Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[DragonfromTO]

So he goes from being inside the top 10 at 68 games to outside at 24th if he scores at even half his rate in the remaining 14, and that's still a positive? That's why it's flawed logic to use an average to base a statistical comparison to others who have a larger sample size.

Only 2 of the centres ahead of him on the list played even 10 more games than him (Toews played 81, Carter played 82). Sure, if he'd played every game he might have slipped behind 82 game guys like John Tavares, Henrik Sedin and Steve Stamkos. 3rd liners one and all. I mean, even 24th is better than a 3rd liner and he'd have to go on a pretty lousy run of 14 games with just 3 even strength points just to get there. I glanced at his game logs from last year and I don't think I saw a 14 game stretch where he did that badly.

Stepan is now the highest paid center based on AAV under the age of 26 not named Steven Stamkos. He's never scored more than 21 goals in a season(his rookie yr.), and has yet to score even 60 points in a 82 game schedule, but is now one of the highest earning young centers in hockey.

Because most teams try to lock up those types of guys when they're younger and less accomplished. The Rangers didn't do that with Stepan and they ended up paying for it.

Stepan may not have been a regular center to Nash, last season, but I seem to remember him getting time with Nash in the two previous seasons. And if he isn't skating with Nash as often now, that also would mean he's not facing the opponent's top pairing defensemen as often, which translates to he's going up against second tier competition. That could possibly mean he's seeing an inflation in numbers compared to quality of competition. Which may explain how last season he averaged .81 pts per game, when his career average over five seasons and 360 games is .70.

Toews was the only centre ranked ahead of him in 5vs5 P/60 with higher Quality of Competition.

I'm also confused by something... you're downgrading him because playing with Nash apparently boosted his point totals, but last year when he didnt play with Nash and his point totals went up you downgraded him for that too? When he plays with Nash you downgrade him for playing with a good linemate and don't upgrade him for (supposedly) playing against top competition, and when he doesn't play with Nash you don't upgrade him for playing with weaker linemates but downgrade him for not playing against top competition? That sounds like "heads I win, tails you lose" to me.

Finishing where he did among the Rangers in scoring over the past three seasons may look good compared to his teammates, but the Rangers are also a team predicated on defense and goal-tending. Outside of Nash, there isn't a prolific scoring winger or center. In all three of those seasons, his numbers are somewhat inferior to where his AAV now aligns him with his contemporaries at the center position(Kopitar, O'Reilly, Backstrom, Couture).

So it seems to me that if the Rangers are a defensively oriented team might that not be another reason his point totals are a little lower than you'd like? For instance Patrik Elias was severely underrated in his prime for similar reasons.

In my opinion, I think Stepan lucked out when his agent was prepared to go arbitration with an ask of $7.2. That certainly is due to his quality of play over the past three seasons, and he definitely earned that. However, I still believe that the contract Gorton and the Rangers ultimately gave him, instead of proceeding through arbitration, overpaid him for what he really is, and that's a second line center. I also think his performance in the post-season these past two years also contributed to the overpayment. He put up some quality numbers, but that is a slippery slope when you start paying guys for what they've done in the past post-seasons because then you're shading into the "clutch" factor, and I think that is about 90% bunk. Case in point; look at Sid. He has three goals in his last 17 post-season games. Prior to that, he had 10 in his last 20.

You can't pay a guy for what he's done. You have to pay him on what you think he's going to do. Apparently, Gorton sees Stepan as a perrenial 65-75 a season guy. I don't share that optimism.

Or he might think he's an adequate (albeit in the bottom half) 1st line centre even if he doesn't. Patrice Bergeron hasn't topped 65 points in 9 years, but he's still been good enough that you can win a Stanley Cup with him as your #1. I don't have much to say about the rest of what you said (the postseason/clutch stuff, paying a guy for what he's going to do rather that what he's done etc.) because they aren't arguments that I've made and I don't disagree with you.

