Randall Flagg Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 What's everybody's top 5 (or 10 if you're feeling it) skaters? For me: 1. Crosby 2. Malkin 3. Stamkos 4. Weber 5. Ovechkin 6. Getzlaf 7. Datsyuk 8. Toews 9. Tavares 10. Suter That's a bit of a quick list. first making a pool; Stamkos, Crosby, Malkin, Datsyuk, Toews, Kane, Tavares, Weber, Karlsson, Seguin, Benn, Getzlaf, Perry, Sedins, Pietrangelo, Keith, Bergeron, Giroux, Kopitar, Doughty, Kassian, Kessel, Duchene, Landeskog, Staal, Ovechkin, Pavelski (Just trying not to miss anyone) 1.Crosby 2.Geno 3.Toews 4.Stamkos 5.Getzlaf 6.Weber 7.Tavares 8.Datsyuk 9.Kane 10.Bergeron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 You're the only one that will list Marc-Andre Bergeron in your top ten list, trust me. /sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Malkin is not even in the top 5 for me 1: Crosby 2: Stamkos 3: Getzlaf 4: Kane 5: Tavares 6: Toews 7: Weber 8: Toews 9: Keith 10: Malkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 You're the only one that will list Marc-Andre Bergeron in your top ten list, trust me. /sarcasm :P Personal favorite, for sure, should put an asterisk for a bias warning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 first making a pool; Stamkos, Crosby, Malkin, Datsyuk, Toews, Kane, Tavares, Weber, Karlsson, Seguin, Benn, Getzlaf, Perry, Sedins, Pietrangelo, Keith, Bergeron, Giroux, Kopitar, Doughty, Kassian, Kessel, Duchene, Landeskog, Staal, Ovechkin, Pavelski (Just trying not to miss anyone) 1.Crosby 2.Geno 3.Toews 4.Stamkos 5.Getzlaf 6.Weber 7.Tavares 8.Datsyuk 9.Kane 10.Bergeron Uhhhh......where's kassian? (I kid I kid!!!!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Uhhhh......where's kassian? (I kid I kid!!!!!!) See, most would have him instead of Bergy at 10 ;) Malkin is not even in the top 5 for me how come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 See, most would have him instead of Bergy at 10 ;) how come? He's big, and he's got good hands, but he's slow, and lazy/subject to spurts of being completely unnoticeable for games on end. I'd take him for what he can do, but he doesn't do it consistently enough for me to put him ahead of others. Plus, I have to think he benefits enormously from having Crosby as a teammate (I know, I know, he had one of his best seasons without Crosby) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 He's big, and he's got good hands, but he's slow, and lazy/subject to spurts of being completely unnoticeable for games on end. I'd take him for what he can do, but he doesn't do it consistently enough for me to put him ahead of others. Plus, I have to think he benefits enormously from having Crosby as a teammate (I know, I know, he had one of his best seasons without Crosby) Yeah but you think there are two Toews in the NHL, so what do you know? :P (no. 6 and 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yeah but you think there are two Toews in the NHL, so what do you know? :P (no. 6 and 8) D-amn't, good catch :lol: I'll keep Toews at #6 and put a *healthy Datsyuk in at #8. A younger Pavel I'd put much higher obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd1001 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I really like Stamkos too, and think he's a better player, but I think Getzlaf's playoff experience would have me pick him over Stamkos assuming I could field a cup-competitive team right away. Weber is the best defenseman I've ever watched (yes, I am very young and recognize that) I truly don't like saying this (because I don't like the guy) but at his best, I think Chara is the best D-man I have seen (overall, but Paul Coffey was remarkable in the 1980's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I truly don't like saying this (because I don't like the guy) but at his best, I think Chara is the best D-man I have seen (overall, but Paul Coffey was remarkable in the 1980's) If a quarter of the penalties that Chara committed were actually called, he'd be a liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Malkin is not even in the top 5 for me 1: Crosby 2: Stamkos 3: Getzlaf 4: Kane 5: Tavares 6: Toews 7: Weber 8: Toews 9: Keith 10: Malkin I like Toews also, but I'm not sure he deserves 2 slots. I truly don't like saying this (because I don't like the guy) but at his best, I think Chara is the best D-man I have seen (overall, but Paul Coffey was remarkable in the 1980's) Chara is high on my list too, but I'd have to put Orr, Pronger, Coffee and Potvin ahead of him. I can see including him in that next tier with Park, Larry Robinson, Lidstrom, Niedermayer and a few others I'm forgetting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Hodgson and Kane probably faced the same defences (different conferences not with standing). I don't think the other team was putting out their best D against Scott. What I meant is that, in those two Stanley Cup runs, Patrick Kane was scoring all those goals and points against the best teams in the NHL - the lower-echelon teams/defenses are already weeded out by the playoff process. Whereas with regular season points like Hodgson's, there are points scored against good teams, and some not very good teams. It's a mixed bag. Guys like Kane are a whole order of magnitude better than the current best players on the Sabres. We need a couple Kanes on our roster to make us competitive again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 everyone will have their different reasons as to what traits the best must have and in my book, it's