• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

ChristopherReevesLegs

Glendog for Captain

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 5/30/2020 at 5:26 PM, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

I won't search back thru hundreds of pages to find out where your analysis is coming from.

I will link 2 pages that show that Larkin has been a 1C in scoring over the last 2 seasons.

https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2019&category=SCORING&group=1&sort=3&time=0&pos=0&team=0&qual=1&sortOrder=0&page=1

It was a down year for Dylan this season, but he still finished 58th in scoring among forwards. Eliminate the wingers and Larkin finishes at 31st among centers. Out of 31 teams, that would make him the last 1C in, but still a 1C despite playing on the worst offensively and lowest scoring team.

https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?season=2018&category=SCORING&group=1&sort=3&time=0&pos=1&team=0&qual=1&sortOrder=0&page=1

This list puts him at 23rd among centers in scoring last season, making him comfortably a 1C.

I do have a bit of problem with the whole 31st center in scoring thing.

First off, you're not adjusting scoring for games played. Guys like Crosby actually fall outside of the top 31 centers, despite us all knowing Crosby is much better player than Larkin. When you adjust for games played Larkin isn't a top line center.

Second, when you adjust Larkin's scoring to points per ice-time he falls to about 59-61. Barely a 2nd line center. Thus I suspect when Mackel says Larkin would be a 3rd line center on some teams he's not far from accurate.

Third, Hudler was #8 in scoring among all forwards in 2014-15. Do you honestly believe Hudler was a top 10 forward in the league that year? Or was he just a good player who was afforded top minutes with good linemates? This is the flaw with arguing with totality of points.

You've all just witnessed an atrocious season from the Red Wings. Mackel and I are here warning you that your beloved players who participated in this atrocious season aren't that good. Choose not to believe us if you like, but don't say we didn't warn you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I do have a bit of problem with the whole 31st center in scoring thing.

First off, you're not adjusting scoring for games played. Guys like Crosby actually fall outside of the top 31 centers, despite us all knowing Crosby is much better player than Larkin. When you adjust for games played Larkin isn't a top line center.

Second, when you adjust Larkin's scoring to points per ice-time he falls to about 59-61. Barely a 2nd line center. Thus I suspect when Mackel says Larkin would be a 3rd line center on some teams he's not far from accurate.

Third, Hudler was #8 in scoring among all forwards in 2014-15. Do you honestly believe Hudler was a top 10 forward in the league that year? Or was he just a good player who was afforded top minutes with good linemates? This is the flaw with arguing with totality of points.

You've all just witnessed an atrocious season from the Red Wings. Mackel and I are here warning you that your beloved players who participated in this atrocious season aren't that good. Choose not to believe us if you like, but don't say we didn't warn you.

You're adjusting for the things that support your argument, but completely ignoring the things that would go against it. QoC definitely plays a factor, one that you're clearly not considering here. Larkin goes up against all the top centers and defensemen in the league every single night. Despite this, he still grades out to be a borderline 1st / 2nd line center. He's doing this on the league worst team, in every statistical category, with very little support.

You're also only looking at one season, one that was very clearly a down season for the team and player. Larkin was ranked 21st amongst all centers in total points just one year ago. This season, the team was historically bad, so you can't really expect every player to grade out well. Some did. Most didn't.

You're also only looking at total points, when defense has to be taken into account in any of these debates. Like I mentioned, Larkin went up against the leagues best every single night, so while it was tough to score against these players, it was even tougher to defend these players. Yet, Larkin did about as well as he could have, all things considered.

You also have to consider age, and that Larkin is only now entering his prime years. No one knows how Larkin's career will play out, but to right him off as a middle six center at this point, is just plain dumb. At the same age, Datsyuk was a rookie, playing 3rd line center with a hall of fame winger, on a Stanley Cup champion team, and still only managed to put up 35 points in 70 games. Zetterberg was playing his 2nd season, on Datsyuk's wing, in which he put up 43 points in 61 games. I'm not saying that Larkin will be Datsyuk or Zetterberg, but I think he will be much closer to that level of player, when it's all said and done, than your average 2nd (or 3rd LOL) line center...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I do have a bit of problem with the whole 31st center in scoring thing.

First off, you're not adjusting scoring for games played. Guys like Crosby actually fall outside of the top 31 centers, despite us all knowing Crosby is much better player than Larkin. When you adjust for games played Larkin isn't a top line center.

Second, when you adjust Larkin's scoring to points per ice-time he falls to about 59-61. Barely a 2nd line center. Thus I suspect when Mackel says Larkin would be a 3rd line center on some teams he's not far from accurate.

