Sam Reinhart's bridge deal and his long term outlook.

[Curt]

33 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This is factually not accurate. 

I think it depends on how you define “driving play”.  Sometimes people define that as a player who can pick up the puck in the defensive/neutral zone and carry it into the offensive (which is super valuable btw).  Sam does not do that a whole lot, certainly not as much as Eichel.  I think people also need to keep in mind that Eichel is one of the very best players in the league at entering the zone with control.  Reinhart makes plays in other ways that help the team move the play forward.  If you look at a more statistical definition of “driving play”, Reinhart shows much better than just seeing who carried the puck into the zone.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

This is factually not accurate. 

You guys are speaking different languages:

you mean he tilts the ice positively in favour of everyone he plays with; he means he doesn't overpower or outfinesse opponents one-on-one.

you mean he positions himself in the defensive zone and moves and protects the puck in a way that keeps the opponent to the outside and helps his team transition with great efficiency; he means he doesn't break up plays or hound the puck like a terrier.

He doesn't put great value on the things Reinhart does well, and greatly values the things he lacks.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This is factually not accurate. 

yes it is.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

You guys are speaking different languages:

you mean he tilts the ice positively in favour of everyone he plays with; he means he doesn't overpower or outfinesse opponents one-on-one.

you mean he positions himself in the defensive zone and moves and protects the puck in a way that keeps the opponent to the outside and helps his team transition with great efficiency; he means he doesn't break up plays or hound the puck like a terrier.

He doesn't put great value on the things Reinhart does well, and greatly values the things he lacks.

This is close enough to what I meant to say yes, pretty much right.  I would just add it's not that I don't value the things he does well, it's just that I think what he does well requires linemates to be doing the things he doesn't do well for him to be effective. We lack those players.

[Zamboni]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This is factually not accurate. 

No. It’s not at all. But consider the source. He’s not a fan of Sam. He tolerates him.

[TrueBlueGED]

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is close enough to what I meant to say yes, pretty much right.  I would just add it's not that I don't value the things he does well, it's just that I think what he does well requires linemates to be doing the things he doesn't do well for him to be effective. We lack those players.

Isn't that true of all but the absolute best players in the league? The number of players who can be successful independent of what surrounds them is an awfully short list. 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Isn't that true of all but the absolute best players in the league? The number of players who can be successful independent of what surrounds them is an awfully short list. 

Absolutely, but it is what seperates the best from the rest. Suppose it's a question of degree. I still see Sam as a good 2nd liner but barely adequate as a 1st liner. I think we'd be a much better team if we could get a big body to play with Eichel and Skinner and let Sam make a 2nd line truly dangerous by combining him with a good 2C, perhaps on a slightly slower paced but bigger more physical line.

[#freejame]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Absolutely, but it is what seperates the best from the rest. Suppose it's a question of degree. I still see Sam as a good 2nd liner but barely adequate as a 1st liner. I think we'd be a much better team if we could get a big body to play with Eichel and Skinner and let Sam make a 2nd line truly dangerous by combining him with a good 2C, perhaps on a slightly slower paced but bigger more physical line.

He was 63rd in points last year. How is that not top line production?

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Absolutely, but it is what seperates the best from the rest. Suppose it's a question of degree. I still see Sam as a good 2nd liner but barely adequate as a 1st liner. I think we'd be a much better team if we could get a big body to play with Eichel and Skinner and let Sam make a 2nd line truly dangerous by combining him with a good 2C, perhaps on a slightly slower paced but bigger more physical line.

This is that old school mentality that isn't in line with the game today. Reinhart is plenty physical, that's how he gets those front goals. Barely adequate first liner? Is that why Eichel and Skinner both produce at better rates with Reinhart? Because he's barely adequate? 

I 100% disagree with almost everything you've said in this thread. It's wrong from an analytics standpoint, it's wrong from a raw production standpoint, and it's wrong from even an eye test standpoint. 

Reinhart is a 1st line player who consistently increases scoring and shot metrics for his team while on the ice and at the same time is pretty decent at shot suppression in his own end. Just because you want 6'3" bulldozer with more speed doesn't mean Sam isn't effective. Every metric says he's effective. 

[Zamboni]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This is that old school mentality that isn't in line with the game today. Reinhart is plenty physical, that's how he gets those front goals. Barely adequate first liner? Is that why Eichel and Skinner both produce at better rates with Reinhart? Because he's barely adequate? 

I 100% disagree with almost everything you've said in this thread. It's wrong from an analytics standpoint, it's wrong from a raw production standpoint, and it's wrong from even an eye test standpoint. 