Kane hands down. Goals aside, this guy has some of the best vision I have ever seen.now, back to the goals, has anyone ever scored bigger ones in the history of the sport? Kane is one of the "Best in the World," definitely among that small group of elite players at the top of the NHL right now. At this point in time he may just may be at the very top that list. I was really impressed with Kane's Olympic performance Hodgson and Kane probably faced the same defences (different conferences not with standing). I don't think the other team was putting out their best D against Scott. I don't like this reasoning. I don't support the Sabres based on the merit of their performance, so I don't see why their performance should affect the legitimacy of my views Embarrassing as it is to include Hodgson in the same conversation as Patrick Kane it has to be said that teams in no way prepare/game plan/concentrate on Cody Hodgson at all let alone on any level close to that of a star player like Patrick Kane. Every player in the NHL knows who Patrick Kane is and is aware when he is on the ice. Hodgson, not so much. :doh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Because I don't feel like quoting 5 different people, I'll go ahead and expand upon my lack of belief in "clutch," particularly the way it gets tossed around in conversation. Hallelujah.. let's have a philosophical discussion. I'm in! I absolutely believe that some people handle pressure better than others, with some being negatively affected and others being able to go about their business as if it is a regular moment. What I seriously question is whether we we can be certain of somebody being clutch, or measure "clutchness" in any meaningful way, do distinguish it from just being really talented with quality teammates and run of the mill good luck. My second question about the nature of "clutch" is to the degree it actually matters. I'll tackle "knowing clutch" first. How exactly do we define a clutch situation, and when we have that definition set, how do we separate somebody who has come through in the clutch from somebody who has come through in the clutch because they are clutch? We've had the debate here before regarding whether or not Vanek comes through when it matters, or simply scores "meaningless" goals. I would contend that every moment of every game in an elimination based tournament is a clutch moment. I think a goal scored to go up 2-0 in the first period is just as valuable as a goal scored to go up 2-0 in the third period. Others would disagree with this. I think a goaltender stopping a breakaway in period 1 to keep the score within 1 is just as clutch as doing the exact same thing in the third period. I don't think the pressure really changes--it's a huge moment in either case. If you want to contend that scoring an OT winner or a tying goal late in the 3rd is a clutch play, I really won't push against that too much. But that brings me to my next point: just because a player makes a clutch play does not mean that player has something in their makeup which makes them clutch, and thus appreciably more likely to score those types of goals than anyone else. I'm sure, somehow, there could be a definition of clutch that could exist but the arguments and debate to get there would be too tedious to allow it to happen. That said. It's an eyeball test to a certain degree right? So, there's a moment in a game where something big has to happen and in that moment, what player makes it happen? To address, specifically your timing questions, I think you are discounting that when a 2-0 lead is gained in the first period there are 40 minutes + X remaining in the game for the opposition to score. Therefore, if you account for the fact that any given team would have a percentage chance to score against another team (the factors determining that not withstanding, but being equal) then a team with less time left in the game would have less of an overall chance of scoring enough goals to tie the game. Thus, scoring near the end of the game would be more beneficial, thus clutch. The same is true with goaltending. You could argue that a game that would have a potential 4 breakaway opportunities would equally weigh out to a 25% chance to score on each and thus each save is equally weighted. However, if you take them individually, and you account for the chance a player will score on the breakaway then making the save later plays back into when a goal is scored relative to the end of the game and in this case the goaltenders team's ability to either retain the lead or tie the game or come back from that deficit that would have been increased if the player had scored. Addressing the makeup question after #2 point of yours. The second point is a player offering up a clutch performance versus being a clutch performer. And yes, I think there's a difference. Joel Ward had a tremendous playoff run a few years back, got a nice contract from Washington, and proceeded to be unable to duplicate it. Our very own Ville Leino was unarguably clutch for the Flyers several years ago, and we know how that turned out. Do players such as this have some sort of genetic uniqueness that allows them to make big plays in big moments, or were they the beneficiaries of good fortune? Crosby scored the golden goal in 2010 on a terrific shot; was that due to a "clutch gene," supreme talent, busted defensive coverage, or a semi-slow reaction by Miller? If I were assessing value, I'd place the latter three reasons as about 100x more important than being clutch. Pat