PavelValerievichDatsyuk

I don't see where the bias is on my side. I can't really argue the TOI aspect because they don't have those stats from Draper's first 8 years. I'm not arguing that Draper didn't reach greater heights - just the amount of production from Glendening compared to these 4th liners through the majority of their careers. Also, you have a couple things wrong: Glendening only played 52 games when he was 25 Glen this past year 14:35 www.hockeyreference.com I'll try to make the comparison as close as possible: Glen Draper Age: 25 Age:25 GP: 56 GP: 76 Pts: 7 Pts:13 Age: 26 Age:26 GP: 82 GP: 64 Pts: 18 Pts: 23 Age: 27 Age: 27 GP: 81 GP: 80 Pts: 21 Pts: 18 ATOI:14:35 ATOI: 12:43 Draper had the advantage of being in the league for more years, better linemates, better team Glendening had the advantage of more TOI (only the one year, since Draper's stats aren't know the other 2 years)

Fine, here's a better way to show my point: Draper's first 7 years in the league (or 10 if you count the 30 games in the Peg) - up until he was 29 - he only once had equal or more than Glendening's 21pts this past year. It was 23 pts when he was 26. Maltby in his first 8 years in the league - up until he was 28 - only once had equal or more than Glendening's 21 pts this past year. It was 23 pts when he was 25. Kocur only once in his career outproduced Glen's 21 pts. Our 4th line as significant offensive contributors really only happened 01-04 when Drapes and Maltby were in their early 30s. Glendening's doing fine for production if you compare him to these guys.

The 4 scoring line idea I think is a good one if only to get Jurco and others in the lineup over Miller. I do think there would be potential problems with the matchup game, though. If we don't have a shutdown line, who are we putting out against Crosby and other top lines, especially if there's a D zone faceoff. If it's Larkin's line, they may do okay and get some chances, but I think it would effectively negate a fair amount of their offence if that's the regular match-up. If we roll the 4 lines pretty evenly we risk matchups like kickazz's line of Jurco-Sheahan-Mantha up against OV-Backstrom-Oshie. So how would we handle matchups? Sidenote: I know people are sentimental about the Grindline, but Glendening is outproducing all except McCarty in the comparable points of their careers (3 years in). They each had about 3 boom years when they produced 30-40 pts, but that was the norm for their careers,

Even if you think that's the opening lineup, you still have the 2 extra forward spots and, with Pulkkinen on IR due to his shoulder, that's 2 spots for Ott, AA, Mantha, or Frk (I think he's unlikely). So I think it's pretty hard to imagine he'll be sent down, at least to start. If they go with 8 dmen, that might be a scenario were AA gets sent down. That's unlikely, but I could get behind that idea so we could give XO and Sproul a shot and trade the lesser of the 2 (or Ericsson, of course haha). But even in that situation I'd prefer Ott sent down...

Sort of makes sense that we'd drop since Mrazek and Larkin aren't prospects any more (Assuming they were considered that last year). 21 is a bit extreme, though - they must not think much of Cholowski.

Maybe it stopped a few years ago. I just remember in discussions about Suter, Parise, and Vanek signing there, people kept mentioning that a motivation was because they had such a good prospect pool. I never really looked into it, so maybe it was bs even then. I don't really trust those kind of lists. It seems that it's just based on opinion. P.S. I'm guessing you meant Mathews with Toronto - man, it would be insufferable if Toronto got McDavid.

Wasn't it just a year or 2 ago that people here and elsewhere were talking up the Wild's prospect pool as the best in the league? On that link, they're ranked 28th. What happened? or i guess that past judgement was wrong.

I say #1 all the way!

Because of the Swedish connection, I can only see that picture as the famous scene from The Seventh Seal.

