Confirmed with Link: Ryan O'Reilly traded to STL for Tage Thompson, Patrik Berglund, Vladimir Sobotka, 2019 1st, 2021 2nd

Status
Not open for further replies.

OkimLom

Registered User
May 3, 2010
15,216
6,689
Interesting to see ROR's#'s vs Patrice Bergeron, especially when you factor in the talent Patrice and ROR had to be surrounded by. But yes, ROR is a #2 Center...At the very least he's a middle to low end #1 center depending on the talent he plays with.
 

SnuggaRUDE

Registered User
Apr 5, 2013
9,025
6,553
RoR is a low end 1C high end 2C. I think he ranks in the shifting area of 20th-35th best center in the league any given year. His contract doesn't do his value any favors, but I don't think it causes a massive discount either.
 

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,571
40,114
Hamburg,NY
The claim that ROR is a 1C is far less absurd than the claim that he's a 2-3C, as in he might not be good enough to be a 2C.

61 points with 4th line usage and his ES play falling off the map because of it, even though his expected goals and all underlying numbers at ES were better this year than in previous Sabres seasons. Any analysis of more than just pointz puts him as a top 20-25 center in the league, which is comfortable to be called a 1C, if not a franchise 1C.

That’s a fairly disingenuous way to present things. He didn’t have 4th line usage. He played two way matchup role with extra shifts for dzone face offs which skewed is dzone starts downward. He also had 21pts in that 5v5 role not 61pts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SabresFan26

SabresFan26

Registered User
May 28, 2003
10,352
2,064
Visit site
Source: NHL.com
ROR's EV Goals:
15-16: 12 goals
16-17: 11 goals
17-18: 9 goals

ROR's EV Assists:
15-16: 25 Assists
16-17: 18 Assists
17-18: 25 Assists

ROR's EV Points
15-16: 37 points
16-17: 29 Points
17-18: 34 Points
Eichel had more was your point, despite missing significant time and being young and only improving. Also I used 5v5 ES so that excludes 2 of ROR's goals which were likely in OT or 4v4 where you're just using even strength in general not 5v5.
 

Icicle

Think big
Oct 16, 2005
6,055
1,007
Forget that ROR is in the top 20 forward range in every WAR model in his worst season as a Sabre? I never forgot that.
Ya.. despite having the worst non face-off and penalty statistics of any other player in the model by a long-shot.
 

OkimLom

Registered User
May 3, 2010
15,216
6,689
Eichel had more was your point, despite missing significant time and being young and only improving. Also I used 5v5 ES so that excludes 2 of ROR's goals which were likely in OT or 4v4 where you're just using even strength in general not 5v5.

What were you trying to show by just discussing 5 on 5?
 

SabresFan26

Registered User
May 28, 2003
10,352
2,064
Visit site
What were you trying to show by just discussing 5 on 5?
How bad this team was and that Ryan O'Reilly value is overrated and that we got two players who scored more 5v5 then ROR did with more minutes. People who point out ROR and his point value don't hold as much weight since most of those were on the PP, which will be easy to improve on with our skill and other guys filling those minutes.
 

OkimLom

Registered User
May 3, 2010
15,216
6,689
How bad this team was and that Ryan O'Reilly value is overrated and that we got two players who scored more 5v5 then ROR did with more minutes. People who point out ROR and his point value don't hold as much weight since most of those were on the PP, which will be easy to improve on with our skill and other guys filling those minutes.

But why not just say even strength and not just 5 on 5?

It’s not just the amount of minutes though. It’s the quality of linemates. It’s the quality of competition. I am curious to see what ROR’s numbers looked with Reinhart(his best linemates in the season) when they were reunited.
 

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,571
40,114
Hamburg,NY
What were you trying to show by just discussing 5 on 5?

Because 5v5 is the overwhelming majority of ice time played by any player and its where their usage matters.
  • Even Strength - Play where both teams have the same number of players (including goalies) on the ice. Includes 5v5, 4v4, 3v3, as well as when teams have pulled the goalie to turn 5v5 into 6v5, 4v4 into 5v4 or 3v3 into 4v3.
ES is 5v5 play + a lot of different game states (mostly when the goalies are pulled and 4v4). Plus if you're discussing the impact of how a player is used on their production (Top offensive center, defensive role, etc) you referent how they are used in 5v5 play.
 
Last edited:

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,571
40,114
Hamburg,NY
ROR is a 1C.

Anyone who disagrees has a terrible definition of 1C

NHL GMs are referring to their top offensive center when they talk about their #1. Its an archetype they use thats about usage/role and less about value to the team. Even the Blues GM said ROR is ideally their #2 but might be used as a placeholder in the #1 spot.

ROR has never played the role of top offensive center (or been the #1 if you will) for any NHL team. Can he do it? Its certainly possible but its a bit much to assume its a given.
 

sabrebuild

Registered User
Apr 21, 2014
10,517
2,770
Pittsburgh
NHL GMs are referring to their top offensive center when they talk about their #1. Its an archetype they use thats about usage/role and less about value to the team. Even the Blues GM said ROR is ideally their #2 but might be used as a placeholder in the #1 spot.

