kipwinger

Lemme guess, the one guy who said AA has had better linemates was Krsmith?

Real question: Did you ever play hockey competitively?

I mean, that's basically the ideal trajectory. Worries me though. Then again, I'm usually a fan of guys from Europe getting to NA as quickly as possible so I guess I have to take the bad with the good.

I'm always freaked out when our prospects decide to go the NCAA route. Unless they're one and done, I don't like it for their development. There are so few shots, and such little quality offense, I don't really think they learn too much down there. Hopefully it's one and one for Tuomisto.

Guy is a TOTAL clown. He goes on long diatribes about Russian life/culture/politics/hockey on Twitter all the time and gets all sorts of retweets from dimwit Canadian hockey personalities because he's highly critical of Russia. Dudes like Dreger eat him up. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has ever bothered to figure who exactly he is, and what exactly he does, that makes him such an expert on such complicated topics as Russia's role in the global economy and how that impacts the KHL's business model. But damned if he doesn't have an opinion.

According to analytics experts QoC doesn't really matter that much, relative to quality of linemates, for a few different reasons. 1) You control who your guys play with for 100% of the games you play, but can't control who they're out against for about 50% of games (on the road) you play. 2) In general opposition teams want to get their good players out against your bad ones. So generally speaking Blashill would want Mantha's line out against weaker competition, and other coaches would want their best guys out against our 3rd and 4th lines. Because of these things, QoC is basically irrelevant. Quality of linemates isn't though, because barring an icing during the middle of a line change, you send players out together every shift and change them together every shift so they consistently play with the same quality (or lack thereof) linemates. Here's a great article on it, just so you're not simply taking my word for it. https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/why-quality-of-competition-doesn-t-matter-to-analytics-experts-anymore-1.23414544

I don't think you were. I think those are valid points, and it's reasonable to skeptical on this (or any) discussion board because usually people are more interested in trying to "win" rather than trying to be "correct". Which is why I'm trying not to say too much until it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing on the question above. Don't want to tinge things.

I agree, but none of that is the point that I'll be making. But if it helps you to feel better about my intentions I'll say this, irrespective of linemates, Mantha is a better hockey player than AA and that's why he gets more minutes with better linemates.

It's not rigged, it's for context. Once enough people have voted I'll explain where this is all going but I don't want to bias anything beforehand.

Fair enough, that's why I said "generally" in the poll. Make sure you vote.

That's fine. I'm just asking a simple question, "who played with the better players". Not "who is a better player" or "who's line is better". Simply, "who played with better players".

I never said AA was the better player, just the better scorer, so your first point is moot. Your second point is moot because their careers are more than one season long. But there's the thing, I can prove that AA is the better scorer with empirical evidence. I just need you to answer one question first. Over the course of their careers, who has played with the better players in general? Keeping in mind, of course, that Mantha has averaged about 2.5 more minutes per game (hence he's played on higher lines than AA).

Mantha has played more of his career with better players. Before Larkin he played with Zetterberg. AA has never consistently played with a quality center. Edit: In addition, AA has averaged about 2.5 minutes less in ice time per game than Mantha. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if you give AA 2.5 more minutes per night, with top end players, his goal scoring would be substantially higher than Mantha's given how close it is currently without the quality linemates and minutes.

AA has 2 fewer career goals than Mantha despite consistently playing with worse players. So it seems like what you're saying is that even if he played with Larkin and Bert (which you agree would make a difference) it wouldn't account for 2 goals over a whole career? C'mon man, even you aren't that dumb.

Didn't realize their careers were only one season long? Do the math on the rest of their careers and you'll see a very different story emerge. Also, you think maybe AA would score more with Larkin and Bertuzzi as his linemates every night?

Who asked you to take my opinions seriously? I'm not over here begging for your approval man. I gave you my reasons for thinking Zadina is limited, which basically boil down to "he can only consistently generate offense in one way". You're welcome to refute it, ignore it, or whatever. I don't care too much. But when you say, "Tatar's his floor" without providing any rationale your opinion becomes just as suspect as you're saying mine is.

I did say he had more upside than Larkin. I was wrong. Sue me. However, I only said he was a better SCORER than Mantha. Which I stand behind. He has consistently scored more goals, in fewer minutes, with worse linemates than Mantha.

Oh now you're resorting to name calling rather than just admitting you were wrong? Sad. He may rack up a few more assists than Tatar, but essentially they're the same. Zadina plays too much on the perimeter and he's not fast enough to be dominant in transition. So basically his scoring is limited to the powerplay and/or whatever his linemates gift him. Dominant top line wingers score in a multitude of ways. I just don't see it with Zadina.

So you admit that I stated my opinion as such? Once you've admitted that then we can move on to why I wasn't talking about points when I say that Hughes is dominating.

I literally said "my opinion" in the post. Try harder. Oh, then easily Seider. I think Zadina is basically going to be another Tatar. Which is super useful for a contender to have. While I'm not sure how good Seider is going to be, he's proven me wrong so far, and I now don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he could be a Seth Jones type workhorse. I'd keep him around for that kind of upside alone.

I kid, I kid. I need clarity on the question. Are you asking, "who would you rather have up from GR right now, Seider or Zadina?" or is the question "If only one of these guys were in our organization and the other had to disappear, which would you keep?".

Is "neither" an option?

Oh sorry, I thought my opinion was clear. Hughes will be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Zadina. Why? Because superstars tend to dominate the league as soon as they come into it, like Hughes is doing. Think about this, you constantly say all the time that defensemen take longer to develop. So Hughes isn't even close to as good as he's going to be later, and he's already dominating the league as a rookie. Conversely, forwards peak earlier (according to your rationale) so Zadina is closer to his ceiling than Hughes, and he's basically a top six foward at this point.

It's was figure of speech. I wanted you to stop equivocating. You've done so, good job. You should do that more often instead of saying "well, it's just my opinion" or "I wouldn't be surprised if...". You can't walk this one back. If Hughes because a superstar and Zadina doesn't then you have to own it now.

Never easy to sacrifice something you love, but I'm glad you're stepping up like a man.