 

[evolver115]

Only 2 of the centres ahead of him on the list played even 10 more games than him (Toews played 81, Carter played 82). Sure, if he'd played every game he might have slipped behind 82 game guys like John Tavares, Henrik Sedin and Steve Stamkos. 3rd liners one and all

Back to the snark, again, eh? Just can't accept someone having an opinion different than yours? If you can't have an adult conversation about this without throwing in smarmy barbs, just stop, and we'll agree to disagree.

My point with saying that the 82 game average compared to the 68 is important is because in his most recent 82 game season, he put up only 57 points. Plus, you're talking about averages. If the sample size for one average is less than the others being compared to, it's not a true representation of the facts. True, his average last season would have carried him past the 60 point mark, but he still didn't do it. And, he has still yet to crack the sixty point mark in his career. Toews, Carter, Tavares, H. Sedin and Stamkos have all surpassed that mark, and that is why they either already have a fantastic contract, or are about to get one (Stamkos). And it's also why there's not one iota of a question as to those guys not being locks as #1 centers. They produce consistently.

Because most teams try to lock up those types of guys when they're younger and less accomplished. The Rangers didn't do that with Stepan and they ended up paying for it.

This pretty much cements what I've said about where this new contract ended up. They overpaid on Stepan because they didn't have a logical replacement elsewhere, and it's the best of what's around. So instead of paying him for want, now they're paying him for need. Demand goes up, price goes up. That's not good business. That's overpaying for something that isn't valued correctly.

I'm also confused by something... you're downgrading him because playing with Nash apparently boosted his point totals, but last year when he didnt play with Nash and his point totals went up you downgraded him for that too? When he plays with Nash you downgrade him for playing with a good linemate and don't upgrade him for (supposedly) playing against top competition, and when he doesn't play with Nash you don't upgrade him for playing with weaker linemates but downgrade him for not playing against top competition? That sounds like "heads I win, tails you lose" to me.

My logic is in the season where Stepan was averaging over .80 points per game having at least played 60 games or more, he's skating against 2nd pair defensemen, on the second scoring line. In the lockout shortened season, which also happens to be the only other season where his points per game is above his career average, he did skate meaningful minutes with the best forward on the team. He benefited from it. Is it a surprise that these two seasons also happen to be his most prolific seasons in regards to his scoring?

So it seems to me that if the Rangers are a defensively oriented team might that not be another reason his point totals are a little lower than you'd like? For instance Patrik Elias was severely underrated in his prime for similar reasons.

It very well could play a factor in what I view as a lack of production compared to what he's now being compensated for. Maybe that went into Gorton's logic in giving him the term and dollars that they settled upon. AV plays a counter-attacking style, utilizing odd-man breaks and speed through the neutral zone.

Or he might think he's an adequate (albeit in the bottom half) 1st line centre even if he doesn't. Patrice Bergeron hasn't topped 65 points in 9 years, but he's still been good enough that you can win a Stanley Cup with him as your #1. I don't have much to say about the rest of what you said (the postseason/clutch stuff, paying a guy for what he's going to do rather that what he's done etc.) because they aren't arguments that I've made and I don't disagree with you.

Patrice Bergeron is also a perennial Selke nominee, and fomer Selke winner. What he lacks for in scoring, he more than makes up for in his wizardly defense, and faceoff skills. This is no slight to Stepan, because after having watched him match up against the Pens in the past two post-seasons, I can attest to his defensive prowess. He's very solid in that department. Having said that, he's not on the same level as a Bergeron. Yet, he's now paid just $375k less per season than the 3 time Selke award winner.

I've said pretty much all I'm prepared to say about Stepan. It may look like I've now trashed the guy, and think he's a no-good, worthless 4th line scrub, but that was never my intention. I'm only pointing out that for a cap-strapped team like the Rangers, who are also working with a closing window of opportunity with Henrik's age, the GM made a very large commitment to a guy who I feel hasn't quite showed that he's completely earned it. That's a dangerous choice to make when the chances for legitimately competing for the cup are slowing slipping away. According to generalfanager, the Rags are now working with less than a million dollars in cap space, and they have quite a few RFA's coming up, next season. Stepan might push a few of those guys out of the picture.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Back to the snark, again, eh? Just can't accept someone having an opinion different than yours? If you can't have an adult conversation about this without throwing in smarmy barbs, just stop, and we'll agree to disagree.

