thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I once saw TC stop skating towards a puck sliding towards our blueline and he was then overtaken by a forward of the opposing team that then resulted in a good scoring opportunity... that is just one example of the lack of hustle I have seen from TC. As for the rest of it... He has 1 season with 65pts... one. 45pts I am calling now, and If I am wrong then so be it but it is my humble feeling. Also those 2 great +/- years he was +12 and 10 so whoopty doo, hes still a career minus 41 I am mystified by the fact I call Pommers a solid 65pt a year guy and got fought tooth and nail on that even though he has almost always hit right near the 65pt mark but you say TC is a 45pt guy and people start discussing his "potential" he is 30, potential is for guys like Myers and Ennis, not timmy IMHO Potential applies to everything.. like how many believe Vanek is a potential 45 goal scorer even though his career high is 43, several years ago. Last year aside (as his offensive role was decreased), TC has always been near a point-per-game player, as we all know the problem has been his injuries.. but if he plays 65-75 games, he certainly has the potential to score 60-65 points. Yes, his injuries are a bit of a concern, but just because he got hurt early and missed a few games doesn't mean that's going to be the case all season... Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, David Perron, Brad Richards.... #PlayersWhoHaveMissedMoreGamesThanConnollySinceJanuary2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Potential applies to everything.. like how many believe Vanek is a potential 45 goal scorer even though his career high is 43, several years ago. Last year aside (as his offensive role was decreased), TC has always been near a point-per-game player, as we all know the problem has been his injuries.. but if he plays 65-75 games, he certainly has the potential to score 60-65 points. Yes, his injuries are a bit of a concern, but just because he got hurt early and missed a few games doesn't mean that's going to be the case all season... Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, David Perron, Brad Richards.... #PlayersWhoHaveMissedMoreGamesThanConnollySinceJanuary2009 the thing is vanek has hit 40 goals twice, and is younger then tc and has been and will be better both due to toughness and overall skill. TC has hit 65 (never 70) once. He will get injured and he will be streaky thats the reality. His potential is 55 due to injury and I dont think at 30 he is going to be getting better. Also connolly has 395pts in 627 games, Vanek is 391pts in 471 games... Vanek is better and TC is not a point per game player edit: Vanek will have about 520pts when he has played as many games as TC if his ppga stays the same (0.83) (TC is 0.63) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 the thing is vanek has hit 40 goals twice, and is younger then vanek and has been and will be better both due to toughness and overall skill. TC has hit 65 (never 70) once. He will get injured and he will be streaky thats the reality. His potential is 55 due to injury and I dont think at 30 he is going to be getting better. His potential is not 55 based on missing a couple of early season games... that's not how it works. The way I see it, "potential" (in the way we're talking about it now) is a realistic best-case-scenario for a player. He could come back and not miss another the rest of the season. His potential is around 60-65 points... based on him consistently putting up near point-per-game production his entire career (again, excluding last year). Yes, I understand that TC has never recorded 70 points... but he HAS recorded pretty damn close to a point per game, so there's no reason to expect otherwise should he play a majority of hte season, especially when he'll be playing with a sniper like Kessel who can create his own offense... nothing against Vanek, but Kessel is a far more dangerous sniper. He's faster, more tenacious, has a bullet of a wrist shot, and can create his own goals out of nothing... the two could easily combine to enjoy career years. edit: nobody ever said Vanek wasn't better than TC... that's a no brainer. Just used Vanek as an example to demonstrate how potential works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 His potential is not 55 based on missing a couple of early season games... that's not how it works. The way I see it, "potential" (in the way we're talking about it now) is a realistic best-case-scenario for a player. He could come back and not miss another the rest of the season. His potential is around 60-65 points... based on him consistently putting up near point-per-game production his entire career (again, excluding last year). Yes, I understand that TC has never recorded 70 points... but he HAS recorded pretty damn close to a point per game, so there's no reason to expect otherwise should he play a majority of hte season, especially when he'll be playing with a sniper like Kessel who can create his own offense... nothing against Vanek, but Kessel is a far more dangerous sniper. He's faster, more tenacious, has a bullet of a wrist shot, and can create his own goals out of nothing... the two could easily combine to enjoy career years. NO he hasn't, he has recorded 0.63 points per game which means 45pts, or 55pts max if he manages to play 70/75games very well... (0.63 x 70games = 44pts) The math does not support TC being a PPG player at all. He is not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 NO he hasn't, he has recorded 0.63 points per game which means 45pts, or 55pts max if he manages to play 70games Again, not including last season, in which he was shifted into a third line/PK specialist role. In the three seasons prior... 