ROY according to LGW

[Echolalia 2,961]

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25464333/sabres-rookie-jack-eichels-breakout-puts-him-back-into-calder-contention?FTAG=YHF7e3228e

The case for Eichel

[kickazz 5,459]

Comeback Eichel

[cprice12 117]

At the beginning of the year one of the threads asked who Larkin might be traded for, and I had suggested Parayko as a possibility to consider. My mindset was both of these guys could become franchise players for their respective positions, and I figured the Wings had more higher-end talent up front in the prospect pool than on defense, so it might be a trade that would make sense down the road. As far as defensman, he has everything you could want: solid defensively, huge size, booming shot, goal scoring ability, etc etc. In retrospect I'm glad we have Larkin over him, though, because I was not expecting our offense to be as anemic as it currently is, and Mrazek seems to make up for any lack of a franchise defensman (at least in terms of goals against) at the moment. Still, if we could somehow swipe Parayko from the Blues I would be willing to move a lot of pieces to make it happen.

I don't like considering anyone "untouchable"...but on the Blues roster, Parayko is about as untouchable as it gets. Even though Larkin is having a very nice season, plus the fact we need a boost on offense, I still wouldn't trade Parayko for him...and it's not a tough decision. That's not a knock on Larkin by any means though. It's just that I think that highly of Parayko.

Parayko reminds me of Pronger in a way, without the mean streak of course.

When he is on the ice, he controls the play. He's so big and technically sound. But he's also really mobile and fast...and he is as offensively gifted a defenseman as you will see at his age and he is a fantastic stickhandler.

Parayko has been our best all around defenseman. He does it at both ends of the ice. He has been better than Shattenkirk and Pietrangelo...and it's not even close. Assuming he progresses as hopes, he could easily be a Norris caliber guy in a couple years.

I really don't have anything bad to say about the guy. He has been fantastic...but like the OP said, he is a defenseman...plus Larkin, Panarin and some others are having good offensive years (having Kane on your line helps Panarin, but that guy is good anyway), so Pararako likely won't get much consideration for the Calder, even though as of right now, him not being a finalist should be a crime.

Now, if you want a defenseman and want to offer Larkin, maybe we could work out a package deal that includes Pietrangelo? Let's make this happen.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I don't like considering anyone "untouchable"...but on the Blues roster, Parayko is about as untouchable as it gets. Even though Larkin is having a very nice season, plus the fact we need a boost on offense, I still wouldn't trade Parayko for him...and it's not a tough decision. That's not a knock on Larkin by any means though. It's just that I think that highly of Parayko.

Parayko reminds me of Pronger in a way, without the mean streak of course.

When he is on the ice, he controls the play. He's so big and technically sound. But he's also really mobile and fast...and he is as offensively gifted a defenseman as you will see at his age and he is a fantastic stickhandler.

Parayko has been our best all around defenseman. He does it at both ends of the ice. He has been better than Shattenkirk and Pietrangelo...and it's not even close. Assuming he progresses as hopes, he could easily be a Norris caliber guy in a couple years.

I really don't have anything bad to say about the guy. He has been fantastic...but like the OP said, he is a defenseman...plus Larkin, Panarin and some others are having good offensive years (having Kane on your line helps Panarin, but that guy is good anyway), so Pararako likely won't get much consideration for the Calder, even though as of right now, him not being a finalist should be a crime.

Now, if you want a defenseman and want to offer Larkin, maybe we could work out a package deal that includes Pietrangelo? Let's make this happen.

That kid is going to be great. What's most astounding to me is how under-the-radar he is. The only time I have heard his name called in any sort of capacity outside of when I bring it up on the forum is when the Wings played the Blues and Parayko had the puck.

[kickazz 5,459]

Beat Gartners record. Wonder how big of a boost that is for ROY.

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

That kid is going to be great. What's most astounding to me is how under-the-radar he is. The only time I have heard his name called in any sort of capacity outside of when I bring it up on the forum is when the Wings played the Blues and Parayko had the puck.

Dude, he's definitely not under the radar.

He was getting calder nominations before larkin even though he wasn't in the league at the beginning of the season.

He's that good.

And he's been thst good since he stepped into the nhl

[TheXym 2,606]

Larkin probably helped his case for ROY this weekend. The game doesn't count in the stats, but breaking the fastest skater record and three assists in the tourney probably got him on the radar of some journalists who didn't have him there before.

[kickazz 5,459]

If I had to put money on it - just by the way things have played out I'm going to go ahead and say that Larkin will win the Calder for sure (100%). He's simply attracted way too much attention at this point.

Unless he hits a wall the second half of the season that is.

Edited February 1, 2016 by kickazz

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

If I had to put money on it - just by the way things have played out I'm going to go ahead and say that Larkin will win the Calder for sure (100%). He's simply attracted way too much attention at this point.

Unless he hits a wall the second half of the season that is.

