Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by Larry Fisher, Sep 3, 2019.
It's kind of odd that one 40 year old, 50 point center would move the needle that much for a team.
I love thornton more then anybody. But he would not move a teams ranking that much for any credible ranking system that was done right with an actual system to rank the players properly. And it gets even more silly when you say if the team added marleau it would then boost them up into the teens.
Marleau is completely finished he is no longer even an average nhl player so there is no logical way that he would move the sharks from 20th (with thornton) to 13th or so (with marleau and thornton). And if those 2 players are able to move the dial that much for rankings then the teams forwards are obviously not as bad as you originally say they are.
The rankings is 100% biased and 100% opinion based nothing less, nothing more. For a ranking system to be credible it needs to based on some actual facts/stats and this one is based off of zero facts/stats.
Hertl: 0.98 goals/60, 2.61 points/60
RNH WITH McDavid: 0.8 goals/60, 1.91 points/60
Yeah, maybe he would have scored more raw points than Hertl as a function of playing with McDavid and playing 44 more PP minutes than Hertl and 129 more 5V5 minutes than Hertl. But would that make him the better? Absolutely ****ing not!
In apples to apples situations?
Hertl on McDavid's wing playing 1648 minutes in Edmonton would score more points than RNH would, and more importantly, would be the far better all-around player who would contribute more to his team's success.
RNH as the Sharks #1C with Kane and Donskoi would score fewer points than Hertl, and more importantly, would be the far weaker all-around player who would make lesser contributions to his team's success. Furthermore, I'm quite confident in saying that if you replaced RNH with Hertl in the first round and simulated that series 100 times, the Sharks would lose that series every single time.
It also speaks to your ignorance that you keep on mentioning Karlsson, yet you downplay RNH's play with McDavid at every turn. Hertl scored fewer 5-on-5 points with Karlsson on the ice than RNH scored 5-on-5 points with McDavid on the ice, and Hertl scored fewer points at all situations with Karlsson on the ice than RNH did with McDavid on the ice. Hertl also played only 225 5-on-5 minutes with Karlsson on the ice and 93 PP minutes with Karlsson on the ice. By comparison, RNH played 249 PP minutes with McDavid and 376 5-on-5 minutes with him. The only 2 forwards that Hertl played more time with than RNH played with Hertl were Kane and Donskoi.
Your analysis is so lazy it's pathetic. RNH does not hold a candle to Hertl. He can't tie his skates. There is a reason that Oilers fans are not in here defending RNH and it's because your position is wrong and ridiculous.
That speaks to how closely those teams were already ranked, there isn’t much separation in many of those tiers. But we’re also talking about a 40-year-old, 50-point first ballot Hall-of-Famer who proved to still be an impact player in this year’s playoffs. And look at the difference between Thornton and the player who would have been filling that role internally had he retired (Gambrell/Suomela/Goodrow). So, yeah, Thornton re-signing did warrant San Jose moving up a handful of spots.
Where’d you get 13th with Marleau? I was thinking 16th tops, more likely 17th or 18th with both Thornton and Marleau, 20th with just Thornton. So, no, Marleau isn’t moving the needle a whole lot at this stage of his career, although I don’t think he’s done yet either.
Again, it should be stressed that there is good parity across the league at most positions and there are tiers to these rankings. So, yes, one player like Thornton (still a significant addition/piece at his age) can move a team up 3-5 spots. I assume that would be the same for “any credible ranking system.”
Agree to disagree. We can debate that until we are blue in the faces, but I’m convinced neither of us will be changing our opinions. I like Hertl a lot, but if I was starting an NHL team from scratch tomorrow, I’d select Nugent-Hopkins over Hertl. Maybe that’s just me. I feel it would be a close poll among the 32 NHL general managers and that a slight majority would take Nugent-Hopkins.
Agree to disagree, then. Because one 50-point guy shouldn't shift ANY team, whether it be San Jose or anyone else, more than maybe one spot in the rankings. That would be like saying the Penguins are currently the 3rd ranked team with Patric Hornqvist, but if he gets traded or is hurt for the entire year, they drop all the way down to 15th or whatever. No ~50 point player should have that kind of impact on a roster's ranking.
Lol, what playoffs were you watching? just more fuel to the "i didnt watch the sharks and pulled this 'analysis' out of my ass" fire. Thornton was decidedly not good in these playoffs. His lack of speed and mobility was a clear detriment and a big reason why the Avs series went 7 games.
Honestly, OP, you should just write a post saying "Hey, these were my opinions and i definitely need to do a better job at watching more teams this season. Thanks for filling in some gaps for me. It was a fun exercise and i hope next year i can do better." It would be a better option than digging your hole deeper. You're almost at the mantle
And you would be fired within a month of playing games because your analysis of talent is clearly lacking.
So it doesn't matter about stats for your analysis of a player, you are just going to keep doubling down on the silly idea of the GM's would agree with me so there fore i am right you are wrong stance you have taken since you were shown to be so very wrong about this subject. And every post you dig yourself deeper and deeper into that hole.
I would argue that Thornton means a lot more to San Jose's success than Hornqvist to Pittsburgh's success.