152 points isn 169 games... or .899 PPG.. which is more like 60-65 points if he plays 70 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Again, not including last season, in which he was shifted into a third line/PK specialist role. In the three seasons prior... 152 points isn 169 games... or .899 PPG.. which is more like 60-65 points if he plays 70 games. No you can not pick and choose the seasons you want to include... A large number of players have 2-3 great seasons than settle into to their average (Cammelleri anyone? Brad Boyes?) If you remove last year and include all his other years the math works out exactly the same. You can't pick and choose because I could say that his 65pt season is an outlier and it needs to be excluded. He is 0.63ppg player statistically over his career and considering he is now playing on a less talented team it makes perfect sense that he will again produce at that rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'm sorry but there is just no denying that when healthy and used in an offensive role, TC is a productive forward... anyone on this board will agree with that. The problem is and always has been his injuries... I don't buy into someone being "injury prone." He's been unfortunate. If he plays on Toronto's top line as is expected, he will be productive, just like he always has been. You're just assuming he's going to get hurt and miss a large chunk of the season.. that's not how I measure potential, because ANY player on ANY team is at risk of being injured EVERY night.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'm sorry but there is just no denying that when healthy and used in an offensive role, TC is a productive forward... anyone on this board will agree with that. The problem is and always has been his injuries... I don't buy into someone being "injury prone." He's been unfortunate. If he plays on Toronto's top line as is expected, he will be productive, just like he always has been. You're just assuming he's going to get hurt and miss a large chunk of the season.. that's not how I measure potential, because ANY player on ANY team is at risk of being injured EVERY night.. NO I measured his potential by his ppg average which is 0.63 and I multiplied that by 70 and got 44pts if I do it by 75 I get 47pts so its not a lot of missed time at all. It is reality. TC potential maxes at 55pts Also I never said he was not productive, he is just not a 70pt guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 No you can not pick and choose the seasons you want to include... A large number of players have 2-3 great seasons than settle into to their average (Cammelleri anyone? Brad Boyes?) If you remove last year and include all his other years the math works out exactly the same. You can't pick and choose because I could say that his 65pt season is an outlier and it needs to be excluded. He is 0.63ppg player statistically over his career and considering he is now playing on a less talented team it makes perfect sense that he will again produce at that rate. Dude, since the lockout, TC has scored 55 points in 63 games, 1 point in 2 games, 40 points in 48 games, 47 points in 48 games, 65 points in 73 games, and finally 42 points in 68 games when spending the bulk of the season as a defensive/PK player... which season do you think is the abnormality? lol it's easy to see dude... he's ONE season removed from being pretty close to a point per game player, and it was a season where his role obviously shifted to a dramatically more defensive-minded role... that's why I chose to exclude that year. Because it isn't consistent with his career production post-lockout. Boyes is about 4 years removed from being a 30 goal scorer and Cammalleri's totals have fluctuated his entire career, so that's a poor example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 NO I measured his potential by his ppg average which is 0.63 and I multiplied that by 70 and got 44pts if I do it by 75 I get 47pts so its not a lot of missed time at all. It is reality. TC potential maxes at 55pts What you just said here makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'm sorry but there is just no denying that when healthy and used in an offensive role, TC is a productive forward... anyone on this board will agree with that. The problem is and always has been his injuries... I don't buy into someone being "injury prone." He's been unfortunate. If he plays on Toronto's top line as is expected, he will be productive, just like he always has been. You're just assuming he's going to get hurt and miss a large chunk of the season.. that's not how I measure potential, because ANY player on ANY team is at risk of being injured EVERY night.. I would not, I don't want him on the ice, even healthy. He is a one track player, no flexibility. He can do the PK well because all he has to focus on is clearing the puck. He is bad news. Good Riddance. He got let go from a team that had 2 NHL ready true centers in the entire system. That is a summary of his current ability. but please, continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I