It's Miller Time.... To Talk About Moving Miller

[The Dude]

4 hours ago, RangersIn7 said:

The point I was making is apparently lost on you.

 

And that’s fine.

Not knocking you. You have your POV. 
 

But don’t act as you have a crystal ball.

You have no idea.

 

You were pounding the desk against LaFreniere.

 

How’d that go?

Not learn anything there?
 

And I’ll also add that I think what you said about Miller in a previous post, something to the effect of him being more offensively inclined than defensively so is fair. And the fact that you said it as not being a knock was fair too.

You can point out deficiencies and still think a player has virtues.

 He may well evolve into an offensive D man.

I don’t expect, nor have I ever expected, him to be prime Rod Langway. 
Nor do I think he’ll be some two way marvel.

 

But the notion that he won’t improve- be it on either side, is ridiculous.

Forget about his age.

He was good enough to play 21 minutes a night in the NHL, with no minor league experience, right away, is a testament.

 

Yes.

I think his future lies more on the offensive side too.

Do I think he’ll be great defensively? No.

Do I think he’ll improve there? Yes. 

Personally, the charade I’d end is the pairings in the top-4.

 

Just put Miller with Fox and Lindgren with Trouba.

 

Also…food for thought…. Last year in the Devils series, the Miller-Trouba pairing had no goals scored against them.

Yes the point you were making is very lost on me. You can't compare the trajectory of NHL greats that played a physical 2 way game with the best of them..... to Miller. 

 

To say I have no idea is silly. I absolutely have an idea. This type of player stays this type of player.

 

Please fill me in on a one dimensional, soft, offensive D man, that has been in the league for 4 years, that turns it around and becomes better defensively? 

 

You were trying to compare 2 players that were drafted as physical forces and stellar defensive players first. You're overlooking that that aspect of good defensemen is ingrained into the mind early. The traits are more natural and instinct. The ability to read plays, read head movements, stick movements, player tendencies in game and having the want to stand someone up, get on a lane or block a shot, aren't something that gets taught this late. 

 

The offensive part of when to jump in on a play, how to control the puck on the blue line, how to keep pucks in an offensive zone, where and how hard to shoot from the point as well as fixing skating flaws are the things that get improved upon over time.  It is what the players you tried to address as examples of "D- men take longer to develop " had to overcome.  

 

Give me a name of a young, one dimensional offensive D man, that turned it around and became a complete player.

 

I myself don't think every player needs to be complete.  There's a place for offensive only D men. Teams can use them.  I was a huge DeAngelo proponent. I didn't care about his defensive flaws. I thought his offense more than made up for it.  Oddly nobody could tolerate his flaws at the very same age. It's mostly all we heard about (besides the hate on his politics). This was a player that played the position longer. We all knew then, that he was "what you see is what you get". The D wasn't ever going to come around. 

 

This is the case for 98% of these types of Dmen. 

 

I'm not holding out for more. You seem to think there's a corner that is going to be turned. That's the difference.

 

I've already said he's likely a 35- 50 point, one dimensional D-man (its as if you think thats an insult). What is it you see coming that is going to improve on that? Where does it fit for the Rangers in the lineup, the special teams and the salary cap.  With Adam Fox here, why is a one dimensional offensive D man, that can't get any PP time actually needed, when the defense is kinda weak.... defensively? Especially at his cap hit that will be coming down the road. 

 

Let's not over do it on how he made the Rangers.  In a rebuilding year, where the team had absolutely zero depth on D and was struggling to field a defense, his raw skill was a timely benefit for a desperate team that also had to prove that they were serious about rebuilding.  It was Miller, Jack Johnson or Hajek that was going to play. This ontop of Brendan Smith being a disaster for 3 of his 4 year deal. The door was wide open and he made a huge impression that couldn't be denied an opportunity. 

 

 

I pounded the desk about Lafreniere not being a generational talent and a guy that wasn't a line driver. He was looking very 3rd liney.

