Pick one - player plays bad but produces a lot, or player plays well but produces less

[bobholly39]

Connor McDavid is the best hockey player in the world today - and he's also off to the most productive start of his career, with 17 points in 7 games, good enough for top of league. However - I find myself amazed at how many comments I've read about Oiler fans in past few days about how "he's not even playing that good" and "just wait till he plays good again, like he was last year".

McDavid is great - and i'm sure he'll have a great year, both producing well and also playing well. So this poll isn't necessarily to discuss him, but more this idea.

If you had to pick, what do you prefer? A player who produces a lot but doesn't play well, or a player who plays well but produces less?

Feel free to take apply this to any situation you want, and vote in a vacuum. This can be for the best like McDavid, or a 4th line player, or anywhere in between. Also - obviously when i say "producing less" or "playing well" it's vague and open to interpretation - so try to quantify/imagine it as you wish.

To be clear - this isn't meant to be McDavid playing bad but producing a lot vs a 4th liner playing well but producing less. It's star player vs star player, or 4th liner vs 4th liner, the idea is to compare similar caliber players with each other.

Click to read more...

 

[jetsforever]

Weird poll - I'll take the guy producing more, because it means goals are actually being scored
I suppose this is like Ehlers (stuck on low icetime and lines) vs Wheeler (racking up PP assists etc.) last year on the Jets

 

[JoVel]

The first option is basically Kucherov 50% of the time.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Why would you take the guy who isn't producing? Production helps your team win more games by contributing to more goals being scored.

 

[Elvs]

I think the question is a bit poorly formulated. What it really comes down to is if the player is having a positive or negative impact on my team. I mean, I'd rather have a 06/07 Samuel Pahlsson over a 17/18 Corey Perry in the lineup without thinking twice, even if the latter was twice as productive. Sure, I'd rather have a lazy declining Perry on my top line over prime Pahlsson as my #1 center, but a declining lazy Perry could be replaced with a player who is just as productive while also playing better. Meanwhile, a prime Pahlsson couldn't easily be replaced by another player in that role.

 

[Dr Salt]

Define producing less, by how much? Is the player producing more only good at producing with certain linemates? Needs more context.

 

[North Cole]

If you're producing more arent you playing well? I'm confused. Sounds like a question about a lucky player versus a snake bitten player in a vacuum. Just because Neal is producing, I wouldn't take him over Aho (example). Assuming evenly skilled I'd guess you want the guy producing, but if they are evenly skilled and share equal opportunity... I mean, it will eventually normalize, I'd think?

I feel like some fans are saying that in a round about way to defend Draisaitl. McDavid hasnt been playing bad, hes just had some issues controlling the puck and at times looked like hes not on the same page as his linemates. I'm not sure if his stamina is quite there yet based on his offseason. For the most part he seems to know when he can get away with resting or easing up during a shift, but its clear hes still trying to get his chemistry and motor going again. Hes always a more dominant player as the season goes on because of his efficiency.

Individually I dont think hes been bad at all, and it's a little overboard to say Draisaitl has been better than him. Imo

 

[ESH]

Would I rather my team be scoring more or less?

Hmmmm

 

[Fig]

So like... James Neal vs RNH? (not completely sure what constitutes as plays good or bad per OP)

 

[Brucelenok]

Ovechkin 13-14 still over any 3rd line two way center or defensive defenseman

 

[BruinsFan37]

For one game? Give me the player that's playing "well".

For an entire season? Give me the player that's producing more.

Basically the player who's producing more will help you win more games over the player that's playing "well". Sure he'll make a few bonehead plays that'll cost you some games, but over the course of the season, he'll win you more games than the player who's playing "well" and not making any mistakes. But for one game, in a must-win scenario, give me the player who's not going to cough up the puck at the worst possible time.

Really what you're asking is would you rather have an 50-point offensive-minded defensemen who is prone to coughing up the puck at the worst possible time in his own end, or a stay-at-home defensemen who scores maybe 10 points a year but rarely if ever makes a mistake defensively.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Give the the defenceman who is playing super well defensively but not producing many points vs the defenceman who is producing a fair amount of points but turning the puck over all the time and having terrible defensive coverage.

Basically like Adam Foote vs Marc Andre Bergeron.

 

[7even]

Why would you take the guy who isn't producing? Production helps your team win more games by contributing to more goals being scored.

It's a nebulous question, because the non-productive guy isn't characterized in any other way, and also because producing "well" isn't defined. For example, I'd take prime Adam Foote over Mike Ribeiro.

 

[StoneHands]

I'm having trouble thinking of someone who accurately fits the description of either of these. If the guy who plays well is just a good defensive player who doesn't make mistakes it sounds like he's also pretty poor on offense so while he may play good defense, that's only half the game. Same goes for a player who isn't playing well but is producing. If he's producing, he's at the very least playing well in the offensive zone while maybe being a defensive liability. So is this poll basically just asking would you rather have a defensive specialist or a one dimensional offensive player?

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I'd take the guy playing well, who just isn't getting the bounces. Puck luck normalizes over time.

Sure, its nice to have a guy accumulating points in the short term, but if it's not sustainable, then it really isn't worth all that much. This really isn't all that close to me IMO.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Playing well but not producing. A star goalie.

 

[SupremeNachos]

So if the guy who scores more points is also -50 and the guy who doesn't score a lot, but is +50 which one do you take?

 

[NyQuil]

I remember that Dany Heatley would be completely unnoticeable and he’d finish with 3 points. Just kept producing.

 

[Kamina]

where are the advanced stats people in this forum

I feel like they'd have interesting stuff to say in this poll

 

[SotasicA]

Obviously the one who plays objectively better, because he helps my team more. Be a defensive player or a goalie, or something.