would not, I don't want him on the ice, even healthy. He is a one track player, no flexibility. He can do the PK well because all he has to focus on is clearing the puck. He is bad news. Good Riddance. He got let go from a team that had 2 NHL ready true centers in the entire system. That is a summary of his current ability. but please, continue. Whether you like him or not is a matter of opinion... but whether he's productive or not is a matter of FACT, as proven by the statistics. He's had one bad year since the lockout and it was as a result of his role change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 What you just said here makes no sense. math makes no sense? Look lets take this slow: 0.63 pts is TC average per games played. If you take that number and multiply it by 70 games you get 44pts if you multiply it by 75games you get 47 pts. So I am not using some crazy nonsense or assumptions as you so elegantly put it but his actual career numbers averaged out. That being said it is a downright LIE to say TC is a PPG player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 What you just said here makes no sense. Actually, it makes perfect sense. It's cold, hard math. And he has decent justification for using it too. Frankly, given his age and history, I think he'd be damned lucky to match the scoring pace he's had earlier in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Whether you like him or not is a matter of opinion... but whether he's productive or not is a matter of FACT, as proven by the statistics. He's had one bad year since the lockout and it was as a result of his role change. hold up you are only talking post lockout? the math might change if you limit the stats that much but I think that does not represent his career. I understand what you are saying and the numbers you are using but TC is not going to get better at his age with his injury history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 math makes no sense? Look lets take this slow: 0.63 pts is TC average per games played. If you take that number and multiply it by 70 games you get 44pts if you multiply it by 75games you get 47 pts. So I am not using some crazy nonsense or assumptions as you so elegantly put it but his actual career numbers averaged out. Ok, since you're just ignoring everything I've been arguing the last page of this thread I'm not going keep wasting my time with you. Obviously I understand the math, the point is your ".63 PPG" number is radically altered by a season that is entirely inconsistent with his career production, and furthermore it's an inconsistency that you can't even argue as a Sabres fan because you witnessed it first hand ALL season long. He was forced to play an entirely different style of game, resulting in lower point production and less minutes. Anyway happy trails, I'll just let the numbers work themselves out this season. Pull this up in April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 hold up you are only talking post lockout? the math might change if you limit the stats that much but I think that does not represent his career. I'm talking post-lockout because a.) that's when he had his break out year and b.) the game is obviously much different now than it was before the lockout... see: Danny Briere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Actually, it makes perfect sense. It's cold, hard math. And he has decent justification for using it too. Frankly, given his age and history, I think he'd be damned lucky to match the scoring pace he's had earlier in his career. It was TWO seasons ago. We're not talking "5 years ago TC was putting up good numbers." He's ONE SEASON removed from putting up career numbers, and it was quite obviously because of the way Lindy used him last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 It was TWO seasons ago. We're not talking "5 years ago TC was putting up good numbers." He's ONE SEASON removed from putting up career numbers, and it was quite obviously because of the way Lindy used him last year. Well, I guess the thing you have to ask is, if TC was capable of playing an offensive role last season don't you think Lindy would've featured him in that role in a year when the only other natural center on the ice was Paul Gaustad? Roy was hurt most of the year and Hecht was playing primary offensive center. If TC was still capable of putting up 65pts I would think that he'd be featured on a team lacking in centers. Edit- to be clear, I don't really think his role was drastically changed last year. It seems to me that Connolly did play on the #2 line most of the year so saying that he had a changed role isn't entirely accurate in my opinion. I am framing my response from your POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I would worry about timmy playing #1 Center. He has played all but half of last year as a lower line center since the lockout. He was bouyed from 2005-2006 by having the fortune of centering the third line on an offensively stacked team. If you count 2007-2009 as a single season, it was great, and he has steadily declined since. And he's not playing in Lindy's system any more, so he'll have fewer outlet options on the rush. Thus he'll have to handle the puck more, and he that is not his strength. I'm with the Liger on this one. He HAD potential for ppg, but that time has past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Well, I guess the thing you