 

I said he was out of shape and didn't compete. The only thing that changed is his compete level and he seems to be in better shape. He's not a line driver. He's not a generational talent. He's a competent top 6 forward. 

 

I was pretty right. He improved the things I wanted him to and he looks better. Not a top player on the team.  Just better. He's still not pounding down the door to get on PP1. He's moved to RW out of team necessity. Hes the 5th or 6th best forward on the team.

 

What am I supposed to be learning? That a #1 overall draft pick can be deemed not a complete bust and be the 5th best forward currently on the team? Not the 6th or 7th best? 

 

Your last blurb about Miller not being on the ice for a goal in the Devils series is a false. He was a minus 1 in game 7. The stat sheets show that.

 

https://www.nhl.com/rangers/player/k-andre-miller-8480817

 

 

I'm not going to dig back to see if he was on for more goals against,  but got back in the plus column for being on for a goal for. I'm pretty sure he most definitely was on the ice for a few goals against  But I'm not doing that leg work after this damn book I just wrote. 

Edited February 18 by The Dude

[Sod16]

I don't have stats and like to like comparisons at the ready. I just have my eyes and my gut, and they tell me that Miller is pretty much what he's going to be.

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, delneggs said:

If Drury were to make it known around the league that he was willing to move Miller, he would get a call from EVERY GM in the league and there would be a bidding war for the kid.  Trading him is a fools errand.  

Keeping a one dimensional offensive D man that isn't going to get PP time is fools errand.

 

Especially when the team has been trying to replace a PPG RW (Buchnevich) for 3 years. One is needed. The other is a luxury. You can replace Miller with Gustafsson and not feel a huge dip. They haven't been able to replace Buchnevich. That dip has been thorn in Drurys side. It needs to be rectified along with the recent blow of Chytil's career likely over. 

 

I'd rather use the asset to fill holes for a long term basis.  Then go with a comparable player to backfill, that is already here (Gustafsson). 

 

I'm not dumping Miller for just anything. It has to be for a player with term and a little bit of a runway of success at the NHL level.  

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

You guys keep making the argument that they “Can not go far in the playoffs.”

 

Except they already have.

 

The fact that you miss or ignore this thusly invalidates your argument.

 

Which is why I can’t take you seriously.

 

So many teams lose before they ultimately win.

 

What are you watching?

You don’t see it?

 

They’ve done it.

They’ve been close.

 

And they’ve continued to win at a high rate.

 

So they remain so.

 

Are you missing this???

 

It doesn’t mean they will.

But they can.

 

And there’s no dynastic or amazing team to contend with either.

 

They have as good a chance as any.

 

 

The Stanley Cup is called the hardest trophy to win in all of sports… for a reason.

 

Because it is.

 

They have a fair chance.

With some good factors in their favor. 

 

It's just about maximizing the odds of winning. It's all about the underlying stats. It is possible to win with the underlying stats that the Rangers have, but it's just not likely at all.

 

Last 10 years of Cup winners and their advanced stats

 

Year - Winner - xGF% (rank) - HDCF% (rank)

 

2013 - CHI - 53% (8th), 52% (9th)

2014 - LAK - 55% (3rd), 54% (5th)  - NYR were 52% (7th) 54% (4th)

2015 - CHI- 51% (17th), 50% (18th)

2016 - PIT - 55% (1st), 55% (3rd)

2017 - PIT - 53% (5th), 54% (4th)

2018 - WAS - 47% (26th), 45% (31st)

2019 - STL - 53% (6th), 55% (2nd)

2020 - TBL - 54% (3rd), 54% (4th)

2021 - TBL - 53% (9th), 52% (11th)

2022 - COL - 52% (11th), 50% (15th),

2023 - VGK - 51% (16th), 53% (10th)

 

NYR last 3 years:

 

2022 - NYR - 47% (23rd), 48% (22nd)

2023 - NYR - 49% (22nd), 49% (21st)

2024 - NYR - 50% (18th), 50% (19th)

 

Only one Cup winner got really lucky and won with a sub-50% xGF or HDCF% and that was Washington. If a team finishes below 50%, they need a complete Cinderella run. The Rangers almost did it two years ago, but that's all it was. A Cinderella run snuffed out.

