I get what you're saying... I was just saying why I put Matthews in my top 5 and why there are a lot of other people who would agree with me...

I respect your opinion and your rankings and do like how you've found a way to incorporate a few "unpopular" opinions that make sense

Not really here to debate your takes but putting a guy as the third best player in the league when he's allergic to zone starts outside of the offensive zone while claiming another high-calibre player as overrated, with the most common criticism surrounding him being "a good offensive player only" seems, I don't know, tonedeaf?

Complaining about a guy being ranked third because of offensive zone starts (20% of his starts are in the o-zone), while not acknowledging that McDavid (22%), Pasta (25.5%), and Mackinnon (25.8%) isn't really a good debate to start with. Both guys sandwiching him are ranked in the top 8 for O-Zone start % and hughes doesn't make the top 75. Panarin is 117th.

If you rank 5v5 starts McDavid, Pasta and Mackinnon all are in the top 11 with around 20% of their starts being ozone starts. Hughes is 158th, with 14.3% of his starts being in the ozone, and 14.3% in the neutral zone.

Hughes takes all of his shifts on the fly, I would also like to comment that none of those other Centers have a Selke level defender and the captain or the number one faceoff man in the league almost to take Dzone draws.

IDK, id say its hard to call him tonedeaf on that argument alone. but thats just me.

Hughes has a 72.91% offensive zone start percentage (5v5) since the onset of the 2022-23 season as per NST. No idea where you're getting a sub-25% value from.

If you start taking all the things into concideration then Barkov is close to that list. He is by far the most complete player if you compare him against those 5.
Has 10+18, Selke winner and contender each year.

I was pulling zone start %'s from Money Puck.

Wonder where Ethan Bear is going


Then you also got Vrana on waivers/available for trade

Tkachuk's had been fairly unlucky this year. Shooting at like 4%, and is last in goals above expected. He's also coming off a broken sternum. He's gonna be just fine.

Not in order, just my top 5.

I'm just pointing out that when a guy like Marner is considered "struggling"... It's a headline but when a guy like Tkachuk is, it's perfectly fine...

Media perceptions go crazy

I dont get why Washington is after Ethan Bear when they have Carlsson, TVR, and Nick Jensen

Unless they plan on moving on of those guys I just dont see the fit.

I agree, imo Marner, and Matthews get way too much unwarranted crap from the media, but it's also solely because they play in Toronto. Tkachuk plays for a Hockey team located in Florida. There's maybe 5 florida fans who knew about their hockey team for longer than 5 years

I'm kinda starting to wonder if Jake Guentzel is still a Penguin by next year. He's had a great career there but what's he gain by staying?

Somebody should call the cops. Sorokin just robbed Tavares.

1000 points JT

Sometime in 2009, an Islanders fan found a monkey paw.

He asked for a wish: Tavares scoring 1000 points in a new Islanders arena.

I think the media only bashes who they've set a negative perspective on (Matthews, Huberdeau etc.)

Comparing "starts"

Player A
-- O-zone: 23%
-- N-zone: 20%
-- D-zone: 8%
-- On-the-fly: 49%

Player B
-- O-zone: 22%
-- N-zone: 14%
-- D-zone: 5%
-- On-the-fly: 59%

Player C
-- O-zone: 22%
-- N-zone: 18%
-- D-zone: 16%
-- On-the-fly: 44%

Player D
-- O-zone: 20%
-- N-zone: 17%
-- D-zone: 13%
-- On-the-fly: 50%

Player E
-- O-zone: 21%
-- N-zone: 17%
-- D-zone: 6%
-- On-the-fly: 55%

Player F
-- O-zone: 25%
-- N-zone: 11%
-- D-zone: 8%
-- On-the-fly: 56%

Which is the best player?
If a team uses a player less frequently in o-zone, does that make them a more superior offensive player?
How many players pick where on the ice they get to start their shift? And do they prefer d-zone?
If a player leads NHL in successful zone-entries, do you want him starting off a whistle?

Noah Dobson should win the Norris

Gudbranson 1 game. Perron 6 games.
Both retaliatory actions and blatant attempts to injure.
Why such a difference in punishment?
The carnival music plays on and the wheel keeps spinning.

Gudbrannson’s retaliation was honestly justified

While I know what Perron meant to do, he just attacked someone completely unrelated to the whole Larkin debacle

Yeah I don't know how you can compare those two situations at all. If Zub had been severely injured that would have been near McSorely level thuggery. Sure Gudbranson attacked a "non willing" opponent, but at least it was the guy who had nearly injured him in a previous play and not an innocent bystander. One could argue that Cousins knew it was coming since Erik had pretty said it was coming earlier in the game. Zub had no idea what was coming and was actually trying to help get medical attention to Larkin.

Perron deserved 6, and so did Gudbranson. I hate this rhetoric that rules shouldn't be enforced because someone else broke a rule first. Draw the line somewhere and enforce it

Chris Tanev is now injured

Things gonna get interesting for CGY

As they may have waited to long. As this was one of the dangers with him

Not his fault but he could be out a while as that hit didnt look great

There's no justification for retaliation outside of the rules. The NHL shares blame because they fail to set a consistent standard with boarding (and other) penalties.
Regardless, your options are to play physically against that player or get them to fight. Players can't be permitted to jump someone, ever. This easily could have been a repeat of the Bertuzzi incident.



Agree Zub was a bystander but it only highlights the problem of letting players get away with attempt to injure in a retaliatory scenario. They don't get to decide what happened and what the punishment should be. They may not have a clear understanding of what happened to start with. Hell, even the audience can't come to a consensus half the time with multiple slow motion reviews. Regardless, the punishments in the rules are penalties, misconducts, fines, and suspensions. There's no "eye for an eye" clause when you disagree with what a player did or what the call on the ice was.



Agreed. I was pointing out the disconnect. The situations may not seem to be related, but they both boil down to players taking revenge with a clear intent to injure.
Doesn't matter what anyone does to "deserve" it, there can be no tolerance for players seeking retribution outside of the rules.