have to ask is, if TC was capable of playing an offensive role last season don't you think Lindy would've featured him in that role in a year when the only other natural center on the ice was Paul Gaustad? Roy was hurt most of the year and Hecht was playing primary offensive center. If TC was still capable of putting up 65pts I would think that he'd be featured on a team lacking in centers. Edit- it seems to me that Connolly did play on the #2 line most of the year so saying that he had a changed role isn;t entirely accurate in my opinion. I don't know what was going through Lindy's head. TC was struggling early, as was 90% of the Sabres team. Here's the best stats I could find to support my argument: 2009/10 Even Strength Time on Ice: 966:41 2009/10 PP Time On Ice: 272:14 2009/10 SH Time on Ice: 120:06 Total Shits: 1,762 2010/11 Even Strength Time on Ice: 840:31 2010/11 PP Time on Ice: 192:26 2010/11 SH Time on Ice: 117:20 Total Shits: 1,564 Comes as a surprise to me that he got more time on the PK two years ago than last year, but the trend is clear that he got much more ice time all around two years ago as opposed to this past season. I don't know why Lindy gave him so much less time w/ Roy out. Can't answer that one. But the point is last year is the first year since 2005-06 that he didn't produce at a reasonable pace. Maybe he IS on the decline, but when given first line minutes with an exciting young offense in Toronto, I think it's more likely he produces at near or slightly-less than his usual pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Ok, since you're just ignoring everything I've been arguing the last page of this thread I'm not going keep wasting my time with you. Obviously I understand the math, the point is your ".63 PPG" number is radically altered by a season that is entirely inconsistent with his career production, and furthermore it's an inconsistency that you can't even argue as a Sabres fan because you witnessed it first hand ALL season long. He was forced to play an entirely different style of game, resulting in lower point production and less minutes. Anyway happy trails, I'll just let the numbers work themselves out this season. Pull this up in April. Thats a complete lie. If you subtract that season than do the math you get 0.63 still because I did that. Also His career stats is 0.63 you can not include then exclude what you want. It is you who do not understand, the math stays the same if you delete last season but keep everything else. You can not make his career his 3 best years and be done. I get the post lockout thing but TC is not a ppg player. I am sorry, you can pull this thread up whenever you want but TC will be 45pts maybe 50. Thats his average and thats what an aging injury prone player will get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Thats a complete lie. If you subtract that season than do the math you get 0.63 still because I did that. Also His career stats is 0.63 you can not include then exclude what you want. It is you who do not understand, the math stays the same if you delete last season but keep everything else. You can not make his career his 3 best years and be done. I get the post lockout thing but TC is not a ppg player. I am sorry, you can pull this thread up whenever you want but TC will be 45pts maybe 50. Thats his average and thats what an aging injury prone player will get. For the record, I was not "picking and choosing" what seasons to use. I used the three seasons following 06-07, which he lost the whole season to a concussion, because three straight years of good production is enough to demonstrate the pattern and how last year was off-pace. If I wanted to go back to the lockout the pattern becomes even more clear because 05-06 he had a productive year as well. But regardless of who's right or wrong, I'm pretty much spent on this argument. The only thing we can do is wait and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 For the record, I was not "picking and choosing" what seasons to use. I used the three seasons following 06-07, which he lost the whole season to a concussion, because three straight years of good production is enough to demonstrate the pattern and how last year was off-pace. If I wanted to go back to the lockout the pattern becomes even more clear because 05-06 he had a productive year as well. But regardless of who's right or wrong, I'm pretty much spent on this argument. The only thing we can do is wait and see what happens. picking the three seasons you want is picking and choosing even if they are in a row. I'm done too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 picking the three seasons you want is picking and choosing even if they are in a row. I'm done too. Lol, give it a rest. I didn't just "pick the three seasons I want." If you can't understand the logic behind using the three seasons prior to a down year to explain how last season was a down year then this discussion just can't go on. Well, it can't anyway, but stop acting like I randomly picked three of his best seasons to prove my point... no.. I picked a time period between his last major long-term injury and today... quite obvious... no reason to include pre-lockout stats because the game was played different and he was only 23 years old the last game he played before the lockout. He had his breakout year in 05-06 and has been just as consistent ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.