Reinhart is a 1st line player who consistently increases scoring and shot metrics for his team while on the ice and at the same time is pretty decent at shot suppression in his own end. Just because you want 6'3" bulldozer with more speed doesn't mean Sam isn't effective. Every metric says he's effective. 

Very true. I posted the link a few days ago, for posters like him to learn and educate themselves on how Reinhart makes those he plays with more effective and productive. Obviously he decided to stay obtuse. Or he decides to pick out other things because he has no logical retort to the data presented. It’s a shining example of being set in your opinion despite evidence punching you in the face. It says a lot.  I’d like the Reinhart haters to post the “perfect” player and I bet the rest of the board can nitpick “faults” in his game too. Good grief.

[LTS]

54 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This is that old school mentality that isn't in line with the game today. Reinhart is plenty physical, that's how he gets those front goals. Barely adequate first liner? Is that why Eichel and Skinner both produce at better rates with Reinhart? Because he's barely adequate? 

I 100% disagree with almost everything you've said in this thread. It's wrong from an analytics standpoint, it's wrong from a raw production standpoint, and it's wrong from even an eye test standpoint. 

Reinhart is a 1st line player who consistently increases scoring and shot metrics for his team while on the ice and at the same time is pretty decent at shot suppression in his own end. Just because you want 6'3" bulldozer with more speed doesn't mean Sam isn't effective. Every metric says he's effective. 

Remember when Lucic was a model top line player?  Yeah.. good times.. good times. ?

[Weave]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

Remember when Lucic was a model top line player?  Yeah.. good times.. good times. ?

In his prime he still could be.  At 30, he doesn't have the wheels.  or the hands.  The problem wasn't his skill set.  The problemwas his skill set had the same trajectory as Moulson's.

[LTS]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

In his prime he still could be.  At 30, he doesn't have the wheels.  or the hands.  The problem wasn't his skill set.  The problemwas his skill set had the same trajectory as Moulson's.

Well, the bigger guys tend to slow down that much more when they get old.  Especially those who relied more on size than skill to really be at the top of their game.  Lucic really didn't have a lot of skill.  I'd rather have top line skill that lasts, I think that's Reinhart.

Reinhart already has more points in a season than Lucic has ever had (65 vs 62).  

My point was more than the bigger guys aren't the top line players anymore.  It's trending away from that.

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This is that old school mentality that isn't in line with the game today.

Fair enough, I am old and old school and I hear that argument a lot, but then I look at the Stanley Cup final and I think maybe I'm not as out of it as all these young analytic people claim. 

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

In his prime he still could be.  At 30, he doesn't have the wheels.  or the hands.  The problem wasn't his skill set.  The problemwas his skill set had the same trajectory as Moulson's.

That, and being a giant douche.

2 hours ago, LTS said:

Well, the bigger guys tend to slow down that much more when they get old.  Especially those who relied more on size than skill to really be at the top of their game.  Lucic really didn't have a lot of skill.  I'd rather have top line skill that lasts, I think that's Reinhart.

Reinhart already has more points in a season than Lucic has ever had (65 vs 62).  

My point was more than the bigger guys aren't the top line players anymore.  It's trending away from that.

The bigger guys who don't supply much else. The Matthews and Eichels and Scheifeles of the world are big boys. Matthews and Lucic are both 6'3.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Thorny

[Weave]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

 

My point was more than the bigger guys aren't the top line players anymore.  It's trending away from that.

I'm  not on board with that.  The guys with 1st line talent and Lucic/Neely size are rare birds.  I'm sure the next one we see will find time with his teams #1 center.

[SwampD]

Boston could use Lucic in this series.

 

Edited June 9, 2019 by SwampD

[LTS]

17 hours ago, Thorny said:

That, and being a giant douche.

The bigger guys who don't supply much else. The Matthews and Eichels and Scheifeles of the world are big boys. Matthews and Lucic are both 6'3.

Yes.. Lucic never really supplied much else did he?  He managed to put up a few seasons in and around 60.  But he often got portrayed as that top line talent mold.

16 hours ago, Weave said:

I'm  not on board with that.  The guys with 1st line talent and Lucic/Neely size are rare birds.  I'm sure the next one we see will find time with his teams #1 center.

Yes, it's not as though there aren't big, strong, talented players in the world, not that I would ever put Neely and Lucic together.  I made a point about Lucic, not Neely.  My go to prototype power forward, top line talent remains Keith Tkachuk.  I am sure there are others (hell, probably should put Mario in there) but to score 50 goals and get 200PIM in a season is pretty special.  I think Brendan Shanahan, Gary Roberts, and Kevin Stevens are the only other players to do it and they probably could/should also be considered.  But I would never consider Lucic to be anywhere near that talent.