 

The Rangers would currently be the 2nd worst team (after Washington) on paper in the last decade to win a Cup. Chicago in 2015 would be the closest, but they dealt with injuries that year to key players like Kane and Sharp, and it was obvious they were a better team than that having won 2 years prior. The Rangers are in the bottom half of league ranks at both key indicators. Most of these teams that got bounced a bunch before they finally won had the numbers during those losing years that indicated how good they were, but ya know, only one team wins every year. It's plenty hard enough to be a consistently GOOD team, and catch the breaks required to get you through the playoffs against other GOOD teams. It's substantially harder to be consistently inconsistent, and do the same.

 

Pray for a miracle folks. It's not impossible, but that's what we've got right now.

Edited February 18 by BrooksBurner

[RangersIn7]

9 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

 

It's just about maximizing the odds of winning. It's all about the underlying stats. It is possible to win with the underlying stats that the Rangers have, but it's just not likely at all.

 

Last 10 years of Cup winners and their advanced stats

 

Year - Winner - xGF% (rank) - HDCF% (rank)

 

2013 - CHI - 53% (8th), 52% (9th)

2014 - LAK - 55% (3rd), 54% (5th)  - NYR were 52% (7th) 54% (4th)

2015 - CHI- 51% (17th), 50% (18th)

2016 - PIT - 55% (1st), 55% (3rd)

2017 - PIT - 53% (5th), 54% (4th)

2018 - WAS - 47% (26th), 45% (31st)

2019 - STL - 53% (6th), 55% (2nd)

2020 - TBL - 54% (3rd), 54% (4th)

2021 - TBL - 53% (9th), 52% (11th)

2022 - COL - 52% (11th), 50% (15th),

2023 - VGK - 51% (16th), 53% (10th)

 

NYR last 3 years:

 

2022 - NYR - 47% (23rd), 48% (22nd)

2023 - NYR - 49% (22nd), 49% (21st)

2024 - NYR - 50% (18th), 50% (19th)

 

Only one Cup winner got really lucky and won with a sub-50% xGF or HDCF% and that was Washington. If a team finishes below 50%, they need a complete Cinderella run. The Rangers almost did it two years ago, but that's all it was. A Cinderella run snuffed out.

 

The Rangers would currently be the 2nd worst team (after Washington) on paper in the last decade to win a Cup. Chicago in 2015 would be the closest, but they dealt with injuries that year to key players like Kane and Sharp, and it was obvious they were a better team than that having won 2 years prior. The Rangers are in the bottom half of league ranks at both key indicators. Most of these teams that got bounced a bunch before they finally won had the numbers during those losing years that indicated how good they were, but ya know, only one team wins every year. It's plenty hard enough to be a consistently GOOD team, and catch the breaks required to get you through the playoffs against other GOOD teams. It's substantially harder to be consistently inconsistent, and do the same.

 

Pray for a miracle folks. It's not impossible, but that's what we've got right now.

You wanna argue from the analytics standpoint in the stats you mentioned, that I don’t disagree with.

 However, through those first 25 games, IIRC, they were very good in those areas, as well as the related defensive metrics.

 

They are capable.

Need to move back in that direction.

 

 

[RangersIn7]

9 hours ago, The Dude said:

Yes the point you were making is very lost on me. You can't compare the trajectory of NHL greats that played a physical 2 way game with the best of them..... to Miller. 

 

To say I have no idea is silly. I absolutely have an idea. This type of player stays this type of player.

 

Please fill me in on a one dimensional, soft, offensive D man, that has been in the league for 4 years, that turns it around and becomes better defensively? 

 

You were trying to compare 2 players that were drafted as physical forces and stellar defensive players first. You're overlooking that that aspect of good defensemen is ingrained into the mind early. The traits are more natural and instinct. The ability to read plays, read head movements, stick movements, player tendencies in game and having the want to stand someone up, get on a lane or block a shot, aren't something that gets taught this late. 