Further, my analysis says San Jose would move from 25th to "closer to 20th" once Thornton re-signed. So how does that equate to Pittsburgh moving from 3rd to 15th without Hornqvist? That is a ridiculous comparison/conclusion on your behalf. You have to look at the replacement player in each scenario. Pittsburgh might drop one or two spots without Hornqvist, but might also hold steady at No. 3. San Jose does get a bump from Thornton returning, moving up from 25th to "closer to 20th". That makes perfect sense to me, especially being in a tight tier there where one player in or out could make quite a difference for any of those teams in that range of my forward rankings.
Joe Thornton had 10 points in 19 games during this year's playoffs. You think the replacement level player would have delivered that kind of production? Goodrow or Suomela? Or even Gambrell? Game 3 against St. Louis, in particular, proved Thornton can still be an impact player — much more so than whoever would be replacing him from within, which was taken into account for this positional ranking that didn't include Thornton at the time of the ranking.
There is much more to hockey than stats, especially when comparing players with much different scenarios and supporting casts. Like I said, for me, Nugent-Hopkins is in the conversation with Couture and Duchene among his comparables, a slight notch above Hertl.
I would love to hear how you actually came up with this comparible considering you litterally are the only one that even remotely comes close to arguing it.
One telling point about this arguement about hertl vs rnh is that not 1 edmonton fan has come to defend your theory that rnh is a tier above hertl. And even other fan bases has said the same thing about this as the shark fans that are trying to make you understand just how wrong you are.
So we can't use stats because your unbiased eyes and mind is right and no matter what the stats say they are wrong because you just think differently.
One 50-point forward shouldn't move the needle even 5 or 6 spots. If it moves the needle that much for you, then you're not rating their current players correctly.
Like I said, one or two spots? Sure. A bit of extra depth could help a team leapfrog one or two teams in front of it. But about 5 spots? No way.
Team full of chokers should be lower than 1....
St. Louis should be ranked a lot higher. There's a reason the Blues are so difficult to contain in the playoffs. They're 4th line is better than your 3rd line, and their 2nd D pairing is probably better than your top pairing for that matter.
[mod] you posted these 2 MINUTES APART!
You are also cherry picking stats right after saying that everything isnt points based. Round 3 Game 3 had 30% of his post season points! In the Avs series he had 2 points in game 1 and then nothing else besides minuses. I'm also not arguing that he is below replacement level, and that is asinine for you to volley that at me. I said he was not good in the playoffs, and everyone, literally everyone, who watched all of those games would agree.
Why is it so hard to admit you made a mistake? [mod]
Because I don't think I'm making a mistake, I think you are misinterpreting the points that I've been making. Nevertheless, we can agree to disagree on Thornton's value to the Sharks and how he impacts their forward group and thus my ranking. If he was so awful in the playoffs, I don't think Doug Wilson would have brought him back. You make it sound like Thornton has negative value, but Sharks fans are also saying Pavelski was "no big loss" in this thread, so I'll just move on to other projects now. Stay tuned for my preseason predictions!
You mean the points you made 2 minutes apart, among others, that contradicted each other (e.g. look how many points Thornton put up / points arent everything, Vegas has low ranking D because you dont consider the system in your rankings / Sharks forwards have a low ranking because they are a product of their system of utilizing their defensemen)? I think it's you who is misinterpreting what I am saying. I said "Thornton was not good in these playoffs", and you somehow take that as me saying he was below replacement level, and that he has negative value this year. Spoiler, i didnt say or imply either of those things.
I hope your preseason predictions come with a modicum of analysis and research, honestly more for your sake. No one really cares about the ranking, they care that the author put in the effort to talk about their team accurately. That's the whole problem with this series, and instead of admitting that the task of knowing in-depth facts and figures of each team is so great (which it objectively is!) that somethings may have been missed, you double and triple down on bad takes.
Habs are too high at #22, I'd put them closer to #15...they will surprise many people
Pavs isn't a big loss and the poor dallas team will figure that out big time for the next 3 years. The only thing pavs is able to do right now is tip the puck or bang in rebounds.
Pavs is to slow for any kind of transition game. If dallas does not use pavs right and that means don't let him into the cycle game, don't let him touch the puck inside the offensive zone, don't let him be part of board battles.
Just get him to sit infront of the net waiting for shots to tip or rebound into the net. But looking at the dallas backend those chances will be few and far between.
Wow how did i miss this. So the rankings are litterally a waste of internet space if they are based off of just personal opinion and have no actual stats or metric to back up your rankings.
This kind of rankings are good as an average fan. But the fact that you are supposed to be a professional sports writer these really makes you lose any and all credibility as a sports writer.
You might be a knowledgable writer for the most part, i don't know since this was the 1st piece of your work i have ever read.
But this ranking and then the doubling down and digging yourself deeper and deeper into your trench of not understanding certain players and teams in general is not a good look for a paid writer.
I hope going forward you do better, but this threads comments by you isn't really providing any hope that you are willing to change your ways and make your rankings actually the best they can be.
This. So very this. You get a cookie.
Why does Nashville's offense get ranked higher than St. Louis'?
Because when it comes to name recognition, St. Louis only has Tarasenko whereas Nashville has Forsberg and just added Duchene. That's two guys to one. Simple math.
Ryan O'Reilly? Who's that? What has he accomplished?
Snarky disdain for the OP aside, I think it'd be a pretty healthy debate either way.
Separate names with a comma.