It's all good.  Don't think that I am sitting here saying that a 6'3 talented forward who can bang bodies isn't a top line player.  I'm more saying that a 6'3 forward who can bang bodies is not a top line player and that a 6' player can be and often is just as effective and for a longer time because they don't seem to break down as fast.

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, SwampD said:

Boston could use Lucic in this series.

Boston could use Jeff Skinner more. 

17 hours ago, Weave said:

I'm  not on board with that.  The guys with 1st line talent and Lucic/Neely size are rare birds.  I'm sure the next one we see will find time with his teams #1 center.

Dylan Cozens.

18 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Fair enough, I am old and old school and I hear that argument a lot, but then I look at the Stanley Cup final and I think maybe I'm not as out of it as all these young analytic people claim. 

Who's leading the cup final in points? What's there size? Look at the top 5.

You look at the Stanley cup final and find a bunch guys 6'1" or less getting points. So yes,  I do think you are wrong as all the young analytics ppl claim. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Neo]

20 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Fair enough, I am old and old school and I hear that argument a lot, but then I look at the Stanley Cup final and I think maybe I'm not as out of it as all these young analytic people claim. 

I smiled when I read this.  We went to school, together!  Our eyes found things and trained our hearts and minds.  Frankly, it worked pretty darned well.

As Dudacek so insightfully pointed out, we’re using the same words to describe different things.  Both matter.  I’m better for analytics and a deeper understanding.  Our eyes once told us the sun orbited the earth.

Remember first seeing Gretzky?  I do.  How did that skinny slow guy get three points last night?

Edited June 9, 2019 by Neo

[Marvin]

4 hours ago, Neo said:

I smiled when I read this.  We went to school, together!  Our eyes found things and trained our hearts and minds.  Frankly, it worked pretty darned well.

As Dudacek so insightfully pointed out, we’re using the same words to describe different things.  Both matter.  I’m better for analytics and a deeper understanding.  Our eyes once told us the sun orbited the earth.

Remember first seeing Gretzky?  I do.  How did that skinny slow guy get three points last night?

As I was reading your post, I was thinking of a few of the analyses of Gretzky before he came into the NHL.

1. Won't hit.

2. Won't take a hit.

3. So-so on face-offs

4. Eccentric positioning with possession

5. Mediocre defencive play

All of these are true.  As one analysis put it in 1993: "Big deal."

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Boston could use Jeff Skinner more. 

Dylan Cozens.

Who's leading the cup final in points? What's there size? Look at the top 5.

You look at the Stanley cup final and find a bunch guys 6'1" or less getting points. So yes,  I do think you are wrong as all the young analytics ppl claim. 

Question, does Cozens project to centre or wing? See he's listed primarily as a C. 

[Curt]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

Question, does Cozens project to centre or wing? See he's listed primarily as a C. 

Seems to be up in the air a bit.  I can see why some think the skill set fits better on the wing.  Personally, I think it could go either way.  I don’t think he is going to be much of a playmaker though, so at C he would be a big 2-way guy who can score but not create at a high level.  I’ve seen Ryan Kesler as a comp.

[PerreaultForever]

14 hours ago, Neo said:

I smiled when I read this.  We went to school, together!  Our eyes found things and trained our hearts and minds.  Frankly, it worked pretty darned well.

As Dudacek so insightfully pointed out, we’re using the same words to describe different things.  Both matter.  I’m better for analytics and a deeper understanding.  Our eyes once told us the sun orbited the earth.

Remember first seeing Gretzky?  I do.  How did that skinny slow guy get three points last night?

Let's not forget they put Semenko on his wing for the first few years................

The little guys can score, but only when the bigger and/or tougher guys are clearing spaces for them to work their magic. We, as a team, desperately lack almost any grit and would be run out of the rink by all the teams that made it near or into the final. 

Its a team game and its a balanced approach to building that I am advocating. Analytics are a useful tool, but not at the total expense of good old fashioned things like toughness, size, heart, and desire. 

[inkman]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Let's not forget they put Semenko on his wing for the first few years................

The little guys can score, but only when the bigger and/or tougher guys are clearing spaces for them to work their magic.

I feel like whatever truth their ever was behind this sentiment has long left the game. You need players with courage and fortitute to play through contact and be creative in the high risk zones but you don't need a 6'5" goon on their wing to keep other goons at Bay.  

I think the Sabres do have some players that play that way but a few need to be weeded out who are averse to contact and shy away from high risk areas.