“Lots of people talk about the wall and the NHL schedule is certainly difficult and can be a grind for sure, whether you played college or junior or any of that,” Blashill said. “I don’t believe in the wall. I think if you allow yourself to hit a wall, you hit a wall, but I don’t believe it has to happen.

“I look at what Dylan did last year. If you think about the experience he went through last year – playing college hockey as a freshman (at Michigan), playing in the world junior tournament (for the United States), finishing his year, having to make an extremely difficult life decision, playing in the worlds, coming to Grand Rapids and playing in the (AHL Calder Cup) playoffs – there isn’t going to be a more excruciating year than that.

[toby91_ca 620]

So, I was going to say it's ridiculous that the weekend would have any impact at all on Larkin's chances at ROY because it really should have no impact at all, but the voters are human. As someone pointed out, perhaps some of the writers know him better now and could have an impact on their vote.

[kickazz 5,459]

https://detroitjockcity.com/2016/01/30/red-wings-dylan-larkin-artemi-panarin-better-rookie/

Found and interesting article comparing Larkin vs. Panarin

"On average per 60 minutes of ice-time, Larkin produces more goals, primary assists, and points"

"Primary Assists per 60 minutes: Larkin produces almost double the primary assists Panarin does"

"Larkin’s higher Fenwick, along with the lower Goal Against average value, really display his impact on the defensive side of the ice."

Here's the gist of the advanced stats they compared:

"Looking at this side by side comparison, you can see the large impact Larkin has on his team."

"Without Larkin, the Red Wings average between 1 and 2 goals; but with Larkin, it jumps up to between 3 and 4 goals. It seems as if the Red Wings play collectively better when Larkin is on the ice, with a particular effect on offense."

Edited February 1, 2016 by kickazz

[toby91_ca 620]

To balance that argument though, one might question whether Larkin's numbers would change if he was given more ice time and more responsibility in more situations. If Larkin is more important to his team, why isn't he getting more ice time?

I must say, Larkin, especially due to this weekend, likely has more publicity, but it's tough to say though, I'm obviously more familiar with him and see him play way more, so my perception may be wrong. Most here would be the in the same boat as well, so tough to confirm. I've only seen Panarin play 2-3 games this year....he's been impressive for sure though...other than that, it's simply looking at his raw stats.

The real tough argument to think about is that Panarin's numbers are overinflated because he plays with Kane (I think he does, can't confirm that for sure). However, one might suggest Panarin is bumping Kane's stats up quite a bit as well because Kane has never come close to producing at this level before this year.

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

To balance that argument though, one might question whether Larkin's numbers would change if he was given more ice time and more responsibility in more situations. If Larkin is more important to his team, why isn't he getting more ice time?

I must say, Larkin, especially due to this weekend, likely has more publicity, but it's tough to say though, I'm obviously more familiar with him and see him play way more, so my perception may be wrong. Most here would be the in the same boat as well, so tough to confirm. I've only seen Panarin play 2-3 games this year....he's been impressive for sure though...other than that, it's simply looking at his raw stats.

The real tough argument to think about is that Panarin's numbers are overinflated because he plays with Kane (I think he does, can't confirm that for sure). However, one might suggest Panarin is bumping Kane's stats up quite a bit as well because Kane has never come close to producing at this level before this year.

Wasn't Kane producing like this last year as well, before he got injured?

[toby91_ca 620]

No, Kane was did not score anywhere even close to this before. Last year, his season ended with injury after 61 games (he had 64 points, or 1.05ppg). If you want to look at his best PPG pace all year, that would have been at the 52 game mark (he had 58pts, or 1.12ppg). This ignores when he was at 1.5ppg after game 2 and 3pts, I figured that sample size was too small

He's bee pretty consistently a point per game player over his entire career (just under, just at or just over). At his peak last year, he had 58 points in 52 games. This year, he has 73 points in 53 games. So...how much is Panarin helping him vs. him just having a breakout?

[kickazz 5,459]

To balance that argument though, one might question whether Larkin's numbers would change if he was given more ice time and more responsibility in more situations. If Larkin is more important to his team, why isn't he getting more ice time?

His numbers wouldn't change much. He has the 4th highest ice time among forwards per game for the Wings behind, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Abdelkader all of whom get more powerplay time (by approximately one minute) than Larkin does. So if anything I'd say they get higher opportunity to score with the man avantage factor than he does. Edited February 1, 2016 by kickazz

[toby91_ca 620]

My point was more than there is always a separate argument or perspective. I agree with you that his production could go up if he got more ice time, especially power play time, but it's also true that his play could suffer because he isn't equipped to handle the extra load and even if he is, production doesn't extrapolate evenly over extra time.

The only thing I do know is that no one can answer any of the questions definitively.

I do think it would be tough for Larkin to win unless the scoring gap is lessened. I can see some voting for him even if his scoring is lower, but it would have to be close I would think (regardless of all the other fancy stats).

