G not on Olympic Team Canada...wow

[B21]

[B21]

@radoran

 

I'll make it easy for you. Starting with 01-02 and running through last year's shortened season...

 

MSL: 35...70...94...61...102...83...80...94...99...74...60

VLC: 37...78...66...75...108...92...67...70...54...49...32

STS: XX...XX...XX...XX...XXX...XX...46...95...91...97...57

 

Can't make it more plain than that.  With one obvious exception (MSL's 94 point Art Ross year - I even bolded it for you) his numbers and VLC's numbers follow a pretty similar pattern...until Stamkos has his breakout year. MSL sees his totals increase significantly (15-20 points-ish) from his totals the prior two seasons while VLC continues his rapid decline.

 

Using the now famous eyeball test and the "Who would all of the NHL GM's take?" test, Stamkos > St. Louis.  Sooooo it looks to me as if MSL's career point totals were impacted by playing with VLC in his prime and, shortly after, Stamkos.

Edited January 9, 2014 by B21

[jackhole]

In terms of Neal's omission......Perhaps they factor in sportsmanship when making selections to the Olympics

Edited January 9, 2014 by jackhole

[Polaris922]

In terms of Neal's omission......Perhaps they factor in sportsmanship when making selections to the Olympics

Hence Zubrus... I mean Giroux's exclusion.

[Polaris922]

It's a nice line but, as usual, hyperbole is not your friend.

Going back to the beginning of December, Kunitz figures into 19 of 33 Crosby points - 56%

14 of Crosby's 24 goals this season have come without a Kunitz assist - 58%

By way of contrast, only 5 of Kunitz's 23 goals this season have come without a Crosby assist - 21%

One was a penalty shot.

So, clearly, Kunitz is the guy who needs Crosby to figure into 80% of his points

That was supposed to be funny. Sorry I forgot to hold up the sign!

[jackhole]

-polaris

 

No, seriously.  You don't think that how a player presents himself on the ice factors in on the international stage?  It probably did have a lot to do with his omission, don't you think?  There are plenty of reasons for Giroux's omission... THIS, is not one of them = I assume you're just pickin' scabs.

[King Knut]

My personal criticism of carter isn't about him as a player. I'm usually defending him on this board. My criticism is of yzerman for lying saying Giroux was a numbers game cut. Carter is not playing that well. Richards and Giroux who are both better play makers and defensive forwards are our scoring him. Richards is a natural C, and they wan carts to play wing, so that tracks, but G is a good center but also a winger so suggesting giroux's slow start is the reason he's not on the team is bull and everyone should realize it including yzerman and Giroux.

Someone else pointed to giroux's creativity, and to me this is the key reason I would want him on an Olympic team.

The guy is exactly the kind of player I would want with all star finishers and a lot of open ice.

Carter is on because the guy is way better than anyone seems to want to give him credit for. He skates so well and has become very responsible defensively. Having said that, since Giroux is a natural RW and Carter is a natural C, I would have gone with Giroux or MSL. It all depends how they're going to use Carter before this makes total sense. Also consider Carter doesn't take stupid penalties based on emotion - either because he has none, or is really good at keeping them in check. Or he's high.

[Polaris922]

-polaris

No, seriously. You don't think that how a player presents himself on the ice factors in on the international stage? It probably did have a lot to do with his omission, don't you think? There are plenty of reasons for Giroux's omission... THIS, is not one of them = I assume you're just pickin' scabs.

Seriously? No. It's about winning and the pieces it takes to win. Neal has one of the most wicked shots in the NHL. They're fools for excluding him. But no, I think it's more about the pieces they feel fill certain roles the best. Neal just doesn't factor in somehow.

[ruxpin]

Except that Neal's production doen't drop off when Malkin has been out. 

 

Again - right now I'd say Giroux is better and would conceded that that majority of GM's would take Giroux over Neal.  But...it's a slight edge. Not "OMG Giroux is soooooooooo much better than James Neal!"

 

Everyone loves MSL.  Can I argue he's a product of VLC and then Stamkos?  What about Perry/Getzlaf? There really is an "it's all Crosby" or "it's all Malkin" attitude when Neal or Kunitz come up.  Never the other successful foward combinations though.  Hmmm.

