Player Discussion Rick Nash

[True Blue]

Is goals per game? Goals against average? Save %? Shooting %?

That does not answer my question. And not exactly apples to apples. Utilizing per 60 mutes other factors and tends to pump him up. One could then take a back up who has excellent goals against and save percentage and similarly pump him up. That does not change the fact that he is a backup. And likely with good reason.

 

[True Blue]

If Nash is a 20 goal scorer then Stamkos isn’t even a 50 point player in your world.

If Nash is a 20 goals scorer....

He has scored more than 25 exactly twice and more than thirty exactly once. REALITY says he is nothing but a 20 goal scorer.

 

[Doctyl]

That does not answer my question. And not exactly apples to apples. Utilizing per 60 mutes other factors and tends to pump him up. One could then take a back up who has excellent goals against and save percentage and similarly pump him up. That does not change the fact that he is a backup. And likely with good reason.

What’s the difference of using per 60 instead of per game? You just get a more accurate comparison of scoring rates because you’re taking TOI into account. GAA is literally Goals Against per 60. It’s like the definition of apples to apples.

 

[Doctyl]

If Nash is a 20 goals scorer....

He has scored more than 25 exactly twice and more than thirty exactly once. REALITY says he is nothing but a 20 goal scorer.

Stamkos averages 49.6 points a season. Stamkos is not even a 50 point scorer.

 

[True Blue]

Stamkos averages 49.6 points a season. Stamkos is not even a 50 point scorer.

You are right. How did I not see it? Rick Nash is every bit as elite as Stamkos. In fact, to coin your phrase, he has been generational.

 

[Off Sides]

I only issue I have with per minute stuff, besides it being per 60 which is like 3 or 4 games worth of minutes, is it seems to promote the idea that if a player were given more minutes his production per minute would stay the same while playing more minutes. For some players that is probably feasible, but for others they may just not have the stamina to play more minutes and still be productive. Since there is no way to know other than for that player to play more minutes it makes arguing about it an exercise in futility.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

You are right. How did I not see it? Rick Nash is every bit as elite as Stamkos. In fact, to coin your phrase, he has been generational.

Exactly. Generational even strength scorer, which is what Dactyl has been saying. And the numbers back it up

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I only issue I have with per minute stuff, besides it being per 60 which is like 3 or 4 games worth of minutes, is it seems to promote the idea that if a player were given more minutes his production per minute would stay the same while playing more minutes. For some players that is probably feasible, but for others they may just not have the stamina to play more minutes and still be productive. Since there is no way to know other than for that player to play more minutes it makes arguing about it an exercise in futility.

According to your logic, a player scoring 30 goals a season while playing 20 minutes on average is better than a player who scores 25 goals a season while playing 12 minutes on average.

 

[Doctyl]

According to your logic, a player scoring 30 goals a season while playing 20 minutes on average is better than a player who scores 25 goals a season while playing 12 minutes on average.

Can’t extrapolate anything unless it’s a bad playoff performance from 4 years ago

 

[Off Sides]

According to your logic, a player scoring 30 goals a season while playing 20 minutes on average is better than a player who scores 25 goals a season while playing 12 minutes on average.

No not at all, what I am saying is no one knows if a player playing 10 minutes and scoring at whatever his pace is, would keep the same pace if he were to play 20 minutes per game instead. For example If they played Paul Carey 20 minutes a game would his production pace still be whatever it is? If so they should play him more minutes and assume his production would keep pace and he may have 24 points by now instead of 12.

 

[LeetchisGod]

Can’t extrapolate anything unless it’s a bad playoff performance from 4 years ago

14 goals in 73 games as a Ranger is bad playoff performance over multiple seasons. No need to extrapolate anything.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I only issue I have with per minute stuff, besides it being per 60 which is like 3 or 4 games worth of minutes, is it seems to promote the idea that if a player were given more minutes his production per minute would stay the same while playing more minutes. For some players that is probably feasible, but for others they may just not have the stamina to play more minutes and still be productive. Since there is no way to know other than for that player to play more minutes it makes arguing about it an exercise in futility.

