2017 Draft

[kipwinger 8,495]

2 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Thing is, when people start arguing to prove their point, they have a tendency to exaggerate maybe beyond what they intend to say. Like "he had an ok season; which probably says something about how generally untalented he is". 

If we could keep things reasonable, like your post here, we wouldn't have so many problems. (But probably less discussion as well, so...)

But the people who blame him exclusively for the bad stuff are the same people who refuse to give him credit for the good stuff. 

Fair enough, I'd only revise that statement to say he seems "generally untalented relative to other top ten talent in this year's draft".  I thought that would be understood.  Didn't figure I'd have to clarify that he's more talented than the last player picked in the draft and/or the person typing this post.

[sputman 1,268]

55 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

I realize that.  And I'm saying that it's a tautology.  "Big players should play big because playing big is what big players should do" completely misses the point that often times "playing big" means playing without the puck, which is actually bad.  I'd rather a defenseman never hit anybody, ever, because he always has the puck on his stick making plays.  That's way better than clearing creases.

Playing big wouldn't make Ericsson, or our team, any better.  Being able to get control of the puck, and get it to the forwards competently and efficiently would make Ericsson better. 

You're making an argument for no reason. Ericsson is as skilled as he's ever going to be. He probably won't get any better. But he could play more physical. He can control that. 

[kipwinger 8,495]

1 minute ago, sputman said:

You're making an argument for no reason. Ericsson is as skilled as he's ever going to be. He probably won't get any better. But he could play more physical. He can control that. 

I completely understand your argument.  I just don't think that him being more physical would make him better.  I actually think it would be detrimental to his success.  Because if you're hitting, and banging, and crashing, then you aren't usually getting the puck out of your zone.  And that's generally bad.  I'd rather he work on his passing, and if he can't get better at that, then I'd prefer he retire.  I'm just not convinced that hitting more will have a positive influence on the him or the team (other than the cathartic affect you feel when an opposition forward gets crushed). 

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

A player's size only matters when other skills are relatively equal.  Joe Thornton or Corey Perry aren't good because they're big.  They're good because they have high end skills, their size makes them better.  The problem that I have with Rasmussen is that he doesn't seem to have any high end skills to speak of.  He's all size.  His skating needs work, his shot isn't great, he's not an especially creative passer or stick handler.  I would expect a guy that's 6'6 and playing against children to MURDER them.  Instead he had an ok season; which probably says something about how generally untalented he is. Compare that to Mantha (also a HUGE guy, but with skill) who absolutely dominated when playing against kids 1/10th his size

I'd agree to the principle, but Rasmussen doesn't seem to be the caricature that you're presenting. 

Jeff Marek’s Take: “A big-bodied centreman who blends power and skill."

"His impressive hand-eye coordination was on display when he represented Team Orr in January."

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/prospect-interest-411-michael-rasmussen/

Wright said, “I’ve got zero issues with his skating. I actually think he is a good skater. He is a big man who is still developing. He is just going to continue to get stronger and when he does that, he is going to continue to add weight.”

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2017/06/24/2017-nhl-draft-detroit-red-wings-michael-rasmussen/425814001/

And Vilardi has skating issues as well and isn't a great play-maker.

I'm on the fence whether we should have gone with Vilardi (I'll wait for the commentary on why so many passed on him). My issue is that people are saying that size inflates status rather than just having it as an element of a players game. It's like saying a player's speed inflated his ranking.

 

[sputman 1,268]

Quote

Because if you're hitting, and banging, and crashing, then you aren't usually getting the puck out of your zone.

Show me data.

Quote

I'd rather he work on his passing, and if he can't get better at that, then I'd prefer he retire.

Man, you'd be a tough GM. "Get better at something you're not really known for or retire!"

I'm tired of reading myself on here and my tomato plants aren't going to pick themselves. 

LGRW!

[kipwinger 8,495]

2 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

I'd agree to the principle, but Rasmussen doesn't seem to be the caricature that you're presenting. 

Jeff Marek’s Take: “A big-bodied centreman who blends power and skill."

"His impressive hand-eye coordination was on display when he represented Team Orr in January."

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/prospect-interest-411-michael-rasmussen/

Wright said, “I’ve got zero issues with his skating. I actually think he is a good skater. He is a big man who is still developing. He is just going to continue to get stronger and when he does that, he is going to continue to add weight.”

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2017/06/24/2017-nhl-draft-detroit-red-wings-michael-rasmussen/425814001/

And Vilardi has skating issues as well and isn't a great play-maker.

I'm on the fence whether we should have gone with Vilardi (I'll wait for the commentary on why so many passed on him). My issue is that people are saying that size inflates status rather than just having it as an element of a players game. It's like saying a player's speed inflated his ranking.