Seriously? You want to end (what I thought was) a pretty productive discussion over that one sarcastic remark? I mean, we all joke and say sarcastic things around here. If it doesn't insult anyone or take attention away from the matter being discussed, does it really matter that much?

My point with saying that the 82 game average compared to the 68 is important is because in his most recent 82 game season, he put up only 57 points. Plus, you're talking about averages. If the sample size for one average is less than the others being compared to, it's not a true representation of the facts.

Almost every player on the list played a different number of games last season, and every one played a different number of minutes. If you need a perfectly identical sample to find any comparison of averages useful, then no average (even career averages where all players have played 1000+ games) will ever meet that standard.

True, his average last season would have carried him past the 60 point mark, but he still didn't do it. And, he has still yet to crack the sixty point mark in his career. Toews, Carter, Tavares, H. Sedin and Stamkos have all surpassed that mark, and that is why they either already have a fantastic contract, or are about to get one (Stamkos). And it's also why there's not one iota of a question as to those guys not being locks as #1 centers. They produce consistently.

Sure, and that's also why I've never taken the position that Stepan is as good as any of those players. The arguments I was making here are that a) Stepan is better than the 2nd line/borderline 3rd line centre that you said he is and b) Stepan is worth more than the $4 million you suggested he is worth.

This pretty much cements what I've said about where this new contract ended up. They overpaid on Stepan because they didn't have a logical replacement elsewhere, and it's the best of what's around. So instead of paying him for want, now they're paying him for need. Demand goes up, price goes up. That's not good business. That's overpaying for something that isn't valued correctly.

I would surmise that it's more like getting value or slightly overpaying for something that you could have underpaid for.

My logic is in the season where Stepan was averaging over .80 points per game having at least played 60 games or more, he's skating against 2nd pair defensemen, on the second scoring line. In the lockout shortened season, which also happens to be the only other season where his points per game is above his career average, he did skate meaningful minutes with the best forward on the team. He benefited from it. Is it a surprise that these two seasons also happen to be his most prolific seasons in regards to his scoring?

If he gets a boost from playing with Nash then that boost has to go away when he's not playing with Nash. If he gets a boost from playing against 2nd line guys (and like I suggested there doesn't seem to be a major difference there anyway since the Rags balance and roll lines as much as anyone) then that boost has to go away when he's playing against top competition. But in both situations you seem to be accentuating the boost being given while ignoring the boost being taken away.

It very well could play a factor in what I view as a lack of production compared to what he's now being compensated for. Maybe that went into Gorton's logic in giving him the term and dollars that they settled upon. AV plays a counter-attacking style, utilizing odd-man breaks and speed through the neutral zone.




Patrice Bergeron is also a perennial Selke nominee, and fomer Selke winner. What he lacks for in scoring, he more than makes up for in his wizardly defense, and faceoff skills. This is no slight to Stepan, because after having watched him match up against the Pens in the past two post-seasons, I can attest to his defensive prowess. He's very solid in that department. Having said that, he's not on the same level as a Bergeron. Yet, he's now paid just $375k less per season than the 3 time Selke award winner.

I've said pretty much all I'm prepared to say about Stepan. It may look like I've now trashed the guy, and think he's a no-good, worthless 4th line scrub, but that was never my intention. I'm only pointing out that for a cap-strapped team like the Rangers, who are also working with a closing window of opportunity with Henrik's age, the GM made a very large commitment to a guy who I feel hasn't quite showed that he's completely earned it. That's a dangerous choice to make when the chances for legitimately competing for the cup are slowing slipping away. According to generalfanager, the Rags are now working with less than a million dollars in cap space, and they have quite a few RFA's coming up, next season. Stepan might push a few of those guys out of the picture.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Back to the snark, again, eh? Just can't accept someone having an opinion different than yours? If you can't have an adult conversation about this without throwing in smarmy barbs, just stop, and we'll agree to disagree.