Third, Hudler was #8 in scoring among all forwards in 2014-15. Do you honestly believe Hudler was a top 10 forward in the league that year? Or was he just a good player who was afforded top minutes with good linemates? This is the flaw with arguing with totality of points.

You've all just witnessed an atrocious season from the Red Wings. Mackel and I are here warning you that your beloved players who participated in this atrocious season aren't that good. Choose not to believe us if you like, but don't say we didn't warn you.

OMG stop it @krsmith17 will be upset that you don't agree with him...  I mean come on... "so and so" had 30 points as an 8 year old playing with 10 year olds and Zetterberg only had 25 points as an 8 year old playing house league... so clearly "so and so" projects to be as good or better, because that's how things work... dontcha know!

Silly @ChristopherReevesLegs why would be using a complete stat line?  You are trying to have a back and forth with a guy that omitted an entire season of Zadina's career to make his bottom line stats look better, thinking nobody would notice.  This is also a guy that says "He's [Larkin] doing this on the league worst team, in every statistical category, with very little support." as if having an above average 2nd line center playing as a 1st line center isn't part of the overall problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mackel said:

OMG stop it @krsmith17 will be upset that you don't agree with him...  I mean come on... "so and so" had 30 points as an 8 year old playing with 10 year olds and Zetterberg only had 25 points as an 8 year old playing house league... so clearly "so and so" projects to be as good or better, because that's how things work... dontcha know!

LOL Wut? So, let me get this straight... My Datsyuk and Zetterberg comparisons at the same age doesn't make sense to you, but you using Yakupov's rookie season stats as the reason Zadina will be a "bust" makes perfect sense... LOL

Also comparing two players at the age of 23 isn't at all the same as comparing two players at the age of 8... playing in house league...

8 minutes ago, mackel said:

Silly @ChristopherReevesLegs why would be using a complete stat line?  You are trying to have a back and forth with a guy that omitted an entire season of Zadina's career to make his bottom line stats look better, thinking nobody would notice.

I never omitted any stats. We've already been over this. Also, CRL literally just did that, "omitting" Larkin's previous season stats, because the previous season, where he was very clearly projecting to be a legit top line center, didn't fit his narrative...

10 minutes ago, mackel said:

This is also a guy that says "He's [Larkin] doing this on the league worst team, in every statistical category, with very little support." as if having an above average 2nd line center playing as a 1st line center isn't part of the overall problem...

Yeah, Larkin is definitely "part of the overall problem"... LOL are you really this dumb?

Sorry for "attacking you" again, but c'mon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

You're adjusting for the things that support your argument, but completely ignoring the things that would go against it.

Adjusting for games/minutes played is cherry picking now? Really? What did I ignore? The silly argument you're only now presenting? Okay

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

 QoC definitely plays a factor, one that you're clearly not considering here.

Other top centers in the league play against different competition than Larkin does? Seriously, unpack this point. How would you like me to control for quality of competition?

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Despite this, he still grades out to be a borderline 1st / 2nd line center.

Not really, when adjusted for TOI he's a 2nd line center.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

He's doing this on the league worst team, in every statistical category, with very little support.

If there's anyone on the team who can't lean on "with very little support" it's Larkin. He plays with the same line-mates he did last season. He consistently has the best line-mates on the team. Yet he regressed while his line-mates remained stable or continued to grow.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

in every statistical category,

Completely talking out of your ass now are we

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

You're also only looking at one season, one that was very clearly a down season for the team and player. Larkin was ranked 21st amongst all centers in total points just one year ago. This season, the team was historically bad, so you can't really expect every player to grade out well. Some did. Most didn't.

You'd think once I pointed how flawed total points is you'd be smart enough not to quote total points, yet here were are.

When adjusted for ice-time Larkin's 2018/19 season comes out as the 51st most productive center. Again, a 2nd line center.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

You're also only looking at total points,

What planet did you wake up on this morning? I'm quite literally doing the exact opposite.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

when defense has to be taken into account in any of these debates. Like I mentioned, Larkin went up against the leagues best every single night, so while it was tough to score against these players, it was even tougher to defend these players. Yet, Larkin did about as well as he could have, all things considered.

Why is this an excuse? 1st line centers go up against the best competition. That's not exclusive to Larkin. If Larkin can't score consistently against 1st line competition then that proves only one thing: He's not a 1st line forward.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

You also have to consider age, and that Larkin is only now entering his prime years. No one knows how Larkin's career will play out, but to right him off as a middle six center at this point, is just plain dumb. At the same age, Datsyuk was a rookie, playing 3rd line center with a hall of fame winger, on a Stanley Cup champion team, and still only managed to put up 35 points in 70 games. Zetterberg was playing his 2nd season, on Datsyuk's wing, in which he put up 43 points in 61 games. I'm not saying that Larkin will be Datsyuk or Zetterberg, but I think he will be much closer to that level of player, when it's all said and done, than your average 2nd (or 3rd LOL) line center...