So people use those stats for extrapolation?

 

[McRanger]

...........

In summary:

For the second half of 14-15, he scored 5 goals in 30 games that weren't part of his surges.

In 15-16, he scored 7 goals in 52 non-surge games.

In 16-17, he scored 18 in 61 non-surge games.

So in a three year span, if he remove the games in which he looked he was playing video game hockey, he scored 30 goals in 142 other games. Or roughly a 15 goal in 71 game pace.

So in that sense, it really isn't a surprise to me that with increased age he's basically on a 17 goal pace, thanks in small part to shorter surges (such as nearly half of his goals coming in a three game spree from Nov. 11th to Nov. 15th).

Surge scoring?

Sorry but I have no idea what that's suppose to mean. I could see having a problem with only scoring one or two months out of the year or only scoring multiple goal games that are massively spread out or something.

But I really don't see the difference between, over say a 6 game span, scoring 3 goals in 3 straight games and scoring a goal every other game. I doubt anyone does. Why? Because literally every player who is not a god goes through blocks of games where they do not score. And then have blocks of games where they are hot and score a lot. Or have multiple goal games. Or score goals that were ultimately meaningless. Or goals that came against weak competition...

Nash scored in 35 different games in 14-15. More than Stamkos. More than Tavares. As far as I can tell he impacted more games with his goals than anyone other than Ovechkin. One less game, that is. That's... good.

As for after 14-15, like its been said Nash is what he is at this point: a ~20+ goal ~65 game player. He could probably still put up impressive numbers for a year or most of a year, but any sustained resurgence at this point is unlikely. He's aging and he's brittle.

Still, the amount of mental gymnastics employed to disparage Nash's one truly successful year is astounding. Him being a disappointment the rest of the time is not enough?

 

[McRanger]

14 goals in 73 games as a Ranger is bad playoff performance over multiple seasons. No need to extrapolate anything.

Nash leads the Rangers in playoff scoring since '15.

 

[LeetchisGod]

Nash leads the Rangers in playoff scoring since '15.

That's not saying much. No one on this team scores in the playoffs.

 

[Off Sides]

I don't hate the extrapolation idea all the time, if it's a player who is improving his production yearly and he is playing about the same amount of minutes, I think it's far more plausible he could play more minutes and produce at the same pace. Until he plateaued no one would know. I think Zbad, offensively, makes a good case for having his minutes upped to see if his pace stays the same or even improves. similar for possibly Miller, Hayes, maybe even Buch when he is ready for it, Yet I also understand those players limitation may show through at even a greater rate once those minutes are upped.

 

[Edge]

Surge scoring?

Sorry but I have no idea what that's suppose to mean. I could see having a problem with only scoring one or two months out of the year or only scoring multiple goal games that are massively spread out or something.

But I really don't see the difference between, over say a 6 game span, scoring 3 goals in 3 straight games and scoring a goal every other game. I doubt anyone does. Why? Because literally every player who is not a god goes through blocks of games where they do not score. And then have blocks of games where they are hot and score a lot. Or have multiple goal games. Or score goals that were ultimately meaningless. Or goals that came against weak competition...

Nash scored in 35 different games in 14-15. More than Stamkos. More than Tavares. As far as I can tell he impacted more games with his goals than anyone other than Ovechkin. One less game, that is. That's... good.

As for after 14-15, like its been said Nash is what he is at this point: a ~20+ goal ~65 game player. He could probably still put up impressive numbers for a year or most of a year, but any sustained resurgence at this point is unlikely. He's aging and he's brittle.

Still, the amount of mental gymnastics employed to disparage Nash's one truly successful year is astounding. Him being a disappointment the rest of the time is not enough?

For me it really comes down to a level of consistency.

For my offensive players, I prefer a more consistent effort game in and game out. I value it more if I can count on them to consistently be a threat, rather than score a bunch in a handful of games, and provide nothing in others.