 

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want Vilardi or Rasmussen, I'm just suggesting there were other players still available with more (or similar) skill.  Personally, I'd have preferred we move up one spot and take Mittelstadt, or else trade back 3 or 4 spots, take one of the better offensive d-men still available and then try to get into the late 1st round and take Kostin (the way St. Louis did).  As I've said several times now, I don't think Rasmussen is unskilled, I think he's unskilled relative to some guys who were still available and therefore wasn't a good pick at 9th.

[kipwinger 8,495]

11 minutes ago, sputman said:

Show me data.

Man, you'd be a tough GM. "Get better at something you're not really known for or retire!"

I'm tired of reading myself on here and my tomato plants aren't going to pick themselves. 

LGRW!

Data:

https://www.jacketscannon.com/2014/8/8/5983407/to-hit-or-not-to-hit-the-statistic-vs-the-reality

"Teams in the Top 10 in hits were significantly more likely to fall in the Bottom 10 in goals per game (38%) than in the top 10 in that category (28%).  For those believing that hits is a valid defensive statistic, the numbers do not provide much support. Only 30% of the teams in the Top 10 in hits were among the Top 10 in goals against per game, while 36% fell in the bottom 10 in that category.  Conversely, teams that fell in the bottom 10 in hits, were the most likely (38%) to be in the Top 10 in goals per game."  

Here's another article talking about it:  http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/3/7/why-shot-differential-is-important-item-45604

"The data is, of course, hilarious. As a whole, teams did far better when they got outhit than they when they outhit the other side. I suspect that there are two main reasons for this: first, there probably is a great deal of truth to the argument that teams without the puck hit more, which doesn’t facilitate scoring. Second, there’s probably an element of teams that are behind deciding to focus on laying the body to try and turn the momentum – “Send out the energy line!” I suspect that what shows up here contains some score effects although, we know that trailing teams tend to possess the puck more, which would seem to give them less opportunity to hit."

[kipwinger 8,495]

Yikes, another "Loser" tag for our drafting this year.

https://sports.yahoo.com/winners-losers-nhl-draft-2017-211925333.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

Since Kip mentioned the Mantha comparison, I thought it be interesting to look at how he and Rasmussen compare at the same point of their careers. Here's their first 2 years in the CHL:

Mantha              Rasmussen

63gp,22g,51p    63gp,18g,43p

67gp,50g,89p    50gp,32g,55p (= to 67gp 43g, 74p)

I don't think this reflects so badly on Ras. You could make this comparison more favourable for Rasmussen if you consider that Mantha was in the QMHL, which is acknowledged as a higher scoring league than the WHL.

I doubt anyone was expecting some of Mantha's caliber since this was known to be a weak draft, but I just thought I'd look it up. Of course this is only looking at points not skill set.

Anyway, I'm not incredibly high on this choice, but I don't think people should be as low on him as this thread suggests.

Edited June 25, 2017 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

[Buppy 1,720]

18 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

And the thing you seem to ignore is that a 1% difference in possession stats translates to a really large difference in shot volume over the course of a year.  Montreal had a 52.5% corsi this season, Washington had a 51.8% corsi.  But in terms of actual shot attempts the difference was 126 shot attempts.  So anything you can do to improve your possession by even a percentage point or two translates to a huge volume of shot attempts at the other net.  Or conversely, if you concede a percentage point or two it may not seem like a big deal, but it's actually a lot more pucks coming at your net than you realize. 

Pretty liberal use of the term huge, but also way missing the point.

Sure, a swing of 126 shots seems like a big deal, and all else being equal it is. But it should not outweigh the importance of how well you perform against the 3400 shots still coming at you. Even the very best possession teams spend close to half the game playing defense. Some people act like playing defense slightly less is more important than playing defense better. It isn't. 

And furthermore, Rasmussen by most accounts has a skillset that should fit well with a possession system. Strong with the puck, good in the corners and behind the net, effective forechecker, decent skater, capable passer, solid defensively. So this whole argument is largely moot.

[kipwinger 8,495]

11 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Pretty liberal use of the term huge, but also way missing the point.

Sure, a swing of 126 shots seems like a big deal, and all else being equal it is. But it should not outweigh the importance of how well you perform against the 3400 shots still coming at you. Even the very best possession teams spend close to half the game playing defense. Some people act like playing defense slightly less is more important than playing defense better. It isn't. 

And furthermore, Rasmussen by most accounts has a skillset that should fit well with a possession system. Strong with the puck, good in the corners and behind the net, effective forechecker, decent skater, capable passer, solid defensively. So this whole argument is largely moot.

