Player Discussion "The Real Deal" James Neal

[Mr Snrub]

The flaw being not every UFA is brought in for scoring.

Absolutely, and obviously a quick and dirty formula like AAV divided by PPG isn't gonna paint the full picture. But the chart that SKRusty posted leans ranks the players by points on the year, so by the metric he suggested we view these UFAs, Neal is at the bottom of the pack thus far.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

I hate to burst your bubble but Neal scored 1 goal (Mar 30) from Feb 11 to Apr 7 last year. Thats a span of 17 games.
Although he did score 6 times in 20 games in the playoffs last year. He also had 5 assists.

Not really bursting bubble, when I was referring to playoffs as finishing off.

Point being, streaky.

 

[1989]

Neal wasn't? That's news to me and a lot of others. Our ability to score, or lack thereof, was the #1 issue with Treliving and he admitted it in an interview.

Neal was brought in to add to the scoring depth on the right side. Frolik is actually scoring with 7 goals and he and the rest of the 3M line create one of the best shut down lines in hockey this year. So far they have shut down the Johansen & Forsberg line twice, the MacKinnon line twice, Tavares and the Leafs who put up 5 against the Penguins, contained Ovie and Kuznetsov, and contained Kane and Toews.

So to appease a few the team should sacrifice that capability so Neal can score a couple goals?

Much of the chatter about Neal not being on the second line is narrow minded. As long as the Flames are winning games who cares who is scoring. To this point the Flames are the only team with 5 count them 5 Players with more than 15 points.

Neal will score and more importantly he will be here when he really excels... The play-offs.

Absolutely, and obviously a quick and dirty formula like AAV divided by PPG isn't gonna paint the full picture. But the chart that SKRusty posted leans ranks the players by points on the year, so by the metric he suggested we view these UFAs, Neal is at the bottom of the pack thus far.

Not quite. If you really want to calculate who's getting the best bang for their buck, you should divide the player's AAV by their points per game. The lower the number, the less money the team is paying per point.

With that in mind, Neal is the worst value player on this list among ones who have played at least 12 games. Maroon is the best, with Perron in second. Obviously, just calculating how much money we're paying them and dividing it by their rate of production is a flawed way of analysing how good a player is, especially early in the year, but I think the fact that Neal comes in last place indicates that he's not earning anywhere near the money he's being given.

I expect Neal to pick it up a little but if he doesn't it's another truly brutal contract by Treliving. Also worth noting that Ryan ranks 10th out of the 13 guys.

Thanks for all the replies re: Neal. Wasn't talking about Neal, see bolded. Easy bait though, my bad.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Thanks for all the replies re: Neal. Wasn't talking about Neal, see bolded. Easy bait though, my bad.

While Ryan wasn't signed explicitly to score points, I think the anemic production from our bottom six probably was most of the impetus behind picking him up. He wasn't really a guy signed as a special teams expert, for leadership, or defensive play, yeah? Just an effort to give us three dangerous lines instead of two.

 

[Calculon]

Ryan was principally signed because he's a RHS centreman capable of winning more than 50% of his draws. The fact that he seemed capable of putting up some points didn't hurt though.

There was an article I think in pre-season or summer with a quote from Treliving saying how he needed to give his coach the proper tools to succeed. And it was in reference to that infamous incident from last season where Brouwer took three or so draws in the defensive zone, one after the other, losing all of them which eventually lead to a goal against and the Flames losing the game.

That was also one of the reasons why Lindholm (and Czarnik) were targetted, albeit secondary to their offensive promise.