Player vs Player

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Those are poor examples and you leave out games played on all of them, and ppg is relevant. Bernie Nichols is probably the best one, and we're talking about playing with Gretzky here, not just "better players".  That said, Bernie was already a 90-100 point guy before Gretz. '88:  1.2 ppg.  '89: 1.8, or a 58% improvement. His production then plummeted to below pre-Wayne levels though. So if the Great One can get you a 58% improvement for just one year in the high scoring 80's, I doubt that Seguin and the Bruins can get Nash a 65% improvement for years and years, and even if they did he would score less than Krejci and Purcell combined.

    As for the other examples, they are not actually examples of what you're talking about, but quite the opposite.  Adam Oates with Detroit: 1.13ppg (almost an assist per game as a 3rd liner!), with St. Louis the next year: 1.20ppg. Brett Hull pre-Oates isn't a good example because he is in his first and second NHL years, so he was still improving regardless of linemates (84 points wasn't bad though). However, did losing Oates make Hull less productive? Not really. He went from 109 to 101 points. He continued to be a great player, scoring less goals but getting more assists. His scoring declined gradually from the peak he had at 25. In fact, historically it is remarkable how many players have their most productive year at 25 or younger. The last example, Cheechoo, isn't really worth mentioning. He didn't become a better, more productive player with Thornton, he had one good year and then tanked and you can now find him with the Peoria Rivermen. Thornton was having his career-year (at age - you guessed it - 25) and Cheechoo was along for the ride.

    Find a player who was over age 25 (if possible 28 like Nash), was already established and getting 1st line minutes and was traded to a more talented team and produced significantly better point totals. You will look for a long time and never find one.

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    I see your point Oates but I would rather have Nash and Thomas rather than Purcell,Pouliot,Krejci and Rask, and I like Rask. Not putting down any of the above mentioned players. I have no doubt Seguin will get his points, i just think Nash expedites the process and enhances Seguins potential/production. Some players have had significant jumps in their productions from changing teams or from their team adding a player. Here are some. 1. Bernie Nicholls --before Gretzky  32 G  46 A  78Pts                         --Playing with:    70 G  80A   150Pts 2. Adam Oates      1988/89 Detroit  16G  62A    78Pts                           1989/90 Blues    23G  79A    102Pts 3. Brett Hull          1988/89 Before   41G  43A    84Pts                           1988/89 Oates   72G   41A   113Pts 4. Cheechoo          year before Joe  28G   19A   47Pts                            year with Joe    56G    37A   93Pts
    Posted by kelvana33

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from KMCI. Show KMCI's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    Tb trades tp for nash or Kess in a sec,

    To trades Kess for Nash in a sec

     only here would not trade Krej and Rask for Nash in a sec, love Krej but he is 26 and has 276 points 13 points less than \Nash has goals and 271 less than Nash has points. Nash will hit 500 goals if the next 250 were in Boston I would love it.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    This player had the following stats 2011-2012 G      A       PTS 37    45       82 He's only 24 yrs old, and his contract should be considered to be below market value for that production Does that make him more valuable than Tyler Seguin ? Stats = ?????
    Posted by JWensink

    On the player?  Depends who you ask.  If you mean right now, I think a lot of people would say yes, Penalty Kill is more valuable.  The Bruins pay less for Seguin and get fewer points, plus he plays on the second line, not the magnet for checkers.  Seguin also hasn't made Lupul a top 10 scorer.   It's only when you bring in perception and say one guy is a streaky and best when there's no pressure, while the other is still developing and shows every sign of being a top C in the league that the stats are diminished.  But for every comparison like this, there's a Linus Omark who looks like he should be a dynamite NHL player, but his stats never match what your eyes suggest. 
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from patriotpat99. Show patriotpat99's posts

    Re: Player vs Player

    In Response to Re: Player vs Player:
    The point isn't about Kessel - it's a response to the premise of this post, how stats alone don't represent a given players value. If they did, then Phil Kessel is more valuable than anyone on the current B's roster. Apparently, you missed that.
    Posted by JWensink

    i thought the point was "don't always go with the expensive goal scorer"