My point with saying that the 82 game average compared to the 68 is important is because in his most recent 82 game season, he put up only 57 points. Plus, you're talking about averages. If the sample size for one average is less than the others being compared to, it's not a true representation of the facts. True, his average last season would have carried him past the 60 point mark, but he still didn't do it. And, he has still yet to crack the sixty point mark in his career. Toews, Carter, Tavares, H. Sedin and Stamkos have all surpassed that mark, and that is why they either already have a fantastic contract, or are about to get one (Stamkos). And it's also why there's not one iota of a question as to those guys not being locks as #1 centers. They produce consistently.



This pretty much cements what I've said about where this new contract ended up. They overpaid on Stepan because they didn't have a logical replacement elsewhere, and it's the best of what's around. So instead of paying him for want, now they're paying him for need. Demand goes up, price goes up. That's not good business. That's overpaying for something that isn't valued correctly.




My logic is in the season where Stepan was averaging over .80 points per game having at least played 60 games or more, he's skating against 2nd pair defensemen, on the second scoring line. In the lockout shortened season, which also happens to be the only other season where his points per game is above his career average, he did skate meaningful minutes with the best forward on the team. He benefited from it. Is it a surprise that these two seasons also happen to be his most prolific seasons in regards to his scoring?





It very well could play a factor in what I view as a lack of production compared to what he's now being compensated for. Maybe that went into Gorton's logic in giving him the term and dollars that they settled upon. AV plays a counter-attacking style, utilizing odd-man breaks and speed through the neutral zone.




Patrice Bergeron is also a perennial Selke nominee, and fomer Selke winner. What he lacks for in scoring, he more than makes up for in his wizardly defense, and faceoff skills. This is no slight to Stepan, because after having watched him match up against the Pens in the past two post-seasons, I can attest to his defensive prowess. He's very solid in that department. Having said that, he's not on the same level as a Bergeron. Yet, he's now paid just $375k less per season than the 3 time Selke award winner.

I've said pretty much all I'm prepared to say about Stepan. It may look like I've now trashed the guy, and think he's a no-good, worthless 4th line scrub, but that was never my intention. I'm only pointing out that for a cap-strapped team like the Rangers, who are also working with a closing window of opportunity with Henrik's age, the GM made a very large commitment to a guy who I feel hasn't quite showed that he's completely earned it. That's a dangerous choice to make when the chances for legitimately competing for the cup are slowing slipping away. According to generalfanager, the Rags are now working with less than a million dollars in cap space, and they have quite a few RFA's coming up, next season. Stepan might push a few of those guys out of the picture.

I ran out of time to edit, but there's a couple more problems with the "his lockout season was because he played with Nash" theory. The first is that his most common linemates that year were actually Callahan and Hagelin, although he did play with Nash a decent amount. But the bigger problem? He scored (even strength) points at a higher rate that year without Nash than with him. 11 in 282 minutes with Nash (2.34 per 60), 18 in 443 without him (2.44 per 60).

 

[evolver115]

Seriously? You want to end (what I thought was) a pretty productive discussion over that one sarcastic remark? I mean, we all joke and say sarcastic things around here. If it doesn't insult anyone or take attention away from the matter being discussed, does it really matter that much?

It was a good discussion. After you went back and edited your post, and added the emote, it doesn't have the same ring of pretentiousness. Sadly, that happened after I had already quoted your original and started to reply.

Almost every player on the list played a different number of games last season, and every one played a different number of minutes. If you need a perfectly identical sample to find any comparison of averages useful, then no average (even career averages where all players have played 1000+ games) will ever meet that standard.

Sure they have different numbers. It will never be perfect. Stepan missing fourteen games, along with him averaging about 18 minutes a game, means he missed about 250 minutes of time over those last fourteen games. It's not exactly a small amount, and when you're talking averages, that makes a fairly large difference. Especially because the overall sample is also very small because we were focusing on a 3 year stretch, and talking about a player who only has five seasons in the league.