I'm admittedly on the complete opposite side of the fence. I've never in my life seen such a long leash, with such lowered expectations for a player at Nash's age and with Nash's price - be it his playoff performances during his "prime years" or now his regular season production and consistency in his "declining" years. And it seems to be more of a stretch with each passing season.

 

[McRanger]

I don't hate the extrapolation idea all the time, if it's a player who is improving his production yearly and he is playing about the same amount of minutes, I think it's far more plausible he could play more minutes and produce at the same pace. Until he plateaued no one would know. I think Zbad, offensively, makes a good case for having his minutes upped to see if his pace stays the same or even improves. similar for possibly Miller, Hayes, maybe even Buch when he is ready for it, Yet I also understand those players limitation may show through at even a greater rate once those minutes are upped.

If you are talking about an in-game minute increase I would agree.

But I think these arguments tend to be more about games missed due to injury than minutes played in games. Guys like Zibs or Stamkos or Nash are usually productive when playing and healthy. But in all cases that has been a problem.

Although you could make an argument for increased ES minutes for a Nash or a Zibs I think Buchnevich probably fits more into the former argument than them.

 

[True Blue]

Exactly. Generational even strength scorer, which is what Dactyl has been saying. And the numbers back it up

Absolutely. Truly a once in a life time player.

 

[True Blue]

I only issue I have with per minute stuff, besides it being per 60 which is like 3 or 4 games worth of minutes, is it seems to promote the idea that if a player were given more minutes his production per minute would stay the same while playing more minutes. For some players that is probably feasible, but for others they may just not have the stamina to play more minutes and still be productive. Since there is no way to know other than for that player to play more minutes it makes arguing about it an exercise in futility.

This is exactly the same theory as platoon players in baseball. You have those that only play against lefties or eighties. And if you extrapolate their numbers to pretend that they would produce those numbers over the course of a whole year, you get some supermen. However, there is a reason they are platoon players. And they would never put those numbers up over the course of a whole season.

So what you have it context being lost and people utilizing loopholes to justify players they heart. Extrapolated numbers only produce extrapolated results. Which is why they can be used as an analytical, but hardly as complete evidence. Extrapolated does not mean actual.

 

[True Blue]

Can’t extrapolate anything unless it’s a bad playoff performance from 4 years ago

You can actually do whatever you feel like. However, some of us live in what actually happens instead of the land of make believe.

 

[McRanger]

For me it really comes down to a level of consistency.

For my offensive players, I prefer a more consistent effort game in and game out. I value it more if I can count on them to consistently be a threat, rather than score a bunch in a handful of games, and provide nothing in others.

I'm not sure that type of production and consistency exists outside of a select handful of players, if at all. Usually you only get one. Asking for 40 goals more or less evenly spread out by month should be enough for anyone. Asking for in-week production consistency is a bit much.

I'm admittedly on the complete opposite side of the fence. I've never in my life seen such a long leash, with such lowered expectations for a player at Nash's age and with Nash's price - be it his playoff performances during his "prime years" or now his regular season production and consistency in his "declining" years. And it seems to be more of a stretch with each passing season.

The lowered expectations come from what Nash has given. Nash is brittle and now he is aging and brittle. Nash spent about 40 games as a Ranger before he had a series of concussions and became massively injury prone. He's missed a ton of games and played others nursing injuries, often as a huge liability. Most people understand that and realize that expecting more than what we know we are likely going to get from him is an exercise in imbecility.

You say "I've never in my life seen such a long leash" but frankly I've never in my life seen someones injuries so completely whitewashed. I guarantee in the next few pages someone will write something like "Wat about dat 2014 playoofs lol he sux!" pretending like the guy wasn't suffering from multiple traumatic brain injuries. There are literally people killing themselves over this shit and we can't even acknowledge this happened to Nash. And why? Because he's a boring Canadian cream puff with a cap hit that's too high that we traded a bunch of hometown favorites to get. That seems fair to you?

 

[Off Sides]

If you are talking about an in-game minute increase I would agree.

But I think these arguments tend to be more about games missed due to injury than minutes played in games. Guys like Zibs or Stamkos or Nash are usually productive when playing and healthy. But in all cases that has been a problem.