 

 

For whatever it's worth, I think Neal is a product of Neal.   I don't like him at all because of some of his shenanigans, but I'd be foolish to argue he's not a terrific player.  I wish he'd cut down on some of his crap, but then I wonder if that wouldn't inadvertently hurt some of his game.   I think his game is elevated somewhat when he plays with Malkin, but I think the evidence clearly shows that he plays well without him.   If there's any drop off, it's slight.  It seems to me, Malkin was out for quite a bit and Neal held his own.  Both are very good players in their own right.

 

Kunitz, for me, is a different story.   I've said before that I liked Kunitz before he was a Pen.  I thought it was a tremendous job by Shero to get him.  I don't think I realized at the time how great he'd be next to Crosby, but I thought it was a great pick up.   To me, the Lindros/Leclair comparisons are very fair.  Leclair  became a very good player in his own right, but without Lindros he was not Olympic material.   In Leclair's case, I wonder what he becomes if not for Lindros.  He certainly wasn't any kind of scorer before being put on Lindros' line.  I think some seasons of playing together increased his confidence and skill to the place where he could hold his own without him (although I don't think he was ever nearly as good without him).   Kunitz started from a better place.  He was a 60 pt player before Crosby (although, unlike Leclair, he wasn't playing on the 3rd or 4th line.  He was playing with quality).   Again, Crosby instantly elevated Kunitz' game.  To Kunitz' credit (much like Leclair) there were others who were paired with Crosby who did NOT raise their game, so this is not to slight Kunitz (or Leclair, for that matter).  Tons of credit goes to Kunitz.   And I do think that the experience of playing with Crosby and having success next to Crosby has elevated his confidence and his skill to where he is a much better player in his own right.  But on skill alone, he's not an Olympian.

 

But to your point about other pairings.  It comes up with Crosby/Kunitz and Lindros/Leclair because there is a clear superstar matched with someone obtained by trade who has seized the opportunity in a very big way.   With Malkin/Neal I guess you have a little bit of that because you have a guy drafted 2nd overall and a 2nd round draft pick obtained by trade.  I don't know, I just see this one as different because I thought Neal was a damn good young player before the trade to Pittsburgh who has continued to grow.   It doesn't hurt that he plays with Malkin, but he makes his own bed.

 

I guess I view MSL that way, too.  Was MSL made by VCL and then Stamkos or was VCL and Stamkos made by MSL?  Or were they just very good players who played together like Malkin/Neal?

 

All this to say that, for me, Lindros/Leclair and Crosby/Kunitz are much different instances than Malkin/Neal and MSL/VCL/Stamkos and Getzlaf/Perry.

[Claude Monet]

Well played! Old school style

You mean the guy who has been the best player on his team....the guy who just lead his team to 10 straight home wins for the first time since 84-85 and Bob Frose graced our nets. The guy who has lead his team to a 9-2 record in their last 11 games. The Flyers are the hottest team in hockey and G is the main reason.

[Clarke2Leach]

My personal criticism of carter isn't about him as a player. I'm usually defending him on this board. My criticism is of yzerman for lying saying Giroux was a numbers game cut. Carter is not playing that well. Richards and Giroux who are both better play makers and defensive forwards are our scoring him. Richards is a natural C, and they wan carts to play wing, so that tracks, but G is a good center but also a winger so suggesting giroux's slow start is the reason he's not on the team is bull and everyone should realize it including yzerman and Giroux.

Someone else pointed to giroux's creativity, and to me this is the key reason I would want him on an Olympic team.

The guy is exactly the kind of player I would want with all star finishers and a lot of open ice.

 

I think you and I are saying pretty much the same thing.  I agree with most of your posts, actually.

[B21]

For whatever it's worth, I think Neal is a product of Neal.   I don't like him at all because of some of his shenanigans, but I'd be foolish to argue he's not a terrific player.  I wish he'd cut down on some of his crap, but then I wonder if that wouldn't inadvertently hurt some of his game.   I think his game is elevated somewhat when he plays with Malkin, but I think the evidence clearly shows that he plays well without him.   If there's any drop off, it's slight.  It seems to me, Malkin was out for quite a bit and Neal held his own.  Both are very good players in their own right.