Larkin isn't a rookie anymore. This isn't a "sophomore slump". He has close to 400 NHL games played already, double all his line-mates. Maybe he can be one day, but so far, 400 games in, he's still not an NHL top31 center.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Also, CRL literally just did that, "omitting" Larkin's previous season stats, because the previous season, where he was very clearly projecting to be a legit top line center, didn't fit his narrative...

He didn't project as a top line center last season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you adjust the Red Wings production for ice time and 5v5 play over the last 3 seasons:

1. Larkin = 2.00 per 60
2. Bertuzzi = 1.99 per 60
3. Mantha = 1.91 per 60
4. Vanek = 1.87 per 60
5. Nyquist = 1.80 per 60

Larkin is barely more productive than Bertuzzi, Mantha and Vanek.

Now consider his colleagues around the NHL under the same measures:

  • Nikolaj Ehlers = 2.26 per 60
  • Dylan Strome = 2.25 per 60
  • Brendan Gallagher = 2.25 per 60
  • Reilly Smith = 2.23 per 60
  • Travis Konecny = 2.22 per 60
  • Timo Meier = 2.18 per 60
  • Brett Connolly = 2.12 per 60
  • Robert Thomas = 2.11 per 60
  • Domink Kahun = 2.11 per 60
  • Johnathan Marchessault = 2.10
  • Phillip Danault = 2.07 per 60
  • Alex Killorn = 2.06 per 60
  • Chris Kreider = 2.05 per 60
  • Cam Atkinson = 2.05 per 60
  • Tomas Tatar = 2.04 per 60
  • Rocco Grimaldi = 2.03 per 60
  • Jaden Schwartz = 2.03 per 60
  • Craig Smith = 2.01 per 60
  • Ondrej Kase = 2.01 per 60

Just a few of the "big names" who produce more per minute played than future captain Larkin...

Dylan is the modern equivalent of Paul Woods, Danny Gare, Reed Larson, or Dale McCourt. Medicore players and forgettable captains. On any good team they'd all be 2nd line players including Larkin.

Think of that next time you beat off into your 71 jersey.

Edited by ChristopherReevesLegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Adjusting for games/minutes played is cherry picking now? Really? What did I ignore? The silly argument you're only now presenting? Okay

Never said it was cherry picking. What I am saying is that you're not weighing all variables because doing so would break your theory.

49 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Other top centers in the league play against different competition than Larkin does? Seriously, unpack this point. How would you like me to control for quality of competition?

Larkin is far from the best center in the league. That, we agree on. I would rank him in the lower end of the top 30. At this point, maybe around 20-25. Let's say Larkin is the worst top line center in the league (for arguments sake). Let's also say the Wings have the worst top line in the league (for arguments sake). If Larkin, and his line are going up against other (better) top lines in the league every night, would that not be an extremely tough task?

Let's say the 32nd best center in the league is playing mostly against 2nd line competition, but since he's likely one of the better 2nd line centers in the league, he's racking up points. Does that mean he's better than Larkin? No.

49 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Not really, when adjusted for TOI he's a 2nd line center.

Adjusting for TOI, there are several 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th line centers, that very clearly aren't better than Larkin, but because their QoC is so much lower, they're able to put up points in limited roles. Solely using any stat is extremely flawed, and that includes PTS/60.

53 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

If there's anyone on the team who can't lean on "with very little support" it's Larkin. He plays with the same line-mates he did last season. He consistently has the best line-mates on the team. Yet he regressed while his line-mates remained stable or continued to grow.

Yes, he consistently centers the best wingers on the team, but does he consistently center the best wingers in the league? No, and that's what we're comparing him to. The best centers in the league. Not the best center, or player on the team.

57 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You'd think once I pointed how flawed total points is you'd be smart enough not to quote total points, yet here were are.

I'm not quoting total points. I'm quoting total points per game. How is that any more or less flawed than points per 60? It's not.

59 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

When adjusted for ice-time Larkin's 2018/19 season comes out as the 51st most productive center. Again, a 2nd line center.

Yeah, 51st ranked based on PTS/60, but again, like any stat, it has it's flaws. Unless of course, you believe that Domi is the 4th best center in the league, Nic Dowd is 21st, Travis Boyd is 24th, Nyquist (who has never played center) is 33rd, etc... I think there are easily 20 centers on that list that I would rank below Larkin.

