kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 38 minutes ago, The Lock said: Well, if you are looking for bad things in players you will find them in almost any player. My question to you then is how are you evaluating them in your eye test? What are you looking for? Are you looking for future potential or just the here and now? Also, are you looking at statistics, coming up with an opinion first, and THEN doing the eye test to "confirm" it because, if you are, that's a huge bias and you might as well just throw your knowledge out the window at that point. I'm not looking for bad things. I know every player has flaws, especially the non-elite players. I look for both now and future potential. In Motte's case, I don't particularly see too much upside for the future and obviously I've made it clear how I feel about his current play. And, for what it's worth, today was the first time I looked up his underlying numbers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: You used total points and total ice-time. You're the one who posted about "context" yet you did your best to exclude it. no I provided additional information that you chose to filter out. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 42 minutes ago, aGENT said: Well sorry, but these things matter (and given we're a bottom 10 team, it's not surprising 20+ other teams have forwards in similar roles with 'better' stats.... is it?). Also things like zone starts (Motte's at 71.3 dZS and 28.7 oZS with -0.6 G/60 BTW) matter. Let's look at the 4RW on the two teams directly ahead of us/behind us in the standings. Ty Rattie has a more favourable looking +0.8 G/60... but he also gets 60.9 oZS...so not really a fair comparable is it? Carter Rowney on the other hand has an abysmal -3.5 G/60 despite getting comparatively far cushier 43.5% oZS. I'd say he compares pretty favourably given those two obvious contemporaries. Like I said, he's near the bottom of a 119 player list. That list of 119 is composed of players that have similar deployment to him (based on D-zone starts). That means players on both good and bad teams are ahead of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 37 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: no I provided additional information that you chose to filter out. You're the one who filtered out every player that has more ice-time than him in attempt to make his sheer numbers look more favorable by excluding rates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: I'm not looking for bad things. I know every player has flaws, especially the non-elite players. I look for both now and future potential. In Motte's case, I don't particularly see too much upside for the future and obviously I've made it clear how I feel about his current play. And, for what it's worth, today was the first time I looked up his underlying numbers. Can I borrow that crystal ball then? Based on? Because if you're going to predict, I'd like to know what that's based on. Team's linemates/health/luck/peaks-valleys cannot be determined ahead of time. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Can't we just appreciate the fact that Motte scored two beauty goals last night and is having a great season without crapping on him about not being excellent in all facets of the game? Considering how fricken frustrating this year has been for the team as a whole and for the fans, lets just bask in the goodness for lil bit please. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 35 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: Can I borrow that crystal ball then? Just an opinion. Something we all share on this crazy thing called a discussion board. 34 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said: Can't we just appreciate the fact that Motte scored two beauty goals last night and is having a great season without crapping on him about not being excellent in all facets of the game? Considering how fricken frustrating this year has been for the team as a whole and for the fans, lets just bask in the goodness for lil bit please. He had a fantastic game, nobody is taking that away from him. Just having a discussion about the overall player. It's kind of the point of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Like I said, he's near the bottom of a 119 player list. That list of 119 is composed of players that have similar deployment to him (based on D-zone starts). That means players on both good and bad teams are ahead of him. How many of those teams are rebuilding though? Adding in fresh new faces? Were decimated by injuries during the process as we have been? That's something that matters because we're not really shooting for 'this year'....that was a bit of an unexpected goal that came out of some early success. I bet some of those teams are at other ends of that timeline. It's important to get an overall picture of things when talking about a player on an "overall" basis, out of fairness to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Like I said, he's near the bottom of a 119 player list. That list of 119 is composed of players that have similar deployment to him (based on D-zone starts). That means players on both good and bad teams are ahead of him. 'Bottom' in what regard? Based on what context? How many of these other 'better' players are 4th line W'ers, who've played a comparable sample size, are also playing 70+ percent dZS on bottom 10, rebuilding teams mired in injuries? You corsi-gazers can't seem to account for context. But sure, when you remove half of it, he's 'at the bottom'. Edited March 14, 2019 by aGENT 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: You're the one who filtered out every player that has more ice-time than him in attempt to make his sheer numbers look more favorable by excluding rates. yes, ice time is such a poor view of a player, I mean can you imagine if coaches thought that way? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said: yes, ice time is such a poor view of a player, I mean can you imagine if coaches thought that way? Jimmy, did you know he doesn't compare favourably with guys playing 2nd line minutes and way higher oZS, on playoff teams? Like seriously, where's the 'value' in that information? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 42 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: How many of those teams are rebuilding though? Adding in fresh new faces? Were decimated by injuries during the process as we have been? That's something that matters because we're not really shooting for 'this year'....that was a bit of an unexpected goal that came out of some early success. I bet some of those teams are at other ends of that timeline. It's important to get an overall picture of things when talking about a player on an "overall" basis, out of fairness to them. 39 minutes ago, aGENT said: Jimmy, did you know he doesn't compare favourably with guys playing 2nd line minutes and way higher oZS, on playoff teams? Like seriously, where's the 'value' in that information? 42 minutes ago, aGENT said: 'Bottom' in what regard? Based on what context? How many of these other 'better' players are 4th line W'ers, who've played a comparable sample size, are also playing 70+ percent dZS on bottom 10, rebuilding teams mired in injuries? You corsi-gazers can't seem to account for context. But sure, when you remove half of it, he's 'at the bottom'. Motte playing in the bottom of the lineup of a bad team is not a defense of his play, it's an indictment. If he was actually a good player, he'd be playing higher in the lineup because we don't exactly have the depth to put good players on the 4th line. If he was on one of those "better" teams he'd be in the press box or in their farm system. He's good enough to be a 4th liner on a bad team, that's it. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a good NHL player. That is what we call, as I said originally, replaceable. 42 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: yes, ice time is such a poor view of a player, I mean can you imagine if coaches thought that way? No idea what this means. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Motte playing in the bottom of the lineup of a bad team is not a defense of his play, it's an indictment. If he was actually a good player, he'd be playing higher in the lineup because we don't exactly have the depth to put good players on the 4th line. If he was on one of those "better" teams he'd be in the press box or in their farm system. He's good enough to be a 4th liner on a bad team, that's it. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a good NHL player. That is what we call, as I said originally, replaceable. No idea what this means. I'm with you on the Motte evaluation. He's an okay player, but nothing more than a place holder for us. If he added some grease to his play, or meanness, then he could be an important piece, like a Roussel. Motte might learn that part, and then he's a much better player. Right now, he's just okay, but nothing special. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 19 minutes ago, kanucks25 said: Motte playing in the bottom of the lineup of a bad team is not a defense of his play, it's an indictment. If he was actually a good player, he'd be playing higher in the lineup because we don't exactly have the depth to put good players on the 4th line. If he was on one of those "better" teams he'd be in the press box or in their farm system. He's good enough to be a 4th liner on a bad team, that's it. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a good NHL player. That is what we call, as I said originally, replaceable. No idea what this means. Obviously. Just as Gudbranson was 'replacement level' here and would be in the press box or farm system of a contending team. Oh.... wait... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJSkingz Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 2 hours ago, kanucks25 said: He's 24. What he did in college matters about as much as Gudbranson's draft position did when he was 24 (when we acquired him) which is zero. What matters is what he's doing on the ice today which is nothing to write home about as a lot of people seem to be doing for some strange reason. 20 points while being a liability defensively is not valuable, it's completely replaceable. Sorry need to bring this up; you have mentioned a number of times that Motte is a defensive liability. Why would he be on the PK if that were true? Don't you need to be fairly decent at defending to have the confidence of the coach to put you on the penalty kill, where you need to have your best defenders on the ice? I'm not arguing that Motte is replaceable; anyone other than a foundation piece or generational talent is technically replaceable. I will argue that Motte is effective and a good player for what we need and have him doing. He has forged a spot for himself through work ethic and heart. Every team needs players like this. I believe the word for it is "intangibles". Something that stats won't necessarily show you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks25 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, aGENT said: Obviously. Just as Gudbranson was 'replacement level' here and would be in the press box or farm system of a contending team. Oh.... wait... Good for Gudbranson he's playing well. It's a 7 game sample size that doesn't outweigh the rest of his career, similar to the 7 playoff games in Florida. I hope he does well; with the right support system he can be depth D-man on a contender (which he is slated to be on Pittsburgh even with his hot start, behind Dumoulin and Maatta on the left side). I never said that us having a tire-fire of a team didn't hurt his game overall. I've always maintained players play better with other good players, and players can be propped up by great teams. However that doesn't change the fact that, in a vacuum, he was pretty bad for us and it was best to cut ties because it was getting worse over time. It also doesn't change anything when it comes to Motte, unless you think he would be a 3rd liner or better on a contender. Obviously there is no way to test this, other than the fact that he already flamed out on two other teams (albeit, at a younger age when perhaps he hadn't fully developed). In this case, we can agree to disagree. Edited March 14, 2019 by kanucks25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 minute ago, kanucks25 said: Good for Gudbranson he's playing well. It's a 7 game sample size that doesn't outweigh the rest of his career, similar to the 7 playoff games in Florida. I hope he does well; with the right support system he can be depth D-man on a contender (which he is slated to be on Pittsburgh even with his hot start, behind Dumoulin and Maatta on the left side). I never said that us having a tire-fire of a team didn't hurt his game overall. I've always players play better with other good players, and players can be propped up by great teams. However that doesn't change the fact that, in a vacuum, he was pretty bad for us and it was best to cut ties because it was getting worse over time. It also doesn't change anything when it comes to Motte, unless you think he would be a 3rd liner or better on a contender. Obviously there is no way to test this, other than the fact that he already flamed out on two other teams (albeit, at a younger age when perhaps he hadn't fully developed). In this case, we can agree to disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spur1 Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 You have to watch Motte play to really see his value. He is one of our best defensive players. Stats won’t tell the whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, spur1 said: You have to watch Motte play to really see his value. He is one of our best defensive players. Stats won’t tell the whole story. He is also one of the hardest workers and brings a physical presence that is contrary to what you would think for his size. As long as he is kept on a lower line, I feel he is a good fit. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now