 

Kunitz, for me, is a different story.   I've said before that I liked Kunitz before he was a Pen.  I thought it was a tremendous job by Shero to get him.  I don't think I realized at the time how great he'd be next to Crosby, but I thought it was a great pick up.   To me, the Lindros/Leclair comparisons are very fair.  Leclair  became a very good player in his own right, but without Lindros he was not Olympic material.   In Leclair's case, I wonder what he becomes if not for Lindros.  He certainly wasn't any kind of scorer before being put on Lindros' line.  I think some seasons of playing together increased his confidence and skill to the place where he could hold his own without him (although I don't think he was ever nearly as good without him).   Kunitz started from a better place.  He was a 60 pt player before Crosby (although, unlike Leclair, he wasn't playing on the 3rd or 4th line.  He was playing with quality).   Again, Crosby instantly elevated Kunitz' game.  To Kunitz' credit (much like Leclair) there were others who were paired with Crosby who did NOT raise their game, so this is not to slight Kunitz (or Leclair, for that matter).  Tons of credit goes to Kunitz.   And I do think that the experience of playing with Crosby and having success next to Crosby has elevated his confidence and his skill to where he is a much better player in his own right.  But on skill alone, he's not an Olympian.

 

But to your point about other pairings.  It comes up with Crosby/Kunitz and Lindros/Leclair because there is a clear superstar matched with someone obtained by trade who has seized the opportunity in a very big way.   With Malkin/Neal I guess you have a little bit of that because you have a guy drafted 2nd overall and a 2nd round draft pick obtained by trade.  I don't know, I just see this one as different because I thought Neal was a damn good young player before the trade to Pittsburgh who has continued to grow.   It doesn't hurt that he plays with Malkin, but he makes his own bed.

 

I guess I view MSL that way, too.  Was MSL made by VCL and then Stamkos or was VCL and Stamkos made by MSL?  Or were they just very good players who played together like Malkin/Neal?

 

All this to say that, for me, Lindros/Leclair and Crosby/Kunitz are much different instances than Malkin/Neal and MSL/VCL/Stamkos and Getzlaf/Perry.

 

Nice post, Rux. I'll piggy back off your points about Kunitz/Crosby and Lindros/LeClair. The pedigree of the players involved has a lot to do with how fans view these situations....sometimes inaccurately.

 

Lindros was a 1st overall pick paired with LeClair who, while an early 2nd round pick (33rd), never projected as the scorer he became with Lindros.

Crosby is a 1st overall pick paired with an undrafted Kunitz...

Malkin is a 2nd overall pick paired with Neal who was also drafted 33rd overall (like LeClair)...

MSL went undrafted and has spent his career on lines with two 1st overeall picks in Stamkos and VLC...

 

I agree Kunitz and LeClair really mirror each other though I think Lindros had a the bigger impact on LeClair than Crosby did on Kunitz. LeClair went from a 20 goal guy to 50 as soon as he was traded to the Flyers.  Kunitz has played on Crosby's wing since he was aquired during the 08-09 season but has only evolved into a 40 goal guy starting with last season (projected over a full season) and now this season (on pace). While I attribute that largely to Crosby (and his Olympic invite) I do see a player who is simply improving at a later stage in his career as well.  It can happen.  Still though, sans Crosby (or any other gifted center) he's not a 40 goal guy. Maybe 30.

 

As for Neal, it's the eyeball test for me. I see him evolving into a big time scorer....a prototypical power forward who would be putting up very good numbers even without Malkin or Crosby. I see MSL in the same light. Both are very good in their own right but are beocoming (Neal) or have become (MSL) great due in large part to who they have played with.  The numbers (and the pedigree) support that. 

 

I also understand while I am getting killed on my opinion on MSL. Also undrafted. Basically a guy who was told he was too small throughout his career but who busted his arse to become the player he is today and prove his critics wrong.  A guy like that is a helluva lot easier to pull for than guys like Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, Stamkos and VLC.  With the exception of VLC, all are hard workers and bust their arses most every shift...but all were also blessed with a log of God given talent (and size in some cases).

[B21]

-polaris

 

No, seriously.  You don't think that how a player presents himself on the ice factors in on the international stage?  It probably did have a lot to do with his omission, don't you think?  There are plenty of reasons for Giroux's omission... THIS, is not one of them = I assume you're just pickin' scabs.