Sure, and that's also why I've never taken the position that Stepan is as good as any of those players. The arguments I was making here are that a) Stepan is better than the 2nd line/borderline 3rd line centre that you said he is and b) Stepan is worth more than the $4 million you suggested he is worth.

I think his value should've been about a million to a million and a half less AAV. And as we discussed, when you take his scoring numbers over his career, and compare it to other centers who have similar scoring totals, Stepan received a fairly healthy bump in AAV compared to others who have similar stats.

I would surmise that it's more like getting value or slightly overpaying for something that you could have underpaid for.

We'll agree to disagree on this one, because I see zero potential of this being a value contract. Simply put, I think it can be realistically said that Stepan won this deal against the Rags front office, and as far as compensation goes compared to his contemporaries.

If he gets a boost from playing with Nash then that boost has to go away when he's not playing with Nash. If he gets a boost from playing against 2nd line guys (and like I suggested there doesn't seem to be a major difference there anyway since the Rags balance and roll lines as much as anyone) then that boost has to go away when he's playing against top competition. But in both situations you seem to be accentuating the boost being given while ignoring the boost being taken away. I ran out of time to edit, but there's a couple more problems with the "his lockout season was because he played with Nash" theory. The first is that his most common linemates that year were actually Callahan and Hagelin, although he did play with Nash a decent amount. But the bigger problem? He scored (even strength) points at a higher rate that year without Nash than with him. 11 in 282 minutes with Nash (2.34 per 60), 18 in 443 without him (2.44 per 60).

Interesting to note that even though Stepan played almost 200 minutes less with Nash in the lockout shortened season as he did without, it's only off by a tenth per 60. If you flip that and Stepan played the 443 with Nash, and the 280 without him, it stands to reason that he would've benefited even more from having the superior linemate and seen an even greater boost in scoring statistics. Like I said in my previous, the only two times in his career so far where he has a points per game average greater than his .70 career average are in a lockout shortened season where he skated about a third of the season with Nash, and the most recent campaign, where he averaged .81 points per game, but was likely skating against second tier defensemen, because the opposing coach isn't going to trot out his top pair to contain Stepan and a washed up St. Louis.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The thing with the Stepan deal is even if you think the Rangers overpaid by a million per, it's a measly million dollars lol. Giving Stepan $1 mil more than he's worth isn't going to be the reason the Rangers succeed or fail in the short term. I know we're in a cap world and all but it's peanuts.

 

[Comeds]

Seriously? You want to end (what I thought was) a pretty productive discussion over that one sarcastic remark? I mean, we all joke and say sarcastic things around here.

Whoa, speak for yourself. I for one think sarcasm is UnCool™ and rarely use it.

 

[evolver115]

The thing with the Stepan deal is even if you think the Rangers overpaid by a million per, it's a measly million dollars lol. Giving Stepan $1 mil more than he's worth isn't going to be the reason the Rangers succeed or fail in the short term. I know we're in a cap world and all but it's peanuts.

If it's a team who his clear of the cap limit by 5 or 6 million, then yeah, what's a million dollars worth? However, you can look at the Pens most recent trade of unloading Sutter and clearing under a million dollars by acquiring Bonino, that in turn allowed them to go right back out to the FA pool and comfortably sign Fehr to a new three year deal and still have room to maneuver the cap crunch. So in that circumstance, even less than a million can be the difference between signing someone you want, or passing on him cause it just won't work.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

If it's a team who his clear of the cap limit by 5 or 6 million, then yeah, what's a million dollars worth? However, you can look at the Pens most recent trade of unloading Sutter and clearing under a million dollars by acquiring Bonino, that in turn allowed them to go right back out to the FA pool and comfortably sign Fehr to a new three year deal and still have room to maneuver the cap crunch. So in that circumstance, even less than a million can be the difference between signing someone you want, or passing on him cause it just won't work.