 

The offensive part of when to jump in on a play, how to control the puck on the blue line, how to keep pucks in an offensive zone, where and how hard to shoot from the point as well as fixing skating flaws are the things that get improved upon over time.  It is what the players you tried to address as examples of "D- men take longer to develop " had to overcome.  

 

Give me a name of a young, one dimensional offensive D man, that turned it around and became a complete player.

 

I myself don't think every player needs to be complete.  There's a place for offensive only D men. Teams can use them.  I was a huge DeAngelo proponent. I didn't care about his defensive flaws. I thought his offense more than made up for it.  Oddly nobody could tolerate his flaws at the very same age. It's mostly all we heard about (besides the hate on his politics). This was a player that played the position longer. We all knew then, that he was "what you see is what you get". The D wasn't ever going to come around. 

 

This is the case for 98% of these types of Dmen. 

 

I'm not holding out for more. You seem to think there's a corner that is going to be turned. That's the difference.

 

I've already said he's likely a 35- 50 point, one dimensional D-man (its as if you think thats an insult). What is it you see coming that is going to improve on that? Where does it fit for the Rangers in the lineup, the special teams and the salary cap.  With Adam Fox here, why is a one dimensional offensive D man, that can't get any PP time actually needed, when the defense is kinda weak.... defensively? Especially at his cap hit that will be coming down the road. 

 

Let's not over do it on how he made the Rangers.  In a rebuilding year, where the team had absolutely zero depth on D and was struggling to field a defense, his raw skill was a timely benefit for a desperate team that also had to prove that they were serious about rebuilding.  It was Miller, Jack Johnson or Hajek that was going to play. This ontop of Brendan Smith being a disaster for 3 of his 4 year deal. The door was wide open and he made a huge impression that couldn't be denied an opportunity. 

 

 

I pounded the desk about Lafreniere not being a generational talent and a guy that wasn't a line driver. He was looking very 3rd liney.

 

I said he was out of shape and didn't compete. The only thing that changed is his compete level and he seems to be in better shape. He's not a line driver. He's not a generational talent. He's a competent top 6 forward. 

 

I was pretty right. He improved the things I wanted him to and he looks better. Not a top player on the team.  Just better. He's still not pounding down the door to get on PP1. He's moved to RW out of team necessity. Hes the 5th or 6th best forward on the team.

 

What am I supposed to be learning? That a #1 overall draft pick can be deemed not a complete bust and be the 5th best forward currently on the team? Not the 6th or 7th best? 

 

Your last blurb about Miller not being on the ice for a goal in the Devils series is a false. He was a minus 1 in game 7. The stat sheets show that.

 

https://www.nhl.com/rangers/player/k-andre-miller-8480817

 

 

I'm not going to dig back to see if he was on for more goals against,  but got back in the plus column for being on for a goal for. I'm pretty sure he most definitely was on the ice for a few goals against  But I'm not doing that leg work after this damn book I just wrote. 

On the Miller thing in the Devils series… it was the pairing specifically.

 

That came off of the Mercogliano podcast. One of his guests, I believe Vally, said it.

I’ll have to go back and look… but it was months ago.

I know he said it, cause when he did, I didn’t believe it either. I had to replay it several times to make sure he said what I thought he said. 

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

You wanna argue from the analytics standpoint in the stats you mentioned, that I don’t disagree with.

 However, through those first 25 games, IIRC, they were very good in those areas, as well as the related defensive metrics.

 

They are capable.

Need to move back in that direction.

 

 

They also have 28 more games to play great hockey. The story isn’t fully written yet. But yeah, this is the lens I’m looking at when I’m tough on the team, or players who I think are contributing to the substandard analytics. Lindgren in particular just has not been good. Worse than Miller or Trouba. I haven’t talked about him much because it’s pretty much his first year with numbers this bad (44 xGF% 3rd worst after Goodrow and Pitlick, 44 hdcf% 2nd worst after Goodrow). He’s kind of earned some leash to think it’s not permanent, and I love the guy’s warrior mentality, but…can only tolerate so much when the team is trying to win.