Again, you also need to take age into consideration. Most centers on that list, are established, well in the prime of their career. Larkin is just hitting his prime, and will presumably only get better.

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

What planet did you wake up on this morning? I'm quite literally doing the exact opposite.

I was referring to points in general. You need to consider other things than just offensive output, especially when looking at players on the worst team in the NHL.

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Larkin isn't a rookie anymore. This isn't a "sophomore slump". He has close to 400 NHL games played already, double all his line-mates. Maybe he can be one day, but so far, 400 games in, he's still not an NHL top31 center.

I disagree.

1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

He didn't project as a top line center last season

I disagree.

4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

When you adjust the Red Wings production for ice time and 5v5 play over the last 3 seasons:

1. Larkin = 2.00 per 60
2. Bertuzzi = 1.99 per 60
3. Mantha = 1.91 per 60
4. Vanek = 1.87 per 60
5. Nyquist = 1.80 per 60

Larkin is barely more productive than Bertuzzi, Mantha and Vanek.

Now consider his colleagues around the NHL under the same measures:

  • Nikolaj Ehlers = 2.26 per 60
  • Dylan Strome = 2.25 per 60
  • Brendan Gallagher = 2.25 per 60
  • Reilly Smith = 2.23 per 60
  • Travis Konecny = 2.22 per 60
  • Timo Meier = 2.18 per 60
  • Brett Connolly = 2.12 per 60
  • Robert Thomas = 2.11 per 60
  • Domink Kahun = 2.11 per 60
  • Johnathan Marchessault = 2.10
  • Phillip Danault = 2.07 per 60
  • Alex Killorn = 2.06 per 60
  • Chris Kreider = 2.05 per 60
  • Cam Atkinson = 2.05 per 60
  • Tomas Tatar = 2.04 per 60
  • Rocco Grimaldi = 2.03 per 60
  • Jaden Schwartz = 2.03 per 60
  • Craig Smith = 2.01 per 60
  • Ondrej Kase = 2.01 per 60

Just a few of the "big names" who produce more per minute played than future captain Larkin...

Dylan is the modern equivalent of Paul Woods, Danny Gare, Reed Larson, or Dale McCourt. Medicore players and forgettable captains. On any good team they'd all be 2nd line players including Larkin.

Think of that next time you beat off into your 71 jersey.

Good ol' trusty points per 60. 

All of the players on that list are clearly better hockey players than Larkin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I do have a bit of problem with the whole 31st center in scoring thing.

First off, you're not adjusting scoring for games played. Guys like Crosby actually fall outside of the top 31 centers, despite us all knowing Crosby is much better player than Larkin. When you adjust for games played Larkin isn't a top line center.

Second, when you adjust Larkin's scoring to points per ice-time he falls to about 59-61. Barely a 2nd line center. Thus I suspect when Mackel says Larkin would be a 3rd line center on some teams he's not far from accurate.

Third, Hudler was #8 in scoring among all forwards in 2014-15. Do you honestly believe Hudler was a top 10 forward in the league that year? Or was he just a good player who was afforded top minutes with good linemates? This is the flaw with arguing with totality of points.

You've all just witnessed an atrocious season from the Red Wings. Mackel and I are here warning you that your beloved players who participated in this atrocious season aren't that good. Choose not to believe us if you like, but don't say we didn't warn you.

1.I went purely by points because that's what 1C's are supposed to do....score

2. It was an incomplete season, and going by points, Larkin finished where he did among centers. That's the facts. Arguing where players would've finished if the season was a full season is speculative. It's entirely possible he would've been passed up by other players, but he could have passed other players above him as well. We'll never know. I'm just going with the data that isn't speculative.

3. Yes, I would agree that Crosby is certainly a 1C even if his points didn't show it this season. But that just goes to show that guys can move up and down that list, and in and out of the top 31, based on a multitude of factors. And considering it's not the same 31 guys every year, maybe there can actually be more than 31 first line centers in the NHL at any given time.

4. You can include other kinds of data too if you want. But if a guy is putting up the points to justify his role as a 1C, I don't see how any of the rest of it matters.

5. Larkin is a poor man's 1C. The numbers prove that to me. If we manage to draft a guy (fingers crossed) who can push him down to 2C, that would be great, as certainly an improvement can be made at that position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Never said it was cherry picking. What I am saying is that you're not weighing all variables because doing so would break your theory.

I'm clearly considering Larkin's production. What production variables did I leave out that would break my theory?