You're conflating two discussions, which is partially my fault because I was talking about Ericsson with someone else in this Draft thread.  I referenced Nashville's defense while talking about Ericssson because someone else said that Ericsson should be more physical and clear the crease more.  I said Nashville doesn't have a "crease clearer", but that their defense is still really good regardless, because they move the puck well. And that hitting, and blocking shots, and crease clearing usually means you don't have the puck, which isn't a good thing.  And that's where you jumped in with your comment about Dave Tippett.  My whole point was that hitting is not a sound defensive strategy nor is it indicative of team success.  That much has been proven.  There does, however, seem to be some correlation between good possession metrics and goals against averages.  However, I agree that being "good" at the defense you do play is just as important as limiting the amount of time the other team is in your zone.

Edited June 24, 2017 by kipwinger

[Shaman 713]

12 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Since Kip mentioned the Mantha comparison, I thought it be interesting to look at how he and Rasmussen compare at the same point of their careers. Here's their first 2 years in the CHL:

Mantha              Rasmussen

63gp,22g,51p    63gp,18g,43p

67gp,50g,89p    50gp,32g,55p (= to 67gp 43g, 74p)

I don't think this reflects so badly on Ras. You could make this comparison more favourable for Rasmussen if you consider that Mantha was in the QMHL, which is acknowledged as a higher scoring league than the OHL.

I doubt anyone was expecting some of Mantha's caliber since this was known to be a weak draft, but I just thought I'd look it up. Of course this is only looking at points not skill set.

Anyway, I'm not incredibly high on this choice, but I don't think people should be as low on him as this thread suggests.

 

It's hard to compare between leagues in the CHL and between years. But I will say, within the same league and same year, his stats are underwhelming. Add to it that his production, corsi, and P/60 and G/60 5 on 5 scream third liner and PP specialist, then you can see why a lot of people were projecting him as a late first rounder and why people aren't happy with him at 9.'

And lets not forget to sprinkle on the bacon-bits on this draft suck salad, Holland did mention that he could see Ras being converted to wing.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Shaman

[kipwinger 8,495]

15 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Since Kip mentioned the Mantha comparison, I thought it be interesting to look at how he and Rasmussen compare at the same point of their careers. Here's their first 2 years in the CHL:

Mantha              Rasmussen

63gp,22g,51p    63gp,18g,43p

67gp,50g,89p    50gp,32g,55p (= to 67gp 43g, 74p)

I don't think this reflects so badly on Ras. You could make this comparison more favourable for Rasmussen if you consider that Mantha was in the QMHL, which is acknowledged as a higher scoring league than the OHL.

I doubt anyone was expecting some of Mantha's caliber since this was known to be a weak draft, but I just thought I'd look it up. Of course this is only looking at points not skill set.

Anyway, I'm not incredibly high on this choice, but I don't think people should be as low on him as this thread suggests.

How do the two stack up in terms of powerplay production.  One knock I've heard repeatedly on Rasmussen was that more than half his production was on the powerplay.  But I haven't looked to see how much of Mantha's came with the man advantage.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

5 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Missing the point again, these guys' real strength is their ability to think positively.  As a matter of fact, that outweighs any shortcomings they may have in their games.  It doesn't matter if you're bad at hockey so long as you're WILLING to improve.  And boy are they ever.  These guys are the solution my man.  Not the problem. 

So you're saying they respeck da process?

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

16 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

How do the two stack up in terms of powerplay production.  One knock I've heard repeatedly on Rasmussen was that more than half his production was on the powerplay.  But I haven't looked to see how much of Mantha's came with the man advantage.

Yeah, that does seem to be the warning sign on Rasmussen people mention,

Mantha had 7 of his 22 goal on the powerplay his 1st year (32%) and 13 of his 50 in the 2nd year (26%).  

http://lhjmq.qc.ca/stats/team_players/171/15

Rasmussen's first year is was 8 PPGs out of 18 (44%) and 15 ppg out of 32 makes 47% so that is concerning. 

http://whl.ca/stats/team_players/251/217

There's one comparison that might make that less worrisome, though:

Larkin had 6 of his 15 goals at UofM on the powerplay (40%)

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/team/Michigan/31/overall,20142015

Or maybe a move to the wing would help his 5on5 numbers, but we do need centers much more so that wouldn't be ideal.

[Richdg 267]

52 minutes ago, Shaman said:

 

It's hard to compare between leagues in the CHL and between years. But I will say, within the same league and same year, his stats are underwhelming. Add to it that his production, corsi, and P/60 and G/60 5 on 5 scream third liner and PP specialist, then you can see why a lot of people were projecting him as a late first rounder and why people aren't happy with him at 9.'