[Pete]

People pay too much attention to analytics while completely throwing out boxcars. To use one and not use the other is just not a complete evaluation of the player.

 

For everybody says he's terrible defensively, He's a career +51 and +7 this season which is good for fifth on the team. 

 

While those stats are flawed in their own way, they do show that he's on the ice for a lot more goals for then against. 

 

We are back to three defensemen on the team looking really bad, for if you count Gus which I do, that leads to a team wide issue on defense.

 

What it really comes down to is there are people who don't like Miller's game and will look for any excuse to trade him even if it doesn't make sense. They will spend all day talking about how bad he is and then say that we should use him to trade for Zegras.... 

 

There are other people who want to be more patient with him. We've already seen patience pay off with Lafreniere. 

[The Dude]

45 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

On the Miller thing in the Devils series… it was the pairing specifically.

 

That came off of the Mercogliano podcast. One of his guests, I believe Vally, said it.

I’ll have to go back and look… but it was months ago.

I know he said it, cause when he did, I didn’t believe it either. I had to replay it several times to make sure he said what I thought he said. 

I'm not even sure what the point is. 

 

Miller sucks defensively. Period. Full stop. Exclamation point. 

 

This is absolutely fact. Otherwise the "D men take longer to develop" stuff wouldn't be a talking point for those who deem him untouchable. 

 

 

[The Dude]

7 minutes ago, Pete said:

People pay too much attention to analytics while completely throwing out boxcars. To use one and not use the other is just not a complete evaluation of the player.

 

For everybody says he's terrible defensively, He's a career +51 and +7 this season which is good for fifth on the team. 

 

While those stats are flawed in their own way, they do show that he's on the ice for a lot more goals for then against. 

 

We are back to three defensemen on the team looking really bad, for if you count Gus which I do, that leads to a team wide issue on defense.

 

What it really comes down to is there are people who don't like Miller's game and will look for any excuse to trade him even if it doesn't make sense. They will spend all day talking about how bad he is and then say that we should use him to trade for Zegras.... 

 

There are other people who want to be more patient with him. We've already seen patience pay off with Lafreniere. 

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, RangersIn7 said:

You wanna argue from the analytics standpoint in the stats you mentioned, that I don’t disagree with.

 However, through those first 25 games, IIRC, they were very good in those areas, as well as the related defensive metrics.

 

They are capable.

Need to move back in that direction.

 

 

 

I don't think the Rangers were that good in the core metrics the first 25 games.  They were getting very lucky in tight games and OT/SO and that created wins that were not suggested by the core metrics.

 

They were a good team in the first 23 games but 18-4-1 was not the level they were playing at.

[RangersIn7]

53 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

They also have 28 more games to play great hockey. The story isn’t fully written yet. But yeah, this is the lens I’m looking at when I’m tough on the team, or players who I think are contributing to the substandard analytics. Lindgren in particular just has not been good. Worse than Miller or Trouba. I haven’t talked about him much because it’s pretty much his first year with numbers this bad (44 xGF% 3rd worst after Goodrow and Pitlick, 44 hdcf% 2nd worst after Goodrow). He’s kind of earned some leash to think it’s not permanent, and I love the guy’s warrior mentality, but…can only tolerate so much when the team is trying to win.

There are a significant number of guys that have underperformed or struggled this year.

Numerous guys just haven’t been anywhere near there best. 

 

There is so much room for improvement there it’s almost comical. 

 

Brooks has said it multiple times this season on podcast and in print…. And I agree with him.

 
I’m positive because despite the underperformance and inconsistency, look at where they’re sitting. 
 

Still a full third to go in the season. Some games still remain on the schedule that will be real tests. 
 

We will see. 