Since you're likely gonna sperg out and talk about defense no matter what I say about production, how would you like to measure this variable? Please present it. I'll consider any variable if you can present in a meaningful way.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Larkin is far from the best center in the league. That, we agree on. I would rank him in the lower end of the top 30. At this point, maybe around 20-25. Let's say Larkin is the worst top line center in the league (for arguments sake). Let's also say the Wings have the worst top line in the league (for arguments sake). If Larkin, and his line are going up against other (better) top lines in the league every night, would that not be an extremely tough task?

Agreed. Extremely tough task. But the rest of the league being better than us isn't an excuse. If the Red Wings have the worst top line in the league that means only one thing: The Red Wings need a new top line.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Let's say the 32nd best center in the league is playing mostly against 2nd line competition, but since he's likely one of the better 2nd line centers in the league, he's racking up points. Does that mean he's better than Larkin? No.

Fair point. Lets explore it.

Adjusted for ice time and 5v5 play, and removing any doubles or triples (2nd line and 3rd line centers): Larkin finishes 29th overall this season, ahead of only Anze Kopitar and Tyler Seguin. Pretty much where everyone pins Larkin: barely a 1st line center.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Adjusting for TOI, there are several 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th line centers, that very clearly aren't better than Larkin, but because their QoC is so much lower, they're able to put up points in limited roles. Solely using any stat is extremely flawed, and that includes PTS/60.

I've adjusted for that for you. See above.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Yes, he consistently centers the best wingers on the team, but does he consistently center the best wingers in the league? No, and that's what we're comparing him to. The best centers in the league. Not the best center, or player on the team.

But that begs the question: Why was he on pace for 79 pts last season, and only 61 this season? His linemates were the same. His deployment was the same. His linemates didn't regress.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm not quoting total points. I'm quoting total points per game. How is that any more or less flawed than points per 60? It's not.

Points per 60 is much more accurate. If Larkin averages 2 pts per game and plays 25 min a night, and Bertuzzi averages 2 pts per game and plays 15 minutes a night, guess which one is the more productive player?

Doing the same thing I did above (adjusting for and removing 2nd and 3rd line centers) for the 2018/19 season; Larkin finishes 26th. Better than his 29th finish this year, but still a borderline 1st line center.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Yeah, 51st ranked based on PTS/60, but again, like any stat, it has it's flaws. Unless of course, you believe that Domi is the 4th best center in the league, Nic Dowd is 21st, Travis Boyd is 24th, Nyquist (who has never played center) is 33rd, etc... I think there are easily 20 centers on that list that I would rank below Larkin.

Again, you also need to take age into consideration. Most centers on that list, are established, well in the prime of their career. Larkin is just hitting his prime, and will presumably only get better.

See my above two statements where Larkin finishes 29th and 26th. There are no Dowd's or Boyd's on that list. I'm also eliminating players who played less than 30 games.

If Larkin is improving yet, why then did he regress this season 300+ games into his career? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't consider Larkin an "established" NHL player at this point.

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

I was referring to points in general. You need to consider other things than just offensive output, especially when looking at players on the worst team in the NHL.

Larkin is a great defensive player. Unfortunately being good at defense doesn't automatically make one a 1st line center. 1st line centers have to produce in the NHL. 

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

I disagree.

I did the math and your right here. Adjusting for scoring per TOI, 5v5, and only considering 1st line centers. Larkin finishes as the 24th most productive center in the NHL over the last 3 seasons averaged. Again, great 2nd line center, poor 1st line center.

Edited by ChristopherReevesLegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

1.I went purely by points because that's what 1C's are supposed to do....score

2. It was an incomplete season, and going by points, Larkin finished where he did among centers. That's the facts. Arguing where players would've finished if the season was a full season is speculative. It's entirely possible he would've been passed up by other players, but he could have passed other players above him as well. We'll never know. I'm just going with the data that isn't speculative.

3. Yes, I would agree that Crosby is certainly a 1C even if his points didn't show it this season. But that just goes to show that guys can move up and down that list, and in and out of the top 31, based on a multitude of factors. And considering it's not the same 31 guys every year, maybe there can actually be more than 31 first line centers in the NHL at any given time.

4. You can include other kinds of data too if you want. But if a guy is putting up the points to justify his role as a 1C, I don't see how any of the rest of it matters.

5. Larkin is a poor man's 1C. The numbers prove that to me. If we manage to draft a guy (fingers crossed) who can push him down to 2C, that would be great, as certainly an improvement can be made at that position. 

1. Not sure what your point here is, I'm only going on scoring as well. But I agree, it's 1Cs job to produce.

2. You must not understand?? I'm not projecting anything. I'm basing it on scoring rates in actual games played. If Crosby scores 40 pts in 30 games, and Eric Staal scores 60 pts in 70 games, technically Crosby scored less points as a whole, but he was a much better center when he actually hit the ice. To stay Eric Staal is better than Crosby because Staal played more games would be silly.

3. Again I'm not sure that you understand what I'm doing here. You think Crosby isn't a top31 center anymore because he had to deal with an injury this year? There's a reason I'm adjusting for games and ice time. I want to identify the best players, not the ones with iron man streaks.

4. Ice time doesn't matter? Games played doesn't matter? Again, by that standard Crosby is a 2nd line center, Kadri is a 3rd line center, and Mikko Koivu shouldn't even be on Minny's 4th line.

5. Agreed.

Edited by ChristopherReevesLegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

1.I went purely by points because that's what 1C's are supposed to do....score

2. It was an incomplete season, and going by points, Larkin finished where he did among centers. That's the facts. Arguing where players would've finished if the season was a full season is speculative. It's entirely possible he would've been passed up by other players, but he could have passed other players above him as well. We'll never know. I'm just going with the data that isn't speculative.

3. Yes, I would agree that Crosby is certainly a 1C even if his points didn't show it this season. But that just goes to show that guys can move up and down that list, and in and out of the top 31, based on a multitude of factors. And considering it's not the same 31 guys every year, maybe there can actually be more than 31 first line centers in the NHL at any given time.

4. You can include other kinds of data too if you want. But if a guy is putting up the points to justify his role as a 1C, I don't see how any of the rest of it matters.

5. Larkin is a poor man's 1C. The numbers prove that to me. If we manage to draft a guy (fingers crossed) who can push him down to 2C, that would be great, as certainly an improvement can be made at that position. 

Nailed it. At 23 with no supporting cast. 

You have to try extra hard to argue otherwise, meanwhile It's really simple to portray him as a 1C. That should tell you something itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I do have a bit of problem with the whole 31st center in scoring thing.

First off, you're not adjusting scoring for games played. Guys like Crosby actually fall outside of the top 31 centers, despite us all knowing Crosby is much better player than Larkin. When you adjust for games played Larkin isn't a top line center.

Second, when you adjust Larkin's scoring to points per ice-time he falls to about 59-61. Barely a 2nd line center. Thus I suspect when Mackel says Larkin would be a 3rd line center on some teams he's not far from accurate.

Third, Hudler was #8 in scoring among all forwards in 2014-15. Do you honestly believe Hudler was a top 10 forward in the league that year? Or was he just a good player who was afforded top minutes with good linemates? This is the flaw with arguing with totality of points.

You've all just witnessed an atrocious season from the Red Wings. Mackel and I are here warning you that your beloved players who participated in this atrocious season aren't that good. Choose not to believe us if you like, but don't say we didn't warn you.

don't misrepresent what mackel actually said. He called Larkin overrated, when in fact most of us rate him just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Good ol' trusty points per 60. 

All of the players on that list are clearly better hockey players than Larkin...

That's not my suggestion at all. Those players simply produce more with their ice time than Larkin does.

Rocco Grimaldi certainly doesn't have the defensive acumen of Larkin, nor does he face the quality of competition that Larkin does, but he's able to generate more points per 60 from Nashville's 3rd line then Larkin is from Detroit's 1st line. That's indicative of an offensive player in a position which suits him. Nashville is able to squeeze a lot of juice from that orange.

I suspect Larkin's sweet spot is 2C. His point totals might drop slightly when moved to this position (or might not at all) but his points per 60 will probably go up dramatically. Of course this requires a legit 1C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at this image. It speaks VOLUMES.

Sc6aVN8.jpg

DK, Abby, Miller, and Glendog all huddled together sharing stories, jokes, and general team-like camaraderie.

Larkin alone. Disengaged. Excluded. Not one of the guys. Staring listlessly into the void.

This is the social pariah you guys want to be captain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Look at this image. It speaks VOLUMES.

Sc6aVN8.jpg

DK, Abby, Miller, and Glendog all huddled together sharing stories, jokes, and general team-like camaraderie.

Larkin alone. Disengaged. Excluded. Not one of the guys. Staring listlessly into the void.

This is the social pariah you guys want to be captain...

This pic is like 4 years old. Of course a rookie isn't part of things yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Akakabuto said:

Youre right. While the others are looking into the hole in the ground Larkin is staring into the horizon imagening his conquest of the city of Detroit and his future cups. 

The Michigan Militia there has 13 years of higher education experience between them. They're likely discussing the engineering behind the foundation of the building and whether or not a tube structural system or a trussed system with X-bracing will be best for the build.

Larkin on the other hand is practically a NEET who never got farther than algebra 101 and plays mini-sticks in his moms basement, or as he likes to call it "dungeon". It's no wonder he doesn't fit in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Look at this image. It speaks VOLUMES.