Kane's winner last night was terrific, an elite play...but there was also a mistake by the defender and Miller got caught cheating. Do you really want to attribute causality here to Kane being clutch? I'm sure not sold on doing so. So much of scoring in the NHL is a combination of talent and luck (for example, the defender/goalie botching the play), I have a really difficult time saying somebody is clutch because of a handful of plays. Players have a genetic capability to be excellent players. They are coded to respond to stimuli and situations in a game. Each player responds differently. You could argue that the same coding that put Kane into that position to score was also the coding that caused Shattenkirk to fail. Thus, in a tight moment, with the game on the line, and many variables to process, Patrick Kane was able to have a clutch impact on the game whereas Shattenkirk was not. You have to admit that each player on that ice is playing a game of percentages in their head. They are assessing options they have on the fly and making a decision. Those who choose the right percentages often come out on top. So, Kane assessed his ability to score against passing or changing skating direction to let the play develop. Shattenkirk assessed where the play would go and whether his teammates could recover and Miller assessed whether Kane would shoot or pass, etc. Kane choose correctly as is evidenced by the goal. This isn't a slam dunk reason of course, but I think it shows that in that situation Kane performed better. My last point is, even if being clutch is a real thing, how important is it really? We're talking about one fraction of a roster who only plays one fraction of a game. Let's say we agree that Pat Kane is clutch, and that we can agree to define clutch as what happens in the 3rd period. If the Hawks are trailing and need a goal, Kane is going to play at best around 8 minutes in the period? Less than half, and even that may be stretching it. And of course he'll only be one of five (6 w/ goalie) guys on the ice at any given time for his team. Will his "clutch" out-weigh quality of teammates, competition, individual talent, and luck? I wouldn't put my money on it. My argument would be that even if a player is clutch, the number of situations where that quality is the determining factor in success are going to be extremely few and far between, because of everything else at work. Crosby goes from scoring the golden goal, to not recording a point against Boston in the conference finals, to now on a 9 game stretch without a goal. Malkin goes from winning a Conn Smythe to not recording a point against Boston. Tom Brady goes from Mr. Clutch in the playoffs to having a .500 record. Did he forget how to play in the playoffs? So even if clutch does exist, when you take into account all other factors, my assessment would be that it almost never matters. TLDR: I don't think we can accurately determine if a player is clutch or simply came through in the clutch, and even if we could, I'm very skeptical of how much that quality would even matter. It doesn't matter if his "clutch": outweighs the rest of the talent. What if Kane was the only guy on the team who scored game in and game out? He'd still be a clutch player it's just that the rest of the team sucks. And I think your last points are very valid. Clutch is relative to the scenario. Just as some people are born to start companies and others are born to maintain companies so too are players better in regular season games than playoff games. I would think that someone who fails in one or the other however could not be considered "clutch" overall as they clearly are not able to be the "clutch" player when needed. So, there are clutch plays and that doesn't make a player clutch, but a player who repeatedly makes those plays relative to the rest of his peers should be considered more clutch than the others, correct? So glad you posted what you did. Truly. It's a great conversation piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I prefer the simple definition of a clutch player: someone who makes a habit of coming up big in big games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd1001 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) I prefer the simple definition of a clutch player: someone who makes a habit of coming up big in big games. What do you consider 'clutch'? Is it moments in a game (scoring the game winning goal, even if you had a bad series), memorable goals (Crosby in the Olympics vs Miller in OT gold medal game?) I like to look at how well do you do over a LARGE sample size in big games. For Example, lets look at 3 players who are debated over if they are 'clutch' or not, normalizing their stats 'per 82 games': Danny Briere: Regular season, 26.8 goals, -1.5 +/- Playoffs: 37.3 goals, -5.1 +/- His goal scoring improves in the playoffs by almost 40%, but his plus/minus is about 3.5 worse. Sidney Crosby: Regular season, 40.8 goals, +18.4 Playoffs: 38.1 goals, +12.39 His goal scoring goes down in the playoffs by 7%, and his plus/minus is 6 worse. Alex Ovechkin Regular Season, 51 goals, +5.67 Playoffs: 43.8, +12.7 His goal scoring goes down in the playofs by almost 15%, but his plus/minus is 7 better. So what does all this mean? Crosby is basically the same player in the playoffs that he is in the regular season over a large sample size. His numbers are SLIGHTLY worse in the playoffs, but that can be due to better competition and fatigue. He is very good in the playoffs, but not any more 'clutch' than he is any other time game in and game out in the playoffs. Ovechkin is even more productive scoring goals int he playoffs than Crosby, and has a better +/-, but once again, his numbers are close enough to the regular season to say he is pretty much the same player. Not "un clutch", but not better. Over a long period of time, Danny Briere has about the same numbers scoring as the other 2 do in the playoffs, but for him it is a vast improvement over his regular season numbers. He is a MUCH better performer in the playoffs than the other 2 compared to the regular season, so in my mind, he is an example of someone that, over a long time, is more 'clutch'. 