[RangersIn7]

3 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I don't think the Rangers were that good in the core metrics the first 25 games.  They were getting very lucky in tight games and OT/SO and that created wins that were not suggested by the core metrics.

 

They were a good team in the first 23 games but 18-4-1 was not the level they were playing at.

I’d honestly have to go back and look, but IIRC, and it’s another thing from Vally he said on one of the big Ranger podcasts…

 

Through that stretch I believe he had said they were high in the rankings in those categories.

Then they went in the tank for a while, and those numbers went with them.

 

Regardless…. We’ve seen them play well. The things they need to do well consistently, but are inconsistent in, we’ve seen them do those things well too.

Lots of room for improvement- both for individual players and the team as a whole.

Still time to fix it though and get right.

 

Im encouraged by the fact that they still find ways to win despite some pretty deficient areas and a lack of consistency.

 

They haven’t played there best hockey yet they’re 1st in the division and 5th in the league.

[delneggs]

12 hours ago, The Dude said:

Keeping a one dimensional offensive D man that isn't going to get PP time is fools errand.

 

Especially when the team has been trying to replace a PPG RW (Buchnevich) for 3 years. One is needed. The other is a luxury. You can replace Miller with Gustafsson and not feel a huge dip. They haven't been able to replace Buchnevich. That dip has been thorn in Drurys side. It needs to be rectified along with the recent blow of Chytil's career likely over. 

 

I'd rather use the asset to fill holes for a long term basis.  Then go with a comparable player to backfill, that is already here (Gustafsson). 

 

I'm not dumping Miller for just anything. It has to be for a player with term and a little bit of a runway of success at the NHL level.  

 

Calling Miller one dimensional is just silly, but you're entitled to that opinion.  Could not disagree with you more.  

[RangersIn7]

1 hour ago, delneggs said:

Calling Miller one dimensional is just silly, but you're entitled to that opinion.  Could not disagree with you more.  

Well look… I’m coming down on the side of keep Miller and he’ll improve.

But to say that he doesn’t have deficiencies defensively, or that his game doesn’t skew more to the offensive side of things is incorrect.

 

Hes had a real rough season in his own end.

He makes plenty of mistakes in that area and there have been some really bad moments. 
 

I just don’t think he’s done improving. 
And I don’t see Gus as a viable replacement for him in all honesty. 
 

 

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Br4d said:

 

I don't think the Rangers were that good in the core metrics the first 25 games.  They were getting very lucky in tight games and OT/SO and that created wins that were not suggested by the core metrics.

 

They were a good team in the first 23 games but 18-4-1 was not the level they were playing at.

You continue to frame positive things in a negative light. They didn't get lucky in close games. They won close games. That's what good teams do.

 

This "lucky" narrative you're trying to push is nonsense. 

[Pete]

14 hours ago, The Dude said:

You can replace Miller with Gustafsson and not feel a huge dip.

You keep saying this but it's yet to be proven. It's just one of those things people want to keep repeating in the hopes that they'll make it true.

 

All the complaining about Miller... He's soft, he turns the puck over...

 

+7, 72 blocks, 96 hits, 37 takes aways, 19 giveaway going up against the other teams top players every night. 

 

vs 

 

+1, 51 blocks, 41 hits, 20 takes, 26 gives while playing shelter third pairing minutes. 

 

There is literally no way to prove the claim you're making based on any statistical evidence other than 1 category of analytics and a curated report that says Gustafson plays better when he's paired with Fox.

 

There is no other data suggesting your claim is true. 

[delneggs]

19 minutes ago, RangersIn7 said:

Well look… I’m coming down on the side of keep Miller and he’ll improve.

But to say that he doesn’t have deficiencies defensively, or that his game doesn’t skew more to the offensive side of things is incorrect.

 

Hes had a real rough season in his own end.

He makes plenty of mistakes in that area and there have been some really bad moments. 
 

I just don’t think he’s done improving. 
And I don’t see Gus as a viable replacement for him in all honesty. 
 