 

In Neal's case I think it does and I have no problem with it.  I think it should cross the board though a lot depends on the player and country.  Canada can afford not to name Neal to their Olympic team.

[brelic]

In Neal's case I think it does and I have no problem with it.  I think it should cross the board though a lot depends on the player and country.  Canada can afford not to name Neal to their Olympic team.

 

I'd take Neal over both Carter and Nash for Team Canada.

[King Knut]

Yeah, I think we are and thanks, nice to have have someone to agree with

I think you and I are saying pretty much the same thing. I agree with most of your posts, actually.

[B21]

I'd take Neal over both Carter and Nash for Team Canada.

 

Agree.  I would take any of MSL, Neal or Giroux over Nash and Carter.  MSL tops that list.  Then either Giroux or Neal depending on what style of play you want.

[ruxpin]

Nice post, Rux. I'll piggy back off your points about Kunitz/Crosby and Lindros/LeClair. The pedigree of the players involved has a lot to do with how fans view these situations....sometimes inaccurately.

 

Lindros was a 1st overall pick paired with LeClair who, while an early 2nd round pick (33rd), never projected as the scorer he became with Lindros.

Crosby is a 1st overall pick paired with an undrafted Kunitz...

Malkin is a 2nd overall pick paired with Neal who was also drafted 33rd overall (like LeClair)...

MSL went undrafted and has spent his career on lines with two 1st overeall picks in Stamkos and VLC...

 

I agree Kunitz and LeClair really mirror each other though I think Lindros had a the bigger impact on LeClair than Crosby did on Kunitz. LeClair went from a 20 goal guy to 50 as soon as he was traded to the Flyers.  Kunitz has played on Crosby's wing since he was aquired during the 08-09 season but has only evolved into a 40 goal guy starting with last season (projected over a full season) and now this season (on pace). While I attribute that largely to Crosby (and his Olympic invite) I do see a player who is simply improving at a later stage in his career as well.  It can happen.  Still though, sans Crosby (or any other gifted center) he's not a 40 goal guy. Maybe 30.

 

As for Neal, it's the eyeball test for me. I see him evolving into a big time scorer....a prototypical power forward who would be putting up very good numbers even without Malkin or Crosby. I see MSL in the same light. Both are very good in their own right but are beocoming (Neal) or have become (MSL) great due in large part to who they have played with.  The numbers (and the pedigree) support that. 

 

I also understand while I am getting killed on my opinion on MSL. Also undrafted. Basically a guy who was told he was too small throughout his career but who busted his arse to become the player he is today and prove his critics wrong.  A guy like that is a helluva lot easier to pull for than guys like Crosby, Malkin, Lindros, Stamkos and VLC.  With the exception of VLC, all are hard workers and bust their arses most every shift...but all were also blessed with a log of God given talent (and size in some cases).

 

Great post.  I can agree with all of it.  I highlighted the one line because I think some others may be unhappy with it, but I do think you are right on that.

[ruxpin]

Agree.  I would take any of MSL, Neal or Giroux over Nash and Carter.  MSL tops that list.  Then either Giroux or Neal depending on what style of play you want.

 

Completely agree.   And definitely Neal if you need someone to kick a player in the head.  

[aziz]

@ruxpin

 

teddy, what has happened to you?

 

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

 

teddy, what has happened to you?

 

 

 

Ouch.

 

Funny, but ouch.

[doom88]

@ruxpin

teddy, what has happened to you?

Hahahaha

[jammer2]

Agree.  I would take any of MSL, Neal or Giroux over Nash and Carter.  MSL tops that list.  Then either Giroux or Neal depending on what style of play you want.

 

 Could not agree more. What I'm looking for is not necessarily speed (although that is obviously important) but dexterity to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. For instance, the puck is turned over behind the net, who can get to that puck and stop the play before it becomes an odd man rush the other way....for me, that's MSL or G, not Carter and Nash....those guys need 2-3 strides to get their speed going, I want quickness and speed.

[Podein25]

 

What I'm looking for is not necessarily speed (although that is obviously important) but dexterity to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. For instance, the puck is turned over behind the net, who can get to that puck and stop the play before it becomes an odd man rush the other way....for me, that's MSL or G, not Carter and Nash....those guys need 2-3 strides to get their speed going, I want quickness and speed.

 

This.