And lets not forget to sprinkle on the bacon-bits on this draft suck salad, Holland did mention that he could see Ras being converted to wing.

He could yes. So what? Larkin and AA are supposed to be C's but are not sued as such. So do they suck? Or do we have a coaching problem? Svechnikov can play C very well-all 3 spots TBH. If he stays at wing does he suck? Or is it a coaching issue? If Rasmussen moves to wing that isn't a bad thing. Yes it leaves a hole at C but there are some options on the team. He is but 1 piece of the puzzle.

[kipwinger 8,495]

1 minute ago, Richdg said:

He could yes. So what? Larkin and AA are supposed to be C's but are not sued as such. So do they suck? Or do we have a coaching problem? Svechnikov can play C very well-all 3 spots TBH. If he stays at wing does he suck? Or is it a coaching issue? If Rasmussen moves to wing that isn't a bad thing. Yes it leaves a hole at C but there are some options on the team. He is but 1 piece of the puzzle.

Right, but we just used our highest draft pick in almost 30 years on him.  So presumably you'd like to fill a need with it.  Especially if that need is as important as 1C or 1D, both things we need, and neither of which Rasmussen will be if moved to the wing (where we're currently loaded with talent).  And even then, if you were going to target a guy to be a goal scoring winger, why not take Tippett who is by all accounts the best goal scoring winger in the draft?

[Richdg 267]

5 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Right, but we just used our highest draft pick in almost 30 years on him.  So presumably you'd like to fill a need with it.  Especially if that need is as important as 1C or 1D, both things we need, and neither of which Rasmussen will be if moved to the wing (where we're currently loaded with talent).  And even then, if you were going to target a guy to be a goal scoring winger, why not take Tippett who is by all accounts the best goal scoring winger in the draft?

What position is Tippett? Vilardi? Neither will be C's in the NHL. Yes we could have went D instead. I would have been very happy with Foote and less happy with others.

I would have been happy with Tippett as well. But I don't believe he is better than Rasmussen either. Different players. They play a different game. We have snipers-like Tippett and have 0 front of net guys like Rasmussen. We all have been complaining-to include yourself about taking to many 50ft shots with no one there to bang home the rebounds. Now we have someone to do it.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Richdg

[Mckinley25 677]

Both Tyler Wright and Ken Holland spoke highly of Rasmussen's off ice character, and it seemed, at least in the short interviews, that it weighed heavily in their decision.  I know virtually nothing about this process, does this seem to anyone as a valid reason for picking him over other players that were ranked better?

[Richdg 267]

3 minutes ago, Mckinley25 said:

Both Tyler Wright and Ken Holland spoke highly of Rasmussen's off ice character, and it seemed, at least in the short interviews, that it weighed heavily in their decision.  I know virtually nothing about this process, does this seem to anyone as a valid reason for picking him over other players that were ranked better?

It does play into things. Generally teams in all sports stay away from drafting drunks, drug users, women beaters, people that cant spell the sport they play, those that are overly entitled, etc...

[LeftWinger 4,936]

I have no choice but the give Ras-ma-taz his chance. I hope he becomes a superstar. I'm just so over Holland...

[kickazz 5,459]

11 minutes ago, Mckinley25 said:

Both Tyler Wright and Ken Holland spoke highly of Rasmussen's off ice character, and it seemed, at least in the short interviews, that it weighed heavily in their decision.  I know virtually nothing about this process, does this seem to anyone as a valid reason for picking him over other players that were ranked better?

 

5 minutes ago, Richdg said:

It does play into things. Generally teams in all sports stay away from drafting drunks, drug users, women beaters, people that cant spell the sport they play, those that are overly entitled, etc...

Makes you wonder if character was the reason Viliardi was passed up by 4 or 5 teams. 

Edited June 24, 2017 by kickazz

[Richdg 267]

2 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

I have no choice but the give Ras-ma-taz his chance. I hope he becomes a superstar. I'm just so over Holland...

That we agree on. His drafting or the organizations drafting has been pretty good the last 5 years. The 10 years before that was terrible. Kindl, McCollum, Sheahan, etc.... vs. Mantha, larkin, Svechnikov, Cholowski, and rasmussen. Much rather have the later group!

[Richdg 267]

Just now, kickazz said:

 

Makes you wonder if that's the reason Viliardi was passed up by 4 or 5 teams. 

There is a reason, we just have no idea what it is. Maybe it is as simple as his poor skating. Maybe more... who knows.

[kickazz 5,459]

Skating has become as important as speed in this league. And so has special teams . YEAH RAM