ROR has never played the role of top offensive center (or been the #1 if you will) for any NHL team. Can he do it? Its certainly possible but its a bit much to assume its a given.

This feels like semantics.

Outside of say the top ten or so super star centers, how many guys would you realistically think RoR is losing the head to head matchup?

Crosby, Malkin, McDavid, Kopitar, Bergeron, Barkov, Tavares, Stamkos, maybe Seguin, maybe Matthews and Eichel. Probably Couts after this year.

So, yes if a 1C is only one of the top ten elite all around players, then sure. But if a 1C can be considered a center comfortably in the 10-15 range, I’d say he is pretty comfortably a 1C.

Imagine the even strength potential if he had Giroux on his wing or Jamie Benn?
 

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
NHL GMs are referring to their top offensive center when they talk about their #1. Its an archetype they use thats about usage/role and less about value to the team. Even the Blues GM said ROR is ideally their #2 but might be used as a placeholder in the #1 spot.

ROR has never played the role of top offensive center (or been the #1 if you will) for any NHL team. Can he do it? Its certainly possible but its a bit much to assume its a given.

And that would support the opinion that Derek Roy was a #1 and ROR/Malkin/Backstrom/ etc arent
 

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,571
40,114
Hamburg,NY
This feels like semantics.

Outside of say the top ten or so super star centers, how many guys would you realistically think RoR is losing the head to head matchup?

Crosby, Malkin, McDavid, Kopitar, Bergeron, Barkov, Tavares, Stamkos, maybe Seguin, maybe Matthews and Eichel. Probably Couts after this year.

So, yes if a 1C is only one of the top ten elite all around players, then sure. But if a 1C can be considered a center comfortably in the 10-15 range, I’d say he is pretty comfortably a 1C.

Imagine the even strength potential if he had Giroux on his wing or Jamie Benn?

You're missing the the point. Every single team obviously has a center on their top offensive line. There are 31 of them of varying skill levels. Thats what GMs are talking about (the guy centering their top offensive line) when they talk about their #1. Jack has been that guy for us for the last 3 seasons. Teams focus their top checkers on Jack not ROR. Thats the point. You seem to be getting your dander up because you perceive this as a slight to ROR. Its not. Its about role. Its pointing out that he hasn't played that role. Its different from the roles he has played when at center. Can he be effective offensively when thats his actual role and he has to drive the offense against the other teams top checkers? I don't know.
 
Last edited:

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
78,571
40,114
Hamburg,NY
And that would support the opinion that Derek Roy was a #1 and ROR/Malkin/Backstrom/ etc arent

Its not an opinion its a fact. Roy was our #1 center and Malkin/ROR were the #2s on their respective teams. Its relative to each team. You want to discuss top centers in the game then thats a separate discussion.
 
Last edited:

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
Its not an opinion its a fact. Roy was our #1 center and Malkin/ROR were the #2s on their respective teams. Its relative to each team. You want to discuss top centers in the game then thats a separate discussion.

I don’t care for discussing a system that labels Malkin a #2

It’s straight stupid
 

Weaves

Registered User
Oct 28, 2013
296
98
Ottawa
RoR is probably one the most polarizing players out there, in terms of his actual on-ice value, and it is all depending on what valuations you use. Most GAR/WAR charts I see have him as a very valuable player, and those generally include faceoffs and defence metrics which obviously play a large role.

Alternatively, his 5v5 numbers are pretty suspect for a 1C, and some offense metrics indicate he is not anything special possession, entry or shot generation wise. Nevermind the crazy amounts of ice time he gets, relative to other elite forwards. Now, Buffalo was last place the last few years. It could easily be the poor teammates, chemistry, etc but I wouldn't label RoR a dynamic offensive talent personally and I don't really know where I stand on his value offensively. No denying his value on defense however, obviously pretty excellent.

I personally, as I mentioned pre-trade, would not have traded him until next season. I think he would have been a valuable asset given the team make-up, but I don't think this trade an utter robbery. The money has now been partially allocated to Skinner, I like Thompson, and the first can (hopefully) used to select our version of say a Robert Thomas. While I was disappointing initially on the return, I am pretty neutral now and think we just need to wait to see what we have in Thompson and the first round pick.

It is also pretty clear there was locker room issues, anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves, and that needs to be taken into account. So, all-in-all, maybe its a push, but could we have gotten Skinner without moving RoR? Who knows..
 
  • Like
Reactions: EichHart

OkimLom

Registered User
May 3, 2010
15,216
6,689
It amazes how people still don’t get why ROR was traded...

It still amazes how many people still don’t understand the role ROR played based on the coaches decision and trust in such a horrible locker room guy, and why it’s stupid to really judge ROR numbers for justification of why it’s okay to get rid of him without realizing why ROR didn’t have the best 5 on 5 numbers...but you know, because you play the most minutes that must mean you have to score a ton of points, because ROR was put into so many situations with quality linemates to take advantage of his offensive opportunities.

I’ll give you a clue, it wasn’t because of his on-ice play, and apparently ROR was such a problem in the room the head coach leaned on him very heavily. Speaking of which, I would love to have heard what Housley really thought of him...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad