Options
Hockey Fans!???
gobraves39401
Posts: 91 ✭✭✭
Who out there are collecting the kid in Minnesota? Kirill Kaprzov ! Is he the real deal or just a normal newcomer? Who are some names to collect in Hockey?
0
gobraves39401
Posts: 91 ✭✭✭
Comments
He is not a newcomer. It isn't quite the same situation as when Sergej Makarov and Slava Fetisov came over to the NHL after being dominant players in Russia for a decade, but it is sort of similar. His professional RC's are issued by various card companies in 2014. I would consider it a bit different than your standard rookie fresh out of juniors.
Cole Caufield
Connor Bedard. I don’t think he has anything licensed yet but imma gonna load up when he does. What he is doing is just silly.
I know nothing about hockey cards, but keep your eye on Jason Robertson of the Dallas Stars. 21 year old rookie, and while they were inscribing Kaprozov's name on the Calder Trophy halfway through the season, Robertson has been outplaying him, by a lot, ever since. Nobody notices him because the Stars suck this year, but he's the real deal.
Lankinen and Vanecek are worth watching too.
You OBVIOUSLY haven't been watching Kaprizov.
It's not possible for anyone to be outplaying him by a LOT.
Excellent all around player with great set-up and scoring ability.
Not your typical rookie, gained experience in the top European league.
A bit on the small side, but very strong and tough.
And you obviously haven't been watching Robertson. Robertson - an actual rookie - started very slowly, even got healthy scratched a few times. Since the powers that be declared Kaprizov the Calder winner after the first 20 or so games - and it sure looked like a done deal at that point that he'd deserve it - Robertson has outplayed him, and handily.
Of the "Big 4" stats, Kiprisov is leading all rookies in goals and points, Robertson is leading in assists and plus/minus. From the midpoint of the season, Robertson is leading in all four. Kaprisov will still win the Calder, and he may even deserve it, but I bet you can pick up Robertson's rookie card a lot cheaper, and I like his chances for being a better long-term investment.
Game winner in OT!! 17 seconds in! Might just be a great one!
I have seen a few of Robertson's highlights. He looks like a sniper.
+/- is the most meaningless statistic there is, you will NEVER see me bring it up.
I really couldn't care less about the Calder. Give it to Robertson for all I care. Kaprizov got a couple of years playing at a high level in Europe.
Kirill is so much more than scoring. He is a tenacious fore-checker and also dedicated to playing defense. He's even pretty scrappy, taking care of a guy the other night that took a cheap shot at him.
As far as assists go, I have seen Kirill lose out on quite a few because he doesn't play with guys who are "finishers".
I have been watching hockey since the North Stars arrived in Minnesota in 1967 and he's the best player I have seen playing for a Minnesota hockey club.
Cam Talbot has fixed our Goaltending problems and Kevin Fiala is a good goal scorer, but Kaprizov has been carrying the Wild especially lately after a very brief scoring "slump".
+/- isn’t meaningless. It’s not as good an indicator as Corsi. And it becomes more meaningful over a greater number of games played. But not meaningless.
Remember when Makarov won the Calder even though he was not even close to being something anyone could reasonably consider a Rookie that year? And then think about how many other actual rookies there are from the same year who were true RC's and are much better long-term investments?
Thanks for the replies.. I have enjoyed myself this last few weeks getting to learn and watch Hockey. Like I said on another post, All I can get is Hockey cards now on the shelves down south. Been buying some tins. I now have pulled Kiprisov Young guns RC 's. Base and Canvas. Plus Have 2 Jason Roberston, 3 Tim Stutzle's and many more. Gonna be very interested to watch these guys grow into the sport.
Most totally meaningless statistic in the history of statistics.
Guys go from being +25 one year to -15 the next and them back to +25 again ALL THE TIME! Dependent on your line-mates and goalie.
TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, MEANINGLESS.
Not worth debating.
Agreed. And which rookie is leading in Corsi? Yep, it's Robertson. Absolutely nothing bad to say about Kaprizov, he's a great player and I wish the Stars had him. I just wouldn't trade Robertson for him.
Kaprizov has been elevating the entire Wild team. Opponents are wisely keying on him and he's still getting the job done in both ends. His surrounding cast has been so-so this year, but the MN Wild farm system is going to provide some help next year with Boldy, maybe others. I don't see his play tailing off. In any event, he sure makes the Wild a lot more exciting to watch!
I love it when folks write four paragraph responses, include bold and italics, and then conclude that it’s not worth debating.
And seriously, if you haven’t watched Bedard yet, do it so you can tell your grandkids you saw him play when he was only 16.
(He has a great +/- but don’t let that color your thinking)
Have a great night!
I love it when people find meaningless stats and jump up and down bragging how it proves anything. Then instead of trying to explain the actual value of the stat, they simply take a shot at the other poster.
OK, you explain how a player's +/- can go from +25 one year to -15 the next and back to +20 when his scoring stays the same.
Here's just a few of the things that can make a players +/- fluctuate; Different linemates, goaltending, being on a line that goes up against the opponents third line instead of their first, playing on the PP vs not. Or did he just become a bad hockey player for that year while putting up the same number of points? Look at Ovechkin's +/-, has gone from -19 to +45 and back down to -35. Wow, he must be really inconsistent.
If you really understand how a players numbers can be effected by the other players on the ice, both their own and the other team's, you won't bother to look at it at all. Great players can have - numbers and lousy players can have +.
Who do you think has the better +/-, the great player, playing with lousy linemates and a poor goalie, or the ham and egger playing with a great scorer, solid defensemen and a great goalie?
Not sure how I am going to watch Bedard right now, but I am sure I will in the future.
Have a great Sunday!
I thought you weren’t going to debate? Let’s not hijack this thread, I’ll respond once and be done with it.
Short version: of the NHL Top 20 career plus/minus leaders, 19 are in the Hall of Fame. That’s not a coincidence.
Longer version. I’m not saying +- is the best stat out there. I’m just saying +/- is not meaningless as was stated. You are correct that it is certainly imperfect and dependent upon situations defined by teammates. Not unlike RBIs in baseball. It depends who’s around you, and how good your team is. But if you get a lot, you’re probably pretty good.
Context is extremely important, but +/-can be helpful in quickly assessing a team. If you are matched against a team that has a lower +- collectively, but an individual player has a relatively higher +/-, chances are he’s one of the better players if they’ve played a meaningful number of games. Conversely, if you are playing a very strong team, but a certain player has a low relative +-, you might be able to set some favorable matchups accordingly.
The stat has flaws, sure. I said upfront that Corsi is better, but it is hard to track that stat outside the very highest levels of hockey. +- can be useful in a quick assessment of talent, and useful in development of a coaching strategy.
For these reasons, I respectfully disagree that it’s “totally absolutely completely meaningless”. If you continue to disagree as well, that’s totally cool.
As for seeing Bedard, plenty of highlights available on YouTube. Just type his name in, and remember he’s playing against kids 2 years older than he is.
Plus Minus is a meaningful stat in context, like all stats. An advanced stats darling quickly loses his shin when he moves to a lesser team. I know hockey fans want to be able to evaluate players league wide but hockey is a game that needs to be watched.
I’m a Habs fan and watch everygame, and two guys that are going to be real good are Suzuki and Caulfield. No idea what his advanced stats look like but Caulfield looks like the real deal. High end offensive awareness and world class shot. Destroyed the USNDP and won the hobey baker this past year. 3 goals in his first 5 games and should have more.
Will be a rookie next season and being a Hab I expect crazy hype around his rook cards.
So true. Caufield has been underestimated at every level because of his size. The Canadians were smart to jump on him when he fell in the draft. Habs fans are already in love with him because he’s an elite - that’s right elite - goal scorer (even though he’s American).
Amazing they got him at 15, could be the steak of the draft. Whats interesting is there were concerns with his footspeed but he actually looks quick. Apparently he is a gym rat and his skating has improved dramatically since the draft.
I'm a Habs fan also. I personally feel Bergevin should have been shown the door a few years ago. Maybe he has some incriminating info on Molson?
I’m not as down as MB as others, mostly because I believe most GM’s are useless and the next one would likely be same or worse.
Most of these guys need 30 years in seat to hit a run of good players and have some success. Very few have built a contender from scratch. Even a guy like Yzerman, who did a pretty good job in Tampa, inherited Stamkos ans a young Hedman. Start with a few stud #1 overalls and you should win some games.
This season has been a huge buzz kill but this young crop, Suzuki, KK, CC, Romanov, Primeau, Guhle, Poehling, Norlinder, Harris ....this is the best large group of young players the last 40 years. MB loaded up on picks and it is going to pay off pretty soon here.
Now you're quitting? The thread was about Kaprizov. I figured you would refuse to answer the Ovechkin question. Fine, I'll finish up as well.
>
Once you look at the list, it actually proves my point, not yours. Thank you!
>
>
Gigantic stretch here, but yes it's a bad stat, like RBI, dependent to what other players do before you, but mitigated by the HR. Yes, I do realize the top RBI guys are in the HOF. Plus/Minus 100X worse than RBI. You can score a hat trick every game, be the best player on the ice, and still be a -.
>
We were not assessing teams. Deflecting is a losers move.
>
Corsi ignores PP, so yes use it when it suits you. Another bad stat for comparing individual players. PP goals are worth the same as ES ones last time I looked.
>
It's not an opinion +/- is worthless for player comparison.
>
I'll see him when he makes the big time.
Ive been going after players like Robertson, Stutzle, Kaprizov, Lafreniere (I think not playing competitively for 9 months before the season started, then being held out of the WJC, and having no preseason games hurt him. He started to find a rhythm and groove late in the season.) And players form last season like Makar, both Hughes', Dach, Suzuki.
I ripped some UD hockey looking for Kaprizov and didn't find one.
Not a fan of spending the money to get a raw one that might not be mint.
40 years? Not even remotely close to what we saw 30 years ago. The RC's of approx 1989-1991 or so, plus or minus a year, was a much larger group of much more promising young players.
2005-2007 was also a large group of young players that I would point out as a better large group of young players too.
As far as the current young players group you listed, I know he's a couple years in now but I consider Alex DeBrincat one of the good ones too but not sure if you consider him too old? But I'm biased, as he is my cousin's son.
+/- is a great statistic. Its relevance, though, is dictated not by its raw number, but by its number relative to the team.
Compare the Howe/McCrimmon pairing to the Marsh/Crossman pairing in 85/86 when the top 4 probably played about 55 minutes.
Top pairing defenseman typically have the highest and lowest +/- as they play more minutes.
The highest +/- are from defenseman on really good teams. They usually are dictating the flow of play when they are on the ice.
Again, though, it is the ratio of an individual's +/- relative to the team that is the true indicator. For the Flyers team mentioned above, and I am going by memory, the team, as a whole, was something like +85 and Howe/McCrimmon were +86/82. Basically, it's saying that when Howe was on the ice, they outscored their opponents by 86 goals and when he wasn't, the Flyers were basically even with their opponents.
I think that says something.
If a team is -50 overall, and a player on that team is +20, or even -5, I think that says something.
Another thing that can affect +/- is a change in coaching staff that leads to a change in game strategy for a particular team
+/- can increase and decrease from year to year like that for:
+/- doesn't really exhibit increase and decrease from year to year for:
I'll give you that +/- can vary dramatically for a lot of great players; even Gretzky had some horrific minus stats over a few seasons. But, consistently high quality +/- like you see for players like Lidstrom and Datsyuk are not the product of their teammates as much as they are an indicator of greatness. It is not a necessity for a great player, but it is definitely a great achievement if you can swing it.
Sorry +/- is not a great statistic when comparing two players and that's what was being done. It should never be done to compare players, ever.
Comparing two promising rookies and tossing in +/- is an insult to any knowlegeable hockey fans intelligence. Corsi (in this case) is just as worthless as one guy scores a lot on the Power Play. So now those points just don't count?
The best you're going to get looking at "its number relative to the team" is a maybe, if all the other factors are similar.
>
>
Both pairs were on the ice when the other team scored about the same, but Howe/McCrimmon scored 128 points between them and Marsh/Crossman 57. Unusual that Marsh's +/- was so much better than Crossman's, even though Crossman scored almost twice as many points.
In fact all of Crossman's individual along with OPS, DPS, and PS numbers look better than Marsh's except for +/_. Could it have been that he played a significantly more or less amount of ice time, or with different players for a time? +/- doesn't answer that. Why do you think Marsh's +/- is so much better? Could it in fact be wrong, if used to evaluate the two?
>
Yes. Especially if they spend time on the ice with a high scoring set of forwards. A good goalie is also a big help.
>
>
"Really good teams". Again proving my point that other players have a huge effect on someone's +/-.
>
Howe/McCrimmon were only 2 of the 6 guys on the ice for their team, so the other guys were pretty good too. In a lot of cases, teams could have one high scoring line and a bunch of good, hard working defense minded players. The defenseman playing behind the "top line" are going to look fantastic and the other guys will be around a +/- of "zero".
>
What it says (to people who know nothing about hockey) is that Mark Howe was a much better player in 1985-86 than Mario Lemieux.
Mark was a great player, but nowhere near Mario. Look at the teams; Philly was #1 overall in defense and #4 in scoring while Pittsburgh was 11th in both scoring and giving up goals and barely a "+" team. Their "best" player according to +/- was Mike Blaisdell. WHO?
>
>
It can say a bunch of things. Could say he was the best (or worst) player who was on the ice when the other 5 guys on his team were scoring a lot and not giving up much.
When comparing players +/- is worse than worthless in many, but not all, cases. It can reward an average player who just happens to be part of a good lineup, and hurt a good player stuck with a bunch of lousy ones.
Additionally, since it ignores the PP, +/- isn't even a good team stat. Penalties are often called when you have an advantage over another player and he fouls you. If your team takes advantage of that and scores, why shouldn't that count?
It's a bad stat. I guess it is worth debating though?
I was talking Habs prospects.
Agree that league wide nothing in recent memory comes close to the players that entered 89-91. Unfortunately, Montreal didn't have one in that bunch which is why it's fun as a Habs fan to have some top prospects for once.
I don't watch the Hawks a lot of but DeBrinkat has a pretty awesome stat line this year. Hoping Caufield will be a good comparable.
I actually picked up a 2 card lot of his young guns RC off ebay the other day!
>
_
There are no perfect stats in hockey. Stats in hockey, even fancy stats, are primarily there to confirm the eye test. Occasionally, you may have a fancy stat that is contrary which would require a potential re-evaluation of a player.
Joe you don't know me. In my own defense, having been a hard-core hockey fan (by far my #1 sport as far as watching as well as collecting) since going to my first game in 1971. I've played, my kids have played and I have watched or listened to pretty much every Flyers game, Canada Cup/World Cup and Olympic game since 1971. I think about this kind of stuff.....a lot.
I realize power play goals count just as much (Tim Kerr, among many others, made his living that way), So do power play goals against. Every team attempts to maximize that differential. But most of the game is still played at even strength and that was what +/- captures on a raw basis.
_
I think you're looking at the wrong year regarding Marsh/Crossman +/-. They were a +3/-5, respectively in 85/86.
Having watched each game that season, although TOI stats were not officially recorded, the Flyers basically went with 2 pairs. Howe/McCrimmon were probably on ice 30 minutes, Marsh/Crossman about 22-25 minutes, with the 3rd pair 5-8 minutes. The Flyers of that era were four lines deep, so, while the top three lines would get more than 15 minutes, the fourth line still, most likely, averaged over 10. My point being that the forward lines rolled independent of the defense so that the mix of minutes of say Kerr/Poulin/Propp was not over-weighted to Howe/McCrimmon than Marsh/Crossman. Crossman had better overall stats as he tended to jump into the play more often as Marsh stayed back. Crossman also quarterbacked the 2nd PP unit. Also, if anything, any forward's +/- benefited from being on the ice with Howe/McCrimmon rather than vice versa.
You're putting words into my mouth. I will totally hi-jack the thread below (My apologies in advance). What it will say is that in any given year, you can see how much better a team was with the player on the ice than without. In that sense, as far as comparing one player to another, I guess that you could say that. And for that specific year, yes, Mark Howe was a better player at even strength than Mario Lemieux. In that year, at even strength, the Penguin played pretty much the same with Lemieux on the ice as it did without. And that is not a knock on Lemieux. Teams were able to focus their defensive efforts directly on him. Mario did a ton of damage on the power play. Unfortunately, so did their opponents. Consequently, the Penguins were an average team.
With regard to Howe, my point is that he was a driver of those teams being Cup contenders during that period and was a much better player than he was given credit for. In particular, the primary reason the Flyers were #1 on defense in 85-86 were the career years had by Howe/McCrimmon,
As much as I like Mark Howe, I would take Mario each day of the week.
_
Nor is the analysis I am including below an "end all and be all" analysis. The relative +/- of some players are dependent on other players: typically, the stars. For example, for the 85/86 Flyers, while McCrimmon was a solid all-star caliber player (as evidenced also by his Calgary years), Howe drove McCrimmon's +/-, while McCrimmon supported Howe's (a better example would be Glenn Cochrane, who was Howe's primary partner, in the 82-83 season).
Anyhow, isolated +/-, I agree, may be useless. But if analyzed in context relative to the rest of the team, I think it can be an important statistic. Here is my novella I wrote in "Hockeybuzz" about eight years ago during a debate on Phil Housley.
Respectfully.
_
I took a deeper look into my initial analysis of play at EVEN strength. I have a bit of data but will only summarize the methodology and the results.
What I did was take the +/- data for the player and his team for that season (GF less PPGF for Net Goals For ["NGF"] and GA less PPGA for Net Goals Against ["NGA"] that provides net +/-). Consequently, you then have that data for when the player was and was not on the ice. NGF/NGA provides a scoring ratio for the team, player and team w/o the player. Winning teams will almost always have ratios over 1::1 (perhaps a team that has at least a 25+ differential in their special teams will be over .500) and losing teams below 1::1. Once I got that data, I kept both the raw spread of their on/off performance and the ratio of the on/off performance. Hopefully the examples below will present in a readable fashion. The expectation at EVEN strength is that a good player will have a higher NGF/NGA ratio than the team has when he is not on the ice. This would apply to a bad team as well. For example if a team gives up one goal for every 0.90 goals it scores then a really good player on that team may have a 0.93 ratio and the rest of the team a 0.88 ratio.
Year/Team/Player Player GF/PPGF/NGF GA/PPGA/NGA +/- Team GF/PPGF/NGF GA/PPGA/NGA +/- W/O NGF/NGA NGF/NGA Ratio Team Player On/Off Spread % Spread
85-86/Flyers/Howe 188/46/142 93/36/57 +85 335/91/244 241/71/170 +74 102/113 1.435/ 2.491/0.902 1.589 2.76
88-89/Buff/Housley 148/65/83 92/15/77 +15 291/78/213 299/86/213 +0 130/136 1.000/ 1.078/0.956 0.122 1.13
86-87/Bos/Bourque 168/59/109 98/33/65 +44 301/65/236 276/60/216 +20 127/151 1.093/ 1.677/0.841 0.836 1.99
70-71/Bos/Orr 258/79/179 85/30/55 +124 399/80/319 207/53/154 +165 140/99 2.071/ 3.255/1.414 1.840 2.30
84-85/Edm/Gretzky 249/61/188 127/37/90 +98 401/74/327 298/76/222 +105 139/132 1.473/ 2.089/1.053 1.036 1.984
I looked at Howe from 79-80 through 87-88 (nine seasons), Langway from 82-83 through 88-89, Coffey and Gretzky while at Edmonton, Bourque's whole career and Orr from 67-68 through 74-75. Also Housley from start of career through Winnipeg.
Thus, looking at Bobby Orr's line, in 1970-71 he was on the ice for 258 Boston goals, 79 were PP goals for a NGF of 179. He was on the ice for 85 goals against, 30 of them while shorthanded for a NGA of 55. His +/- was a record +124 (179-55). Boston scored a total of 399 goals, 80 of which were on the PP for a NGF of 319. The team had 207 GA, 53 of them shorthanded for a NGA of 154 and a team +/- of +165 (319-154). When Orr was not on the ice, the team had a NGF of 140 (319-179) and a NGA of 99 (154-55). At even strength, the Bruins outscored their opponents by 2.071::1 (319/154). When Orr was on the ice, they outscored their opponents 3.255::1 (179/55) and when he was not they outscored their opponents 1.414::1 (140/99). When Orr was on the ice at even strength, the Bruins were 1.84 goals better than when he was not (3.255-1.414) or 2.3x more productive (3.255/1.414).
Thoughts about even strength performance:
Coffey was as I expected - very slightly above the rest of the team some years and below in others. He looks good in the other metrics in that his play was directly, more than indirectly, responsible for goals (goals and assists). It doesn't hide the fact that his team often did better at outscoring an opponent at even strength when he was not on the ice.
Housley was similar to Coffey. In this evaluation he only had two seasons that would rank with Howe's two worst (79-80 when he was a forward and 83-84). Of course, those two worst were really good seasons, though.
Bourque was amazingly consistent. Only at the end of his Boston tenure did the team perform better with him off the ice. His career spread was 0.373 goals. The nine years I looked at for Howe, his spread was 0.496.
Langway was up and down. Amazingly, in his Norris trophy year, the rest of the team very slightly outperformed him at even strength. However, the Caps were something like 87% on the PK, primarily due to Langway. Howe still should have won the Norris.
Orr was simply amazing. Of the group I looked at, other than Howe, he was the only player to have a ratio 2x the rest of the team, but he did it 4 times. His spread for the years looked at was 1.031 goals.
Gretzky was also amazing, although his numbers don't jump off the page like Orr's. I think this is because the stats I'm looking at favor defensemen (or at least stud defensemen) in that they typically have more Time on Ice (TOI), can influence the flow of play a bit more and +/- probably underweights ACTUAL points (although I believe to a lesser degree than GVT and PS overweight points). For example, in the 84-85 stats above, Gretzky was on the ice for 249 Edmonton goals. He had POINTS on 208 of THEM!!! (for comparison, 70-71 Orr had 139 points on the 258 goals scored when he was on the ice)
Excellent post above. A much more articulate version of my thoughts on plus/minus. This thread is the first time in a long, long while where my knowledge of hockey has been so easily dismissed. But glad we’re having this debate in a respectful way and GeorgeBailey2’s above analysis is fantastic.
For those wondering, the answer to the trivia question of who is the only Top 20 career +- leader not in the HoF, it’s McCrimmon.
And last point on Bedard. He is the first player in WHL history to be granted exceptional status. Dominant performance at U18 worlds for gold medal winning Canada ... as a 15 year old. Some may wait to see him when he makes “the big time” (that comment is a total head scratcher), but if you enjoy hockey, you should see this kid play. He’s the next generation.
Thank you Green Sneakers.
Also, with regard to Joe's point about "Really good teams", I forgot to mention that in Orr's rookie season, where the Bruins were dead last in every category, Orr was a +1 and his ratio was a 1.704. Lemieux's 85-86 season, where he was amazing and had 141 points, his ratio was 0.913. Again, this was at even strength.
I hope your analysis is right about this future crop. I'm vey excited to see Caufield evolve. Just seems when things have gone sour the past 6 or 7 years there seems to be a "scapegoat", Subban seemed to be the first I noticed in the mantra of "he's not a disciplined player" or "he doesn't get along with/fit with coach
Thierrien and his system, then it became coach Thierrien and his "coaching" is too rigid or he's not a players coach, then it became Pacioretty, and how he never "lived up to expectations", and the latest seems to be coach Julien. My analysis may be way off but it just appears to be one reason or another.
Yes I may have looked at some wrong information. Stupid computer screen was jumping all over the place, and I knew I was wasting my time anyway.
There's 11 other guys on the ice with you. Your numbers are going to take gigantic swings no matter how consistent and great you play.
Rating two rookies by comparing their +/- is idiotic and proves nothing, it can in fact indicate the lesser player is better than the better player depending on several factors.
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. The point I was addressing was the Kaprizov/Robertson comparison and +/- has no value at all in determining who's the better player. None.
Now, of course you are spinning the point into a dissertation on a players effects on even strength scoring relative to the overall performance of blah blah blah.
Is it really that tough to say; "That is correct, +/- is a bad way of comparing two rookies"?
I guess it is.
Aufwiedersehen.
While the Flyers weren't the only ones to pass on Caufield, I am hopeful that York becomes the better player. The Flyers do need speed and a sniper. I think they believed Brink brought the same skill set to the table as Caufield, with the same question marks.
York has looked very poised in his first few games. But, then again, Philip Myers looked good all of last year, but regressed this year.
My instincts tell me that the progression of York may embolden the Flyers to do something dramatic. Say, if JVR gets taken in the expansion draft, I could see the team moving Provorov or Sanheim (along with picks or prospects, even ones already in the NHL) in order to try to get Seth Jones or Eichel. Again, just a feeling. I don't really think there is anyone on the Flyers that is untouchable at this point.
I will try to pay attention to Bedard.
Ok - +/- , in a vacuum, as with practically any other statistic there is, is a bad way of comparing two rookies.
I didn't intend for you to get defensive and sarcastic when your opinion was challenged.
I knew you couldn't do it ;-)
This was meant in good fun. I saw the wink in your last post.
Regarding any rookies, all of the stats can be somewhat subjective unless you're truly looking at a generational talent. And they only apply to that current year. There are ROY candidates that go on to HOF careers and some that fizzle. Some rookies have a pedigree but take several years to develop. In all cases, there was probably some statistic, in ether direction, for both types of players, that counter-balanced a statistic that said, "Ooh, shiny" or "That guy sucks".
GB - what's your take on Carter Hart? Obviously not a great season, and the injury sucks. But, young goalies having struggles is basically par for the course. I don't get much chance to watch the Flyers play, how you feeling about Hart bouncing back next year?
With Hart, I am cautiously optimistic. He has the best junior pedigree....pretty much ever: 2x WHL goalie of the year, 2x WJC starter with the 2nd being a championship.
I am particularly fond of goalies, with Parent and Lindbergh my two favorite.
Part of the problem this year was his positioning.
I am not a huge fan of the reverse VH. IMO, unless you're 6' 5" + and/or the puck is behind the goal line and being thrown into the crease, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. The players are too good at shooting the puck. Anyone who gets the puck 5 feet out with a look at the net has the top five inches not covered by the goalies face to hit, pls another chunk of the net because the goalie is down AND flat in the net. And the goalie cannot stop anything shot at that top part because it is impossible to lift your body up. Yes, the bottom foot of the net is covered, but I think you're giving away too much. In general, I think this is why you see so many high short side goals.
For Carter Hart, there were a couple of games where he got burned pretty badly by this. Specifically, there was one game against the Sabres where they scored two goals rather quickly where they threw the puck from below the dots to guys who were ten feet out and they had the whole net to shoot at.
Like I said, he has the tools and, I hope, the mental make-up to be a top 5 goalie in the league. As a Flyer fan, I dream of the Marty Brodeur type, who you can just automatically throw them out there 60+ games a year for 10 years. One can dream, so I guess we'll see.
I am still waiting on getting his Young Guns cards.
I do have jumbos of him, Provorov and Sanheim, with the hope of going to Voorhees to get them autographed.
thx - I agree he has great pedigree, ala Price. Carey was - and still can be - pretty inconsistent but the highs are real high. I suspect Hart has a similar career trajectory.
On Kaprizov.......last three games;
Scored two third period goals to overcome a 1-0 deficit. First goal he hit the puck out of mid air with the shaft of his stick, second goal a blazingly quick shot off the faceoff. Opposing team got a gift penalty and tied it at end of regulation, Wild lost in OT.
Had an early assist and scored the winner in OT on a great rush around the D-Man fired in his own rebound.
Lastly, assisted on first two goals by drawing the goalie over and passing to a trailing player for an easy back door tip in. Wild win in OT.
I believe he has 10 goals in the last 10 games.
Prediction: Kaprizov will play well in the play-offs. He has in the past, I'm thinking he will again.
GO WILD!
Connor McDavid all the way. If you cannot afford his rookie in high grade buy it in PSA 8 or get his second and third year cards.
https://thescore.com/nhl/news/2077752
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
In other news, water is wet.
I answered the Op's question. Oh wait that was after reading a long back and forth over plus minus, etc... I could have written a thesis paper afterword lol
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
It's not worth writing a thesis paper on! LOL