If the million is the difference between having Stepan or being able to sign a role player like Fehr, I'll take Stepan every time.

 

[Cobiemonster]

If the million is the difference between having Stepan or being able to sign a role player like Fehr, I'll take Stepan every time.

Yep - a lot of teams probably overpay their top players by about a million but it's better to have that player than not

I'm not the biggest Derek Stepan fan as far as his production goes, it's not tremendous production but the Rangers need him

 

[DragonfromTO]

It was a good discussion. After you went back and edited your post, and added the emote, it doesn't have the same ring of pretentiousness. Sadly, that happened after I had already quoted your original and started to reply.



Sure they have different numbers. It will never be perfect. Stepan missing fourteen games, along with him averaging about 18 minutes a game, means he missed about 250 minutes of time over those last fourteen games. It's not exactly a small amount, and when you're talking averages, that makes a fairly large difference. Especially because the overall sample is also very small because we were focusing on a 3 year stretch, and talking about a player who only has five seasons in the league.




I think his value should've been about a million to a million and a half less AAV. And as we discussed, when you take his scoring numbers over his career, and compare it to other centers who have similar scoring totals, Stepan received a fairly healthy bump in AAV compared to others who have similar stats.





We'll agree to disagree on this one, because I see zero potential of this being a value contract. Simply put, I think it can be realistically said that Stepan won this deal against the Rags front office, and as far as compensation goes compared to his contemporaries.






Interesting to note that even though Stepan played almost 200 minutes less with Nash in the lockout shortened season as he did without, it's only off by a tenth per 60. If you flip that and Stepan played the 443 with Nash, and the 280 without him, it stands to reason that he would've benefited even more from having the superior linemate and seen an even greater boost in scoring statistics. Like I said in my previous, the only two times in his career so far where he has a points per game average greater than his .70 career average are in a lockout shortened season where he skated about a third of the season with Nash, and the most recent campaign, where he averaged .81 points per game, but was likely skating against second tier defensemen, because the opposing coach isn't going to trot out his top pair to contain Stepan and a washed up St. Louis.

I don't really understand the reasoning here at all. The guy put up better (rate) numbers without Nash than with him. What data-based reason is there to conclude that more ice time would shrink and flip that gap rather than increasing it (or staying completely the same for that matter)? Why would you expect a larger sample without Nash than with him to cause his rate stats to be better in the former context than the latter?

 

[evolver115]

I don't really understand the reasoning here at all. The guy put up better (rate) numbers without Nash than with him. What data-based reason is there to conclude that more ice time would shrink and flip that gap rather than increasing it (or staying completely the same for that matter)? Why would you expect a larger sample without Nash than with him to cause his rate stats to be better in the former context than the latter?

The data based reason that you're using to say Stepan can perform at a higher rate away from Nash three seasons ago is relatively small. If Stepan and Nash are linemates more often, I think that over time it would be just as likely to shrink and flip. It's a tenth of 1 total point difference. So essentially I'm saying the above average goal-scoring ability of Nash would probably enhance Stepan's assists totals in a positive way if the sample size grew larger. I suppose there is a possibility that they play better without one another, as your number suggests, and I've even seen that mentioned elsewhere, but I can probably imagine now that Stepan is long termed to the Rangers top six, their usage with one another will probably go up, anyways. So I guess we'll see how this works out in the future.

 

[DragonfromTO]

The data based reason that you're using to say Stepan can perform at a higher rate away from Nash three seasons ago is relatively small. If Stepan and Nash are linemates more often, I think that over time it would be just as likely to shrink and flip. It's a tenth of 1 total point difference. So essentially I'm saying the above average goal-scoring ability of Nash would probably enhance Stepan's assists totals in a positive way if the sample size grew larger. I suppose there is a possibility that they play better without one another, as your number suggests, and I've even seen that mentioned elsewhere, but I can probably imagine now that Stepan is long termed to the Rangers top six, their usage with one another will probably go up, anyways. So I guess we'll see how this works out in the future.

