredible performances in his teams accomplishments.

Yeah, that's why I did that quick Parent vs Adams comparison. Context absolutely matters, but when someone is using Parent's two Cups in a summary it's because he was vital to winning those championships, while no one is claiming Craig Adams is an all time great because he won two Cups.

 

[Stizzle]

Remember this guy? Remember the whining that we took Frost instead?

 

[Magua]

Remember this guy? Remember the whining that we took Frost instead?

We could’ve taken Frost at 45.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Team accomplishments matter because there is merit in performing at a high level deep into a playoff run.

If you never make it past the second round of the playoffs, it's difficult to see how you perform under the hardest conditions possible for an NHL player. Now, it's not that you judge a player for not getting there (see Alex Ovechkin pre-2018), but you can judge them for how they perform when the get there.

Bernie Parent is a legend for winning two Conn Smythe trophies and the judgment comes from how he performed specifically in the Final in those Cup runs. You review his career differently if the Flyers lose to the Rangers in 74 or the Isles in 75.

I get saying that winning the two Cups alone shouldn't be part of the evaluation, but when people say Player X is an all time great and include how many Cups he won, it is implied that the player actually played a significant role in making that happen.

When talking about Parent, you often hear about the two Cups being an accomplishment, but you never hear about guys like, say, Craig Adams using two Cups to measure his individual success.

So, basically I agree with you, in principle, but the players have to get to a stage where you can measure them in the most difficult circumstances they can face as hockey players. That requires team success. And guys who get there with their teams multiple times will have a bigger sample size to judge them in those conditions.

Top players are vital to team success and you rarely have team success without the best players executing to get their team to those levels.

There's a middle ground between the Parents and Craig Adams of the world that do get it applied when they're liked in the hockey community though. You can be a Malkin and not technically be your own 1C and this makes total sense, but transferring it down the line to the HHOF cases for Nieuwendyk and Gillies types is absurd.

It can be part of the discussion. It just shouldn't be the chief part.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Remember this guy? Remember the whining that we took Frost instead?

Ingram legit deserves a shot in Nashville. The kid has been good basically his whole AHL career and I could see him challenging Rinne and Saros for the starter job at some point the next couple years.

 

[Tripod]

From the main boards: Clarke vs Jagr:

"Jagr easy. Clarke would never be on any of my teams. Like not a f***ing one of them. Asshole."

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

There's a middle ground between the Parents and Craig Adams of the world that do get it applied when they're liked in the hockey community though. You can be a Malkin and not technically be your own 1C and this makes total sense, but transferring it down the line to the HHOF cases for Nieuwendyk and Gillies types is absurd.

It can be part of the discussion. It just shouldn't be the chief part.

The bold is essentially the heart of it.

 

[Striiker]

Team accomplishments matter because there is merit in performing at a high level deep into a playoff run.

If you never make it past the second round of the playoffs, it's difficult to see how you perform under the hardest conditions possible for an NHL player. Now, it's not that you judge a player for not getting there (see Alex Ovechkin pre-2018), but you can judge them for how they perform when the get there.

Bernie Parent is a legend for winning two Conn Smythe trophies and the judgment comes from how he performed specifically in the Final in those Cup runs. You review his career differently if the Flyers lose to the Rangers in 74 or the Isles in 75.

I get saying that winning the two Cups alone shouldn't be part of the evaluation, but when people say Player X is an all time great and include how many Cups he won, it is implied that the player actually played a significant role in making that happen.

When talking about Parent, you often hear about the two Cups being an accomplishment, but you never hear about guys like, say, Craig Adams using two Cups to measure his individual success.

So, basically I agree with you, in principle, but the players have to get to a stage where you can measure them in the most difficult circumstances they can face as hockey players. That requires team success. And guys who get there with their teams multiple times will have a bigger sample size to judge them in those conditions.

Top players are vital to team success and you rarely have team success without the best players executing to get their team to those levels.

Yeah, that's why I did that quick Parent vs Adams comparison. Context absolutely matters, but when someone is using Parent's two Cups in a summary it's because he was vital to winning those championships, while no one is claiming Craig Adams is an all time great because he won two Cups.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're being too generous by assuming that when most people mention cups wins (or other team achievements) that it's a given that they're actually talking about their individual performance in those cup runs. There's times when it's true, but there's also times when it isn't, so I want people to stop mentioning cup wins in general so we don't need to assume they're implying the proper thing... I'd rather they actually be direct and specifically list the individual performance during that cup run.

I also get what you're saying about long cup runs being important for judging a player, and it's absolutely true that it does help, but I still don't think it can be held against a player if he's unable to have an opportunity to play in those situations due to things outside of his control. Giroux is a perfect example. It'd be crazy for people to blame him for a lack of playoff success because of the situation around him during his career. It's not his fault he's had dumb coaches/management and trash depth/goaltending. The guy has individually performed, so when I see comparisons between him and someone like Toews, and people mention cup wins, it makes me want to bash my head against a wall.

And if a player does get the chance to play in those situations and does perform, then great, but like I said, I want people to talk about the individual performance, not just list the end result.

 

[BritainStix]

We could’ve taken Frost at 45.

You dont know that. He could of been on every teams board after we took him.

 

[Magua]

You dont know that. He could of been on every teams board after we took him.

You take that risk instead of reaching on an undersized player who wasn’t even a point/game. As I said after the draft, they could have at least taken Ratcliffe at 27 and Frost at 45. That would’ve made sense.

how far can I go with this

 

[Chinatown88]

Damn

 

[Starat327]

Damn

This is so terrible.

 

[Cody Webster]

Damn

So sad. Rip

 

[Tripod]

Just awful.

Shows you never know how much time you have left. Do the things you keep putting off.