• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Bill Berzeench

The Elite Dylan Larkin

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I must admit that I was surprised Crosby was left off the roster, it makes no sense to me. He's he had an absolute horrible start to the season...but that's also by his standards, his offensive stats are still better than almost half the forwards on the roster (10 of 24). The all star games if for the kids and for your corporate sponsors, you want to showcase your stars...it's mind boggling that he wouldn't be selected unless there have been behind the scenes requests to leave him off due to nagging injury (playing through but doesn't want to end up in situation he and other players have been before with the AS game).

Crazy to think though, he's actually only played in 1 all star game. He would have been there based on performance every year, but missed 5 due to injury, 3 due to Olympics and 2 due to lockout.

John Scott will take care of the sponsors and the kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sidney's rookie year was in 2006, this was the first year post lockout when a ton of rule changes were made to increase scoring. The "trap era" arguably ended in 2004.

2006 had the most goals per game in the last 20 years.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

He was still sixth in league scoring which is pretty incredible, and Ovie was third. Rookies that dominate amongst their peers like those two did are extremely rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question then.

Do we consider Crosby and Ovechkin elite in their rookie years - basically from the get-go? And I mean elite among all players not just looking at the 2005/06 rookies.

Because it seems like the general consensus (except Bill) is that Larkin is not elite yet. I'm wondering how people feel about Crosby and Ovechkin in their rookie years. Would you have labelled them as elite their first year? Or "not yet"

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't respond to people who dismiss plus minus. It's a great stat over time, and that's why it's the third one on the NHL.com stat page. Only 4 stats are tracked for forwards on the leaders page, and that's one of them. People with favorite players at a minus 11 over the first 40 games want to blow the stat off right now. Gee, I wonder why.

I will respond to you though. You got faced, and now you want your tracks covered. The NHL has deemed Dylan Larkin elite. His peers deem him elite. You're just having a vocabulary issue right now. That's all. And that's why I still got your back, brah. You're good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was still sixth in league scoring which is pretty incredible, and Ovie was third. Rookies that dominate amongst their peers like those two did are extremely rare.

My point wasnt to dismiss Crosby's accomplishment, it was to dismiss 2006 being the "trap era" and a hard time to score goals. Crosby is obviously an elite offensive talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't respond to people who dismiss plus minus. It's a great stat over time, and that's why it's the third one on the NHL.com stat page. Only 4 stats are tracked for forwards on the leaders page, and that's one of them. People with favorite players at a minus 11 over the first 40 games want to blow the stat off right now. Gee, I wonder why.

I will respond to you though. You got faced, and now you want your tracks covered. The NHL has deemed Dylan Larkin elite. His peers deem him elite. You're just having a vocabulary issue right now. That's all. And that's why I still got your back, brah. You're good!

Your biggest argument for Larkin is +/- stat and you fail to look at other aspects. And when others point out the "points" category, you hypocritically say "points isn't the only determining factor". Your supporting reasons are flawed and you're using dictionary.com to justify elitism in a game in which players are picked by fan voting, one representative per team per division with up to 6 forwards - some of who didn't get in because there's a limit to how many can get in (i.e Crosby).

Most of your arguments are flawed - and the amount of fallacies you commit when debating are incredible. You consistently "cherry pick" (fallacy of incomplete evidence) by focusing on the +/- stat as your go-to and ignoring all of the other stats that point against Larkin's true rank among players. You also have straw man arguments (another fallacy) when you interpret that people somehow "dismiss" the +/- stat when in reality they are telling you that it's not the complete picture. It's just part of the picture.

Also you're acting a bit childish with your comments (ad hominem) - how do you expect people to take you seriously.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't respond to people who dismiss plus minus. It's a great stat over time, and that's why it's the third one on the NHL.com stat page. Only 4 stats are tracked for forwards on the leaders page, and that's one of them. People with favorite players at a minus 11 over the first 40 games want to blow the stat off right now. Gee, I wonder why.

I will respond to you though. You got faced, and now you want your tracks covered. The NHL has deemed Dylan Larkin elite. His peers deem him elite. You're just having a vocabulary issue right now. That's all. And that's why I still got your back, brah. You're good!

You're arguing against your own position here. It is a stat that can say something with context (comparing to other players on a team) or, yes, over a longer period of time. When a player has played around, say, 39 games like Larkin has, it can often be inflated one way on the other.

For instance, Mr. Nyquist was +16 in 57gp in 13-14. Last year, he was -11. Which one tells his story? both do. You have to wait a longer period of time.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question then.