2 other players of note: Henrik Zetterberg goes from 30 goals in the regular season to almost 37 in the playoffs, an improvement of about 23%. Patrick Kane goes from an 82 game average of 28.3 in the regular season to 33.6 in the playoffs, an improvement of almost 19%. Edited April 25, 2014 by mjd1001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 LTS, really great reply. I shall address a few things when I am not subjected to posting from my phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) There is a difference between being clutch and being reliable. Both are needed, and they aren't often the same player. A person who goes the whole series without a point but nets the game 7 overtime winner is clutch. But the player who scores in the first period of every game is reliable (in this example like a metronome). A clutch player vs clutch performance is a case of history. I don't think there is a real defining threshold between the two; but a history of performing clutchly (in the clutch?) turns the performance into a characteristic. I think the line between being clutch and having a clutch performance is further blurred because there is an element of an eyeball test. There are some players who make things happen, down late in a game when they step on the ice it feels electric, something feels different. They might not score, or they might make a non-scoring play (e.g. a big hit), but they can still have that attributed to their clutch behaviour (although usually only in a conformational bias manner). It is interesting how clutch players generally fall into two categories - superstar or surprise star. Crosby's golden goal is an example of the former; Bickell/Ward/Leino's playoffs an example of the latter. This is striking, because if it is a surprise star, it is probably a case of getting hot at the right time and having a clutch performance (which then leads to greater confidence and so slightly better short-term performance). Alternatively, if it is just a superstar scoring a timely goal is that really clutch? If they hadn't scored in a while then it was only a matter of time (especially with the amount of time they are on the ice). And if they have been lighting it up all series, well they are just doing what a superstar should do - dominate. (Although I do accept that this argument is slightly having your cake and eating it too) Two more points then i'm done :P. There is also a bias towards superstars being clutch because late in the game down 1-0 in game 7, who do you send out? Scott or Kassian? Obviously you send out the superstar, so they spend far more time in clutch-territory. Finally, playoffs and regular season are very different in style of play. Some players perform better in the playoffs, not because they are clutch, but because the style of game suits their style better. An example of this is Franzen. EDIT: The conformational bias is also a big one for me. How many times has Kane been on the ice and failed to tie the score? For a player to be clutch I would want to see his stats change. I would want to see how his shooting %, points per minute etc. vary between his team leading, his team trailing at any point and his team trailing in the last 10 minutes. Edited April 26, 2014 by ThirtyEight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I think +/- is a largely useless stat without context. Who are they playing with? Who is the goalie? Etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I think +/- is a largely useless stat without context. Who are they playing with? Who is the goalie? Etc. To an extent it is. You can put Ovi out there with Toews and Backes with a d-pairing if Weber and Keith and his +\- wouldn't be near where it is. But that just goes to show how good/sound players like Backes are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd1001 Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I think +/- is a largely useless stat without context. Who are they playing with? Who is the goalie? Etc. I agree with what you say to a point, but where plus/minus can be useful is in comparing a player to himself. You might not find value in comparing one player to a different play because of the things you said, but in comparing a player in the regular season to himself in the post season (where he is playing with the same players as he did in the regular season) it becomes slightly more useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BagBoy Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) I'll take Toews over Kane all day long and twice on Sundays. Here's a tiny glimpse into why. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCMaOKr7bPs[/url] Edited April 26, 2014 by BagBoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PP Slapper Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 He's got a wicked Slapper on the PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.