Sc6aVN8.jpg

DK, Abby, Miller, and Glendog all huddled together sharing stories, jokes, and general team-like camaraderie.

Larkin alone. Disengaged. Excluded. Not one of the guys. Staring listlessly into the void.

This is the social pariah you guys want to be captain...

 

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

The Michigan Militia there has 13 years of higher education experience between them. They're likely discussing the engineering behind the foundation of the building and whether or not a tube structural system or a trussed system with X-bracing will be best for the build.

Larkin on the other hand is practically a NEET who never got farther than algebra 101 and plays mini-sticks in his moms basement, or as he likes to call it "dungeon". It's no wonder he doesn't fit in.

I'm in a crappy mood today and your posts legitimately crack me up. You sir are appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I'm clearly considering Larkin's production. What production variables did I leave out that would break my theory?

Since you're likely gonna sperg out and talk about defense no matter what I say about production, how would you like to measure this variable? Please present it. I'll consider any variable if you can present in a meaningful way.

I do consider defense to be extremely important, but even if you just want to stick with offense, you can't just use one arbitrary stat. I've already pointed out how flawed PTS/60 can be, and there are hundreds of other stats out there, a lot of which have Larkin ranked in the top 31 or higher.

17 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Agreed. Extremely tough task. But the rest of the league being better than us isn't an excuse. If the Red Wings have the worst top line in the league that means only one thing: The Red Wings need a new top line.

I think it is though, and legitimate one. The Red Wings need an elite player (like Lafreniere) to add to that top line. Larkin and Mantha are both high end players, but neither are elite. The problem with this team, isn't the high end players. It's the lack of elite players.

The Red Wings also need to upgrade the rest of their roster, from their 2nd line, down to the 4th line, defense, and obviously goaltending. The lack of talent on the entire roster is affecting the production from each and every player. Larkin never steps foot on the ice with Filppula or Nielsen, but them being terrible 2nd / 3rd line center options, affects Larkin and his line as well. If we had the sort of depth that teams need to win, it would take some of the pressure off that top line, and Larkin in particular.

17 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Fair point. Lets explore it.

Adjusted for ice time and 5v5 play, and removing any doubles or triples (2nd line and 3rd line centers): Larkin finishes 29th overall this season, ahead of only Anze Kopitar and Tyler Seguin. Pretty much where everyone pins Larkin: barely a 1st line center.

I've adjusted for that for you. See above.

Doing the same thing I did above (adjusting for and removing 2nd and 3rd line centers) for the 2018/19 season; Larkin finishes 26th. Better than his 29th finish this year, but still a borderline 1st line center.

See my above two statements where Larkin finishes 29th and 26th. There are no Dowd's or Boyd's on that list. I'm also eliminating players who played less than 30 games.

I did the math and your right here. Adjusting for scoring per TOI, 5v5, and only considering 1st line centers. Larkin finishes as the 24th most productive center in the NHL over the last 3 seasons averaged. Again, great 2nd line center, poor 1st line center.

So yes, Larkin does level out to be a lower end 1C, which is what I, and many others have been saying. But again, you also have to consider age, and total lack of talent on this team, and there's no reason to doubt Larkin can become a legit (top 20) center in the league over the next few seasons. I believe he will, as this team improves, and goes from joke of the league, to playoff contender.

Regarding the bold, I agree. The key there is the "last 3 seasons" though. Larkin will get better as he enters his prime. That's a guarantee. I don't think there's a single center in this upcoming draft that would displace Larkin as the 1C for the next 5-7 years. It would be great to add a Byfield to give us that much needed boost at center, but he would be our 2C, for the foreseeable future.

17 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

But that begs the question: Why was he on pace for 79 pts last season, and only 61 this season? His linemates were the same. His deployment was the same. His linemates didn't regress.

We've already been over this. We don't agree. I believe Larkin was asked by Yzerman / Blashill to concentrate more on the defensive side of the puck, which would explain his offensive numbers being down.

Also, consider the fact that he had 13 points in his last 10 games. Maybe he was starting to find a balance between defense and offense.

Also, also, can't a player have a down season without fans saying the player sucks and should be traded? Apparently not...

17 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Points per 60 is much more accurate. If Larkin averages 2 pts per game and plays 25 min a night, and Bertuzzi averages 2 pts per game and plays 15 minutes a night, guess which one is the more productive player?

That's an extreme example. I've already proven why PTS/60 can be, and often is a flawed stat, like any stat used on it's own. 

17 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Larkin is a great defensive player. Unfortunately being good at defense doesn't automatically make one a 1st line center. 1st line centers have to produce in the NHL. 