[Echolalia 2,961]

I agree. Larkin could dominate the fancy stats department and I don't think it would weight that heavily in his favor. Fancy stats are still a new phenomenon and a lot of people are still phobic about it. Points and goals and assists are easy numbers, universally accepted. They'll go farther in a vote of who's best.

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

No, Kane was did not score anywhere even close to this before. Last year, his season ended with injury after 61 games (he had 64 points, or 1.05ppg). If you want to look at his best PPG pace all year, that would have been at the 52 game mark (he had 58pts, or 1.12ppg). This ignores when he was at 1.5ppg after game 2 and 3pts, I figured that sample size was too small

He's bee pretty consistently a point per game player over his entire career (just under, just at or just over). At his peak last year, he had 58 points in 52 games. This year, he has 73 points in 53 games. So...how much is Panarin helping him vs. him just having a breakout?

Thanks for all the info, I was legitimately asking the question. I just remember thinking he was tearing it up last year. Anyway I've no doubt that Panarin is good, I don't think playing with Kane should take away from the year he's having. His age and prior experience maybe, but not who he plays with.

[LeftWinger 4,949]

Well, forget all this debate on ROY, the winner is in...

http://www.tsn.ca/oilers-mcdavid-to-return-to-the-lineup-vs-blue-jackets-on-tuesday-1.431616

[Buppy 1,720]

I agree. Larkin could dominate the fancy stats department and I don't think it would weight that heavily in his favor. Fancy stats are still a new phenomenon and a lot of people are still phobic about it. Points and goals and assists are easy numbers, universally accepted. They'll go farther in a vote of who's best.

Plus, he isn't really dominating the fancy stats either. 5v5 scoring rate is a little better, but he's far worse on the PP. 2 points to 11, 1.34 p/60 to 4.60. Worse overall as well, 2.82 p/60 for Panarin to 2.47 for Larkin. A lot of the fancy stat crowd likes to ignore special teams, but obviously they're very important. 13 points in a little over half a season is a huge difference.

Ignoring PP time is fine for looking at possession metrics, or if one guy isn't getting any significant time. But Larkin gets almost 2 minutes, and Panarin only gets about 45 seconds more.

[kickazz 5,459]

Plus, he isn't really dominating the fancy stats either. 5v5 scoring rate is a little better, but he's far worse on the PP. 2 points to 11, 1.34 p/60 to 4.60. Worse overall as well, 2.82 p/60 for Panarin to 2.47 for Larkin. A lot of the fancy stat crowd likes to ignore special teams, but obviously they're very important. 13 points in a little over half a season is a huge difference.

Ignoring PP time is fine for looking at possession metrics, or if one guy isn't getting any significant time. But Larkin gets almost 2 minutes, and Panarin only gets about 45 seconds more.

The team collectively sucks at PP while Chicago is 4th in the league.

The fancy stats are comparing Panarin vs Larkin. One must look at it in context to be honest. Larkin has the edge on even strength fancy stats. That's really all there is to it. The other point the article is making is their impact on their respective teams. And it seems like Larkin makes a bigger difference.

I think the ROY should be renamed to "Most points by rookie (unless you're a defenseman rookie)". Because looking at the previous winners - unless you're a defenseman you're likely to win the award as long as you score more points. Huberdeau was like a -15 on the season while Gallagher was like a +10 and only had 3 less points but still lost in 2012.

Edited February 1, 2016 by kickazz

[toby91_ca 620]

I have no problem with that though...if guys are pretty equal, go with the guy with more points. I ignore +/- stats almost entirely, it really can be a bogus stat and certainly is almost impossible to use to compare players.

[kickazz 5,459]

I have no problem with that though...if guys are pretty equal, go with the guy with more points. I ignore +/- stats almost entirely, it really can be a bogus stat and certainly is almost impossible to use to compare players.

3 less points but also played 4 less games due to injury. If ROY is going to be based off highest points (as the trend seems to be) it's just the Art Ross Trophy for rookies basically. Yet the Calder Trophy is defined as "the most proficient in his first year of competition" not the "one with the highest points".

[DickieDunn 2,571]

3 less points but also played 4 less games due to injury. If ROY is going to be based off highest points (as the trend seems to be) it's just the Art Ross Trophy for rookies basically. Yet the Calder Trophy is defined as "the most proficient in his first year of competition" not the "one with the highest points".

Which is generally defined by most points.

[Echolalia 2,961]

3 less points but also played 4 less games due to injury. If ROY is going to be based off highest points (as the trend seems to be) it's just the Art Ross Trophy for rookies basically. Yet the Calder Trophy is defined as "the most proficient in his first year of competition" not the "one with the highest points".

Unfortunately the one with the highest points often ends up winning it, regardless of what the actual criteria should be (same with Norris for that matter). The only time the top rookie scorer hasn't won the Calder in recent history, its been a defensman or a goalie (good news for Panarin) to win it. You have to go back to 1998-99 when Chris Drury won the Calder to find the last forward to win without leading the rookie class in points.