I wasn't saying that the data from the lockout season shows definitively that he's better without Nash than with him though. I was saying that it doesn't support the conclusion that playing with Nash affected his point totals positively that year.

It seems like you're saying "I would expect that number to flip because playing with Nash would improve his numbers", but if you're going to use that conclusion in that way it needs to be supported somehow first, not assumed.

 

[evolver115]

I wasn't saying that the data from the lockout season shows definitively that he's better without Nash than with him though. I was saying that it doesn't support the conclusion that playing with Nash affected his point totals positively that year.

It seems like you're saying "I would expect that number to flip because playing with Nash would improve his numbers", but if you're going to use that conclusion in that way it needs to be supported somehow first, not assumed.

So because it shows a tenth of 1 point difference from a 48 game total sample, that then definitively proves the inverse couldn't eventually become true if, say, it became a 82 game sample, or even a 164 sample? I think it stands to reason that an above average goal scoring winger playing on a line of a second line center might eventually enhance his assists, given enough time.

 

[DragonfromTO]

So because it shows a tenth of 1 point difference from a 48 game total sample, that then definitively proves the inverse couldn't eventually become true if, say, it became a 82 game sample, or even a 164 sample? I think it stands to reason that an above average goal scoring winger playing on a line of a second line center might eventually enhance his assists, given enough time.

I don't have to "definitively prove" anything here (and I'm not trying to). The onus is on you. As I said before, I'm not trying to show/prove that Nash didn't affect Stepan's scoring positively in the lockout season (the conclusion that you stated), I'm saying that when I look I don't see evidence that he did. If you're the one stating a conclusion you need to show evidence that supports it, not just question/discredit evidence that doesn't support it.

 

[evolver115]

I don't have to "definitively prove" anything here (and I'm not trying to). The onus is on you. As I said before, I'm not trying to show/prove that Nash didn't affect Stepan's scoring positively in the lockout season (the conclusion that you stated), I'm saying that when I look I don't see evidence that he did. If you're the one stating a conclusion you need to show evidence that supports it, not just question/discredit evidence that doesn't support it.

I'm saying that the evidence is inconclusive, because of the sample size.

There's no way you and I can clear this up. I think the Rangers overpaid by about 6 million dollars over the life of the cap hit for Stepan. Considering the slow advancing cap in the NHL, and the Rags cap crunch, currently under 1 million dollars, I think this contract is going to bite them in the ass because I'm not convinced Stepan can provide enough scoring for the Rangers to justify what they are on the hook for with him.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I'm saying that the evidence is inconclusive, because of the sample size.

There's no way you and I can clear this up. I think the Rangers overpaid by about 6 million dollars over the life of the cap hit for Stepan. Considering the slow advancing cap in the NHL, and the Rags cap crunch, currently under 1 million dollars, I think this contract is going to bite them in the ass because I'm not convinced Stepan can provide enough scoring for the Rangers to justify what they are on the hook for with him.

I'm fine with that. But we still have the same problem... saying that some evidence that suggests that X isn't true isn't up to snuff isn't providing evidence that X is in fact true.

 

[evolver115]

I'm fine with that. But we still have the same problem... saying that some evidence that suggests that X isn't true isn't up to snuff isn't providing evidence that X is in fact true.

I think X cannot be defined based on the overall small sample of one 48 game season It is too small of a sample size. The data is inconclusive to say definitively in either direction. Maybe next season Stepan and Nash end up playing on a line more often. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

The thing with the Stepan deal is even if you think the Rangers overpaid by a million per, it's a measly million dollars lol. Giving Stepan $1 mil more than he's worth isn't going to be the reason the Rangers succeed or fail in the short term. I know we're in a cap world and all but it's peanuts.

The fact that Tavares has a cap hit of 5.5M per for the next 3 years means Stepan is grossly overpaid. Heck Ryan Strome had over 50 points last year.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

The fact that Tavares has a cap hit of 5.5M per for the next 3 years means Stepan is grossly overpaid. Heck Ryan Strome had over 50 points last year.

Sure, compare Tavares to Stepan.