Fair enough. So I think all the business of the offseason is done unless Kenny surprises us with a trade. This seems like the most uncertain feeling we've had going into the year. Will Nyquist and Tatar return to form? Will Blash learn from the mistakes of last year? How will Nielson (and to a lesser extent Vanek) fit into the lineup? What will the PP and PK look like with 2 new ass. coaches? Who will we lose from the D prospects? A lot of big questions and the season could end up many ways, I think.

We just disagree on this part. I think Glendening is a very good 4th line center. I think his 21 points and +4 was good for the situations he's put in. Good faceoff guys alone are hard in my view. I know there's been some anti-Glen stuff on here. For an outside perspective, Here's an article (yes it's an opinion piece) ranking him as one of the 3 best 4th liners. http://speedkills.sportsblog.com/posts/6554003/the-3-best-4th-liners-in-the-nhl.html

I think it's always a different situation with D compared to forwards. There's only 6 that play regularly so if one contract ends up being bad it really gets in the way of the future. The worthy players that E is blocking are Sproul and Jensen (XO will get in with injuries). Are they better than E? I don't know. They could have actually gotten a shot if we'd spread out the call up so if you look at it that way they weren't even blocked by a player - just management deemed them not worthy. Also, 1.8 vs. E's 4.25 are totally different. I remember when was signed people that it was a figure based on potential. I think we know what we're getting with Glendening (and Helm) and 5 more years of that seems likely from a 27 year old. But anyway, I just can't imagine us saying in 2-3 years "our team would be so much better if we had ------ from GR on the 4th line, if only we hadn't signed Glendening." I mean, who is this 4th line center we have that's 3 years from the NHL? They would already be drafted by now. Turgeon or Ehn maybe, but they'll be other spots on the 4th line (both MIller and Ott gone next year) so prospects can go there. If they're even better than Glen at faceoffs than we move him to wing. We were fishing for a good 4th line center for a while with Emmerton and Andersson etc. Why not sign the best one of the bunch? Why keep fishing? 4 years is not even long term in my mind. And 1.8 is only slightly high. Miller's previous deal was 1.35 and no one complained. At the same time we had Eaves for 1.2 on the 4th line. Draper's caphit was as high as 2.128 as our 4th line center. I think it's always smart to do extensions before the player has the option of testing the free market and coming back with a high offer to throw in your face. Plus. Glendening at 27 and in his 4th year is probably going to be better as he's developing and I think the improved coaching staff will help his numbers this year. I'm trying not to turn against that Nielson deal. It's seems the most likely to get in the way to me. Helm moves around so I think he take different roles as Mantha and Svech come into the picture.

Okay, so you just didn't like the Helm or Neilson signings. I'm wary of the Nielson deal, but I don't know much about him so I'm waiting to see. I think Nielson is a definitely a possibility to a block against young players because I think AA could be a 2nd line center in a couple years. Helm I think will just be push down the lineup if Mantha or Jurco come in and grab a spot. I just disagree with the narrative I've seen around that Helm, Glendening are blocking the kids. They're 29 and 27 - I think they're good pieces and they can be part of a contending team in a few years. I think Miller, Ott, Vanek, are signings that won't be part of that future and take roster spots away from Jurco, Pulkkinen Mantha(should start in GR) I do think E is a longterm contract that has blocked some worthy young players.

Who do you want on the team specifically? Mantha, then don't sign vanek. Bertuzzi? then don't sign Miller and Ott.

Ian White?

Not necessarily. It shows that Glendening plays 4th line minutes 5v5. He only has 2-3 line minutes on the all situations graph, but that just says he PKs a lot, since he only got minimal PP time. (He had the 5th most PK time in the league, most of any forward, according to TSN.ca stats). A regular 2nd line player who probably plays on the PP and has good linemates is not going to have the same corsi as a guy that plays a huge amount on the PK and gets the D zone faceoffs. They both may get 14-15 minutes a game (or whatever it is), but judging shot attempts for the 2 players and being upset that the 2nd player doesn't measure up to the 1st player makes no sense in my view.