Although you could make an argument for increased ES minutes for a Nash or a Zibs I think Buchnevich probably fits more into the former argument than them.

My thought are, basically it's an unknown.

For example Nash could produce 29 points in 850 even strength minutes in 67 games, a ~ .034 point per minute pace.

If coaching had given him 950 ev minutes, in those same 67 games, that extrapolates to ~32 points

What I am saying is he may not have produced those 3 extra points even if he was given those extra 100 minutes. He may have, he may have produced 1 more, or 8 more, or zero more or any combination of.

Same for the other players I mentioned, any of them could score at their same pace, a better pace, a worse pace. So it's mostly a feeling no matter which player one picked to extrapolate.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

If Nash is a 20 goals scorer....

He has scored more than 25 exactly twice and more than thirty exactly once. REALITY says he is nothing but a 20 goal scorer.

This thread has become stupid.

Nash is a 20 goal scorer now. Trying to say otherwise based on past accomplishments is stupid. We’re not discussing the player’s legacy here, we’re talking about his current role on our team. End of the story.

But posts like this are so stupid. After his rookie season, Rick Nash scored 30+ goals 7 times in 8 seasons. The one year he didn’t score 30 he scored 27. Then in year 9 he scored 21 in 44 games during the lockout. The tenth year he scored 26 in 65 and then he scored 42 the 11th year. That’s 11 straight seasons of elite goal scoring and during that stretch he broke 30 in 8 of 11 seasons and broke 25 in 10 of 11, only missing the mark in a lockout year. It’s only been the last three seasons where he had declined so heavily. Discounting the guys’s career and calling him nothing but a 20 goal scorer is just silly.

His production basically fell off a cliff. For some players, that’s the way that they decline. I don’t want Nash back in NY. I feel that the things and stuff he does well now have value but the Rangers are better off shaking things up and bringing in a new flavor than signing Nash to be a third liner next year. He will either continue to decline or he will have a resurgence on a new team but I doubt his scoring is going to suddenly bounce back playing on the same team.

 

[Edge]

I'm not sure that type of production and consistency exists outside of a select handful of players, if at all. Usually you only get one. Asking for 40 goals more or less evenly spread out by month should be enough for anyone. Asking for in-week production consistency is a bit much.




The lowered expectations come from what Nash has given. Nash is brittle and now he is aging and brittle. Nash spent about 40 games as a Ranger before he had a series of concussions and became massively injury prone. He's missed a ton of games and played others nursing injuries, often as a huge liability. Most people understand that and realize that expecting more than what we know we are likely going to get from him is an exercise in imbecility.

You say "I've never in my life seen such a long leash" but frankly I've never in my life seen someones injuries so completely whitewashed. I guarantee in the next few pages someone will write something like "Wat about dat 2014 playoofs lol he sux!" pretending like the guy wasn't suffering from multiple traumatic brain injuries. There are literally people killing themselves over this **** and we can't even acknowledge this happened to Nash. And why? Because he's a boring Canadian cream puff with a cap hit that's too high that we traded a bunch of hometown favorites to get. That seems fair to you?

I don't think some level of offensive consistency is asking for the moon. I' m not looking for him to score every game, nor do I expect 40 goals.

But periods of 6, 10, 12 and 14 games without a single goal? Those are all very real stretches over last three years, not just this year. Especially in the 6-10 range.

I appreciate your arguments about his injuries, but the reality is that it doesn't make frustrations about his play and his production any less valid. The results are what they are.

If we're going to apply injuries to declining play, then we're going to have a very long list of players we can make that defense for and very few conversations about guys who, for whatever reason, are just not getting it done in the manner we need them to.

The fact that this conversation about Nash has now turned into a debate about CTE is exactly my point. We don't do this for ANY other player - not Staal, not Lundqvist, not Girardi, or Zibanejad, or any other player. Frankly, that is exactly why so many people push back like they do.

When there are more reasons for Nash's inconsistent play, then there are actual results, that's a pretty telling sign that something clearly isn't working very well.