 

I never said he didn't have defensive deficiencies or isn't having a down year this season...ever.  What I said is he isn't one dimensional and I have seen him make some amazing defensive plays in is young career, especially coming from behind to stop breakaways because of his great speed and long reach, that none of our other D could dream of doing. Of course he has work to do but he is only 24.  He will learn and improve because he is full of talent and has good mentors like Trouba and coaches around him.  And keep in mind he was a +23 two years ago, +12 last year and is a +7 this year, so to say he is bad defensively is nonsense. Every player has rough patches and down years, and he will only get better as time goes by.  That's why trading him is a fools errand in my opinion.  

[RangersIn7]

27 minutes ago, delneggs said:

I never said he didn't have defensive deficiencies or isn't having a down year this season...ever.  What I said is he isn't one dimensional and I have seen him make some amazing defensive plays in is young career, especially coming from behind to stop breakaways because of his great speed and long reach, that none of our other D could dream of doing. Of course he has work to do but he is only 24.  He will learn and improve because he is full of talent and has good mentors like Trouba and coaches around him.  And keep in mind he was a +23 two years ago, +12 last year and is a +7 this year, so to say he is bad defensively is nonsense. Every player has rough patches and down years, and he will only get better as time goes by.  That's why trading him is a fools errand in my opinion.  

I didn’t mean you specifically.

I was speaking in a general sense. 

[BrooksBurner]

Watch that 2nd Isles goal today and people might understand why it’s an IQ issue. Guy processes the game so slow, lack of anticipiation ability and awareness

Edited February 18 by BrooksBurner

[The Dude]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

You keep saying this but it's yet to be proven. It's just one of those things people want to keep repeating in the hopes that they'll make it true.

 

All the complaining about Miller... He's soft, he turns the puck over...

 

+7, 72 blocks, 96 hits, 37 takes aways, 19 giveaway going up against the other teams top players every night. 

 

vs 

 

+1, 51 blocks, 41 hits, 20 takes, 26 gives while playing shelter third pairing minutes. 

 

There is literally no way to prove the claim you're making based on any statistical evidence other than 1 category of analytics and a curated report that says Gustafson plays better when he's paired with Fox.

 

There is no other data suggesting your claim is true. 

I'll hop in the time machine and make it happen and I'll report back the results...

 

 

OK I'm back.  It worked. Miller is atrocious defensively, and Gustafsson is similar. There was no noticeable uptick or downtick defensively or offensively. 

 

This may be the most poor take you have ever put on the internet. 

 

It can't be proven? No shit. It's an educated guess. The players play a similar game. 

 

Let's just not talk about any trades here. Because we just can't prove any one if them would work. So, until any season is over, we should just sit here and not discuss anything that hasn't happened yet. 

 

 

[The Dude]

15 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said:

Watch that 2nd Isles goal today and people might understand why it’s an IQ issue. Guy processes the game so slow, lack of anticipiation ability and awareness

Oh stop he's only 24. He'll get that in a few years after his brain transplant. Have patience.  Players like him always turn it around.

 

Look at DeAngelo. Look at Karlsson. Look at Dahlin. Look at Letang. Look at Dougie Hamilton. Look at Subban. Look at Krug.  Tyson Barrie, Kilngberg.... the list of successful turn arounds after being labeled poor defensive players is long. 

 

Heyyyyy. Wait a second. None of these guys turned it around.

 

You know what? It's probably because nobody wanted them to. Everyone loves them some defensively challenged offensive D men. Then again it takes longer for them to develop. 

[The Dude]

4 hours ago, delneggs said:

Calling Miller one dimensional is just silly, but you're entitled to that opinion.  Could not disagree with you more.  

[delneggs]

25 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Yeah, I agree. 

[Pete]

3 hours ago, BrooksBurner said:

Watch that 2nd Isles goal today and people might understand why it’s an IQ issue. Guy processes the game so slow, lack of anticipiation ability and awareness

Oh, all things that come with experience, reps, and development?

 

Agreed.