Your first paragraph is all how I understood it. The part I think is obscure and we're looking at differently is whether they're comparing to a universal average corsi % or if they have an average for 1st line players, a different average for 2nd line, etc. (of course, this would be a scale rather than categories, since players fit between lines on the colour scale). I think they're doing the later because the of the wording on the bottom axis that says "Corsi for % compared to line average." If so, Glendening's Corsi % (43.9) looks bad on the "all situation" chart because he's getting compared to 2-3 liners since he's purple - who probably don't PK and who's average would be higher than a 4th liner. Maybe 43.9 is good for a player who does a lot of penalty killing and gets all the D zone faceoffs. Even if they're comparing to a league-wide average, it wouldn't tell you that. You would have to compare with other 4th liners - but not based on minutes, based on role or maybe zone starts. Also, if they're comparing to averages based on line, Tatar's will look inflated on the first chart because he's being compared to 4th liners who probably don't get offensive assignments 5v5. Your way of looking at it shows him ahead of our top line players, but mine says he's being compared to a lower average than those top line players. Tatar looks good on the "all situations" chart while classified at 3rd line minutes, though, so my reading still ends up with Tatar as very good possession player. Tatar was used in the manner typical to 3rd liners so it would be an apt comparison as opposed to the case with Glen. Still my biggest takaway from the chart is that Tatar should have gotten much more than 4th line minutes 5v5. I think he's a good 2nd line player.

The way I remember it is he was awarded his 2 year contract through arbitration, but decided to play in the KHL instead (maybe wasn't happy with the ruling). Then he honored the arbitration deal when he returned.

I was trying to put it into context. My thing is "avg. by line" part of the chart. Looking at the first chart. They have Tatar in green which means he had the minutes of a 4th liner. I also think it means they are comparing his corsi% to how much it deviates from average corsi % of 4th liners not players like Nyquist, Z, DAts. If that's the case, that my issue with this chart. They could have done just corsi % as the bottom axis, and that would be more useful. Also, on context with Glendening, you can see in the first chart that he's within the average corsi % despite the fact that he's shown to have the hardest (or buried) zone starts. That reflects well on him. In the second chart, where it shows all situations, he's well below the average, but "all situations" for Glen means it adds his PK time. PK obviously isn't going to be good for corsi rating because you're going to be stuck in your own zone and almost all the shot attempts will be at your net. You're right, you should compare him to Helm in this context. It's impressive that Helm (and Sheahan) are still within the average despite PK time, but I would expect PKers be below the average here. P.S. Why isn't Miller on the chart? I know he only played around 30 games, but they have Ferraro and Pulkkinen only played 30-40. Miller would be an important comparison with Glendening.

I respect these advanced stats but my problem with these charts that pop up is they seem badly annotated to me. ...or I am an idiot. I'm open to that possibillity. It says "deviation from NHL avg by line". and the colours show which line their getting compared to. WIth that, my reading of those charts are: - Glendening is being compared to the average 2nd liner in the 2nd chart? No wonder he's lower than the average. Especially since the chart shows he's being giving "buried" zone starts, which I assume means defensive starts. Of course a guy getting a majority of defensive zone starts will have a lower corsi than the average second line player who probably doesn't. Also, the 2nd chart says "all situations," so they're comparing his corsi including penalty killing time to the average 2nd liner, who probably doesn't PK and might be on the PP. - Then, Tatar is being compared to 4th liners in the 1st chart? If so, no wonder he looks good. The biggest thing that tells me is we have to play Tatar more 5v5 than the average 4th liner. I know the line classification is probably due to how much ice time they get, but it should be kept in mind. The chart has buried and Sheltered as the labels for zone starts. I assume Sheltered means they get offensive starts, but getting defensive zone shouldn't be considered "buried." Glendening was one of our only guys could win faceoffs so he got the D zone starts. Since he apparently got 2nd line minutes, that hardly sounds buried to me. If those are the perameters of the chart, I would question the conclusions of whether a player is struggling vs. thriving. If I read it wrong, apologies, and feel free to correct me.