I agree. Larkin has already proven that he can produce at a 1st line level. Larkin has already proven that he can match up, and even shut down some of the leagues best. Now he just needs to be able to put it all together, and if the end of last season was any indication, I think he'll be able to do it.

Don't write him off. He's just now entering his prime FFS...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

That's not my suggestion at all. Those players simply produce more with their ice time than Larkin does.

Rocco Grimaldi certainly doesn't have the defensive acumen of Larkin, nor does he face the quality of competition that Larkin does, but he's able to generate more points per 60 from Nashville's 3rd line then Larkin is from Detroit's 1st line. That's indicative of an offensive player in a position which suits him. Nashville is able to squeeze a lot of juice from that orange.

I suspect Larkin's sweet spot is 2C. His point totals might drop slightly when moved to this position (or might not at all) but his points per 60 will probably go up dramatically. Of course this requires a legit 1C.

Larkin would obviously be more effective as a 2C. That goes without saying. Larkin grades out as a (lower end) 1C right now though, and will only get better. That's the point so many of us are trying to make here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

The Michigan Militia there has 13 years of higher education experience between them. They're likely discussing the engineering behind the foundation of the building and whether or not a tube structural system or a trussed system with X-bracing will be best for the build.

Larkin on the other hand is practically a NEET who never got farther than algebra 101 and plays mini-sticks in his moms basement, or as he likes to call it "dungeon". It's no wonder he doesn't fit in.

NEETs will inherit the earth. 
 

Dekeyser: ”I regret wearing shorts today. Everybody is laughing at my nonexistent calves." 

Abdelkader: ”I wonder if I can help out putting the organ in place?”

Miller: ”Back in my day we thought Olympia was big”

Glendening: ”I bet I can hit a nail harder than that guy with my backhand”

Larkin: *Looking at worker scraping up dirt in the bottom of the pit* ”Thats right, clean it up wagie”

Edited by Akakabuto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I do consider defense to be extremely important, but even if you just want to stick with offense, you can't just use one arbitrary stat. I've already pointed out how flawed PTS/60 can be,

You've said it's flawed, and done absolutely nothing to point out why it is so.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

and there are hundreds of other stats out there, a lot of which have Larkin ranked in the top 31 or higher.

Name them.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

The Red Wings also need to upgrade the rest of their roster, from their 2nd line, down to the 4th line, defense, and obviously goaltending. The lack of talent on the entire roster is affecting the production from each and every player. Larkin never steps foot on the ice with Filppula or Nielsen, but them being terrible 2nd / 3rd line center options, affects Larkin and his line as well. If we had the sort of depth that teams need to win, it would take some of the pressure off that top line, and Larkin in particular.

Explain the logic here

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Regarding the bold, I agree. The key there is the "last 3 seasons" though. Larkin will get better as he enters his prime. That's a guarantee. I don't think there's a single center in this upcoming draft that would displace Larkin as the 1C for the next 5-7 years. It would be great to add a Byfield to give us that much needed boost at center, but he would be our 2C, for the foreseeable future.

Yet he was continuing to enter his prime this year and only got worse, while his line-mates stayed the same or got better. If you're going to continue to use the "muh team bad" excuse to explain this away, you need to address why it affected Larkin so badly, but not Mantha or Bertuzzi and to some extent Fabbri.

He's outside the top31 in the same stat if I consider just this season.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

We've already been over this. We don't agree. I believe Larkin was asked by Yzerman / Blashill to concentrate more on the defensive side of the puck, which would explain his offensive numbers being down.

Also, consider the fact that he had 13 points in his last 10 games. Maybe he was starting to find a balance between defense and offense.

Hogwash

Larkin had 51.5% offensive zone starts this year
Last year he has 51.4% offensive zone starts

He wasn't deployed any differently than last year

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

That's an extreme example. I've already proven why PTS/60 can be, and often is a flawed stat, like any stat used on it's own.

Okay, explain to me why it's flawed.

You can run any average stat this year. Points per game. Points per 60. Primary assists per 60. Shooting percentage... etc etc. None of them place him in the top31 centers.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I agree. Larkin has already proven that he can produce at a 1st line level. Larkin has already proven that he can match up, and even shut down some of the leagues best. Now he just needs to be able to put it all together, and if the end of last season was any indication, I think he'll be able to do it.

Don't write him off. He's just now entering his prime FFS...

You could've, and probably did, say the same thing last year. Yet here we are.

3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Larkin would obviously be more effective as a 2C. That goes without saying. Larkin grades out as a (lower end) 1C right now though, and will only get better. That's the point so many of us are trying to make here...

>He's only going to get better!
>Gets worse

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