Zaitsev’s offense that rookie came from secondary assists and the PP.
Folks really exaggerate how good he was, especially at even strength
where Jake the mistake?anyone else really hoping Dubas moves a package of Zaitsev+ Brown + picks or prospects to get a top 4 RHD?
Tanev, Pesce, or Parayko would be nice. Tanev might be the cheapest and wouldnt cost a Kap/Johnsson
Hyman-Tavares-Marner
Marleau-Matthews-Nylander
Johnsson-Kadri-Kapanen
Moore-Goat-Bracco
Rielly-Tanev
Muzzin-Dermott
Rosen-Ozhiganov
Andersen
Sparks
Kap/Johnsson on a 1 year bridge, them give em Marleaus money when his contract is up
Sure. At one point, we also thought Clarkson was playing well enough to be a gritty top six scorer for us. Just because someone thought the contract was good enough at one point doesn't mean the reason was good.he played well enough that they saw him as a long term solution in the second pair
Sure. At one point, we also thought Clarkson was playing well enough to be a gritty top six scorer for us. Just because someone thought the contract was good enough at one point doesn't mean the reason was good.
Zaitsev was not good his rookie season. He got absolutely filled in at even strength, was not a difference maker on the PK, and put up a decent amount of points due to being on one of the league's strongest PP's that year with Nylander and Matthews.
I'm irrational by saying that just because he got a big contract doesn't mean he deserved it? Man must be rough for you to be on a forum if that's beyond what you can handle.i was never in favour of handing that contract to Clarkson, and was only lukewarm to him as a player
you can keep up the false narrative all you'd like, as of now i'm through with this convo, it's obvious you some irrational feelings about Zaitsev
it really doesn't matter where the points come from, I was not exaggerating how good he was, only that he played well enough that they saw him as a long term solution in the second pair
he hasn't suddenly forgot how to hockey and season long flukes don't happen
I'm irrational by saying that just because he got a big contract doesn't mean he deserved it? Man must be rough for you to be on a forum if that's beyond what you can handle.
Or the person who made that decision made a mistake...
I'm glad to hear it.you couldn't be more wrong, or was this a stab at irony?
That's not out of the ordinary, and management is wrong on guys they sign all the time.possibly, the only flaw in that is that it isn't a one person decision and I can't see the Pres/GM/head of scouting/player development and coaching staff all being so wrong about a guy they actually actively scouted for two years
so then it is possible that Gardiner's erratic play has effected Zaitsev in a negative wayI'm glad to hear it.
That's not out of the ordinary, and management is wrong on guys they sign all the time.
Then we're back to talking about how Zaitsev has been bad even without Jake. When he played with Rielly, the two of them struggled mightily in pretty much every measurable way. If you look at micro stats, Zaitsev look bad at everything. So blaming his performance solely on Gardiner seems quite far-fetched.so then it is possible that Gardiner's erratic play has effected Zaitsev in a negative way
Then we're back to talking about how Zaitsev has been bad even without Jake. When he played with Rielly, the two of them struggled mightily in pretty much every measurable way. If you look at micro stats, Zaitsev look bad at everything. So blaming his performance solely on Gardiner seems quite far-fetched.
I don't disagree that the two don't seem to have any chemistry at all. I just think Zaitsev is to blame for most of his performance, not Jake.
If he did the bolded, he wouldn't have incredible possession stats. He's generating shots. In fact, last I checked he generated more shots than 97% of the league. And it's not just perimeter shots either, as his xGF (shot metrics modified by shot location) is also very, very high.Everyone talks about Nylander's incredible possession rate and how it's among the highest in the NHL and when viewed in a vacum are fantastic, but shouldn't that high rate of possession result in more scoring, like a lot more. Carrying the puck from your own blueline all the way to the opponents redline, around the net and then around the ozone one more time and not creating a dangerous scoring opportunity isn't good, when i played we had a name for the guys that did that kind of stuff.
All you said about hockey here is true. However, if that meant that possession stats were not valuable then that would show up in correlation, for example. It doesn't. Possession stats have been shown to be predictive, despite the fluid nature of the game.hockey isn't situational in the way baseball is, nor is it made up of a series of stringent set pieces playing for or against tendencies like pro football is. The game is highly fluid and one set of circumstances that occur on the ice are likely never to happen again. The point goes back to the misleading nature of most micro/advanced stats
hockey isn't situational in the way baseball is, nor is it made up of a series of stringent set pieces playing for or against tendencies like pro football is. The game is highly fluid and one set of circumstances that occur on the ice are likely never to happen again. The point goes back to the misleading nature of most micro/advanced stats