Apologies for listing the Selke. Not sure where I got that from. They have similar production. Pav played 173 less games. think that's a pretty significant difference and that's not even taking into account the defensive side of things. You say they both had 2 90+ seasons, but Pav also had 2 80+ seasons as well while Richard does not. And, yes, Richard had a decent defensive game, but not on the level of Datsyuk. Richard's highest +/- was +13 (with a cup winning team). Richards was only a plus player 6 of his 17 years. He played on some bad teams, but not that much. Datsyuk's highest +/- was +41 and was only not a plus player 1 year (2nd year). And I know that +/- is partially a team stat, but surely +249 vs -67 for their respective careers at least says something their difference. You can look at many more reliable stats to show Pav's superior 2 way game, though: Brad Pav Takeaways: 345 754 Giveaways: 424 380 Face-Off%: 50.3 54.8 Hits: 207 512 Corsi%: 51.7% 59% (since 07 when they started recording these) Fenwick%: 48% 58.2% http://www.hockey-reference.com/ For a while Datsyuk was considered the best all-around player. That was kind of the common line amongst commentators that I remember for a while.

I'd say Pav is much more likely and that Richards is more of a question mark. Their production is roughly the same, but Pav did it in 173 less games. I think it's Datsyuk's elite defensive game (and 3 selkes) that give him a big edge. Other 3 time Selke winners have not been inducted (Carbonnneau, Lehtinen) but they didn't put up the same numbers Datsyuk did. Brad Pav GP: 1126 953 Gs: 293 314 As: 634 604 Pts: 932 918 +/-: -67 +249 2 Cups 2 Cups 1 Byng 4 Byngs 1 Selke 3 Selkes 1 Smyth

I have a couple problems with this article. - First of all, Glendening's extension doesn't kick in until next year so comparing him to players that are midway through similar deals isn't quite right. They're looking at the past 3 years so that should compare to players that had caphits similar to Glen's .628 (of course, they're looking at his new contract so it doesn't make sense for their purposes.) - Another problem is they've only chosen 3 similar players, 2 of which that have a higher caphit than Luke will have (2 guys with 2 mill) Why not compare him to Matt Hendricks, John Mitchell, Letestu, Dwight King? All have similar contracts. Don't have the time to check, but I sense some cherry picking. - Another problem is they're comparing 4 players at different points of their career. They're looking at the past 3 years. For Glendening, that's his whole career and includes a first year where he struggled, Fehr and Beagle are 30 and just went through their primes, and similarly Lewis is 29. All 3 other guys have played more than 6 years in the league. - But most of All, The problem is the part on penalty-killing, where they say "He has played more than twice the amount of time short handed than any of the other players, but his per 60 marks aren't great." Despite the fact this his GA60 (5.88) is lower than 2 guys that that make more than he will (Fehr: 5.97 and Lewis: 6.04) ?!?! ...in his first 3 years while he made 0,628. Am I missing something? - Also, these 3 played for Washington, Pitsburgh and LA - top teams, I'm sure this effects some of the stats.

He wasn't moved off center because he's wasn't good at it. We've lacked wingers and had a bunch of lower line centers so Helm played wing. To me, his ability to play in many situations is one of his strengths. Helm's not a top 6 winger. haven't seen anyone argue that. There was some nice goals from mr. no hands this past year. 3 were GWG (tied for 3rd on the team behind Lark and Abby). Think he would have had a better year if he hadn't had the concussion in training camp which I think accounted for the slump to start the year.

Yeah, 200 fans equates to 6-7 fans per team IF they spread out equally the responders over the fanbases. But it doesn't seem that they did that - they just took whoever responded. Could be all Tampa fans. Regardless of what fans they are, they ranked the entire league and I guarantee most fans know very little about how all teams draft, etc.