Do we consider Crosby and Ovechkin elite in their rookie years - basically from the get-go? And I mean elite among all players not just looking at the 2005/06 rookies.

Because it seems like the general consensus (except Bill) is that Larkin is not elite yet. I'm wondering how people feel about Crosby and Ovechkin in their rookie years. Would you have labelled them as elite their first year? Or "not yet"

To me it's pretty obvious they were elite players immediately. I still can't believe Gretz left Crosby off the Olympic team. I think what a lot of people forget too is that Crosby is a year younger than Ovie, who had been playing pro in the Super League for 4 years already. In Crosby's 19 year old year he jumped to 120 points and winning the Art Ross. All of this is no knock on Larkin, as these are two of the best young players ever to play in the NHL, but just that Larkins having a great year for a rookie, but has to continue on this path and improving for a few years before we can talk about elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I'm done. No point in engaging further.

Larkin is great. Not among the elite, hopefully one day. One of our MVPs. That's what I've concluded in the games played so far.

Good. You're getting vuhklemped for no reason. We are just debating, brah. Larkin's an all star. I dont know what else he could do right now to make you feel he is elite. He's lighting the lamp, he's assisting, he's killing it in plus minus, coach is starting to double shift him. What do u want out of the guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. You're getting vuhklemped for no reason. We are just debating, brah. Larkin's an all star. I dont know what else he could do right now to make you feel he is elite. He's lighting the lamp, he's assisting, he's killing it in plus minus, coach is starting to double shift him. What do u want out of the guy?

He's an all star because the NHL mandates every team be represented, and each division make a team. I love Larkin, but he's tied for 62nd in league scoring, hardly elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's an all star because the NHL mandates every team be represented, and each division make a team. I love Larkin, but he's tied for 62nd in league scoring, hardly elite.

So all that matters is points? Funny how Wings fans used to say Lidstrom should have won the Norris when he wasn't in the top 3 in points. Now that Larkin is playing a Selke caliber 2 way game, we are going to say that all that matters is points? Jesus. And god, how completely HORRENDOUS is 62 out of 560 skaters league wide when you're 19 years old. What a bum. Time to send him to GR.

BTW, 2 more pts and he's tied for 41st. And he's leading the league in +/- now again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. You're getting vuhklemped for no reason. We are just debating, brah. Larkin's an all star. I dont know what else he could do right now to make you feel he is elite. He's lighting the lamp, he's assisting, he's killing it in plus minus, coach is starting to double shift him. What do u want out of the guy?

Passive aggressive much.

Nobody is saying Larkin isn't doing well enough. We ALL are saying he's excellent. What we're talking is about is where he stands among the elites. So quit puttin' words in my mouth bruh. Everyone's dissproved your theory (and noticed how you've ignored them)

So he's elite because of +/- and because he's an all star after a bunch of vets said no.

You're arguing against your own position here. It is a stat that can say something with context (comparing to other players on a team) or, yes, over a longer period of time. When a player has played around, say, 39 games like Larkin has, it can often be inflated one way on the other.

For instance, Mr. Nyquist was +16 in 57gp in 13-14. Last year, he was -11. Which one tells his story? both do. You have to wait a longer period of time.

The Berzeench is silent and refuses to engage ya'll xD

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all that matters is points? Funny how Wings fans used to say Lidstrom should have won the Norris when he wasn't in the top 3 in points. Now that Larkin is playing a Selke caliber 2 way game, we are going to say that all that matters is points? Jesus. And god, how completely HORRENDOUS is 62 out of 560 skaters league wide when you're 19 years old. What a bum. Time to send him to GR.

BTW, 2 more pts and he's tied for 41st. And he's leading the league in +/- now again.

Nowhere do i say this is horrendous, he's obviously a very good player, but elite means being among the very best of your sport. 62nd in the league puts him as essentially the third best point producer on average for an NHL team, if you want to take elite that deep into the talent pool I guess we're not going to see eye to eye. Also nobody is going to give somebody who has played wing all season any Selke consideration.

Plus minus is also an extremely circumstantial stat, that is only useful(if it is at all) over the long run.

Edited by nosyt612

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We finally get the next superstar to come along since Zetterberg and Datsyuk, and you guys all want to downplay it. It's hilarious. In the words of Dany Heatley, "He's a f%$king all-star"!!!

So is John Scott. So are a bunch of generally unspectacular players. Once again I ask you, what about his game right now makes him elite, other than the cherry picked +/- stat. He's a center who needs to learn how to win faceoffs, he needs to get stronger, and he needs to stop making rookie mistakes. All that combines to make him NOT elite yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this