The Cheese Sketch: In Defence Of Colby Armstrong

Image courtesy of Bridget Samuels from College Park, MD
Editor's Note: This post serves as a good follow-up to MF37's famous screed on Colby Armstrong that apparently offended evey member of his extended family. This is a really good fanpost looking to put armstrong's production and salary in context throughout the league.
Colby Armstrong is a likable player. However, he makes a lot of money—$3 million per season to be exact—and in the salary-cap world many would prefer their high-priced players to put cold, hard stats on the table.
Surely you’ve heard the mocking cry—"INTANGIBLES!" Simply put, those who use this barb are saying that Armstrong doesn't bring anything measurable to the table, leaving his defenders to speak in clichéd generalities.
But these days we have access to a lot more metrics than just goals and assists. I thought I’d pull some numbers from different sources, add a few notes of explanation or opinion, and see whether Armstrong is worth his weight in cap space.
Context
|
TOI |
PDO |
QTeam |
CorsiQoT |
CorsiRelQoT |
QComp |
CorsiQoC |
CorsiRelQoC |
|
16:16 |
1011 |
-0.061 |
-5.799 |
-3.015 |
-0.028 |
0.324 |
0.435 |
Even-Strength Line-Mates
|
Boyce, Versteeg |
17.5% |
|
Brent, Sjostrom |
11.6% |
|
Bozak, Kessel |
8.4% |
|
Boyce, Crabb |
7.5% |
|
Boyce, Brown |
6.4% |
• Armstrong doesn’t get a ton of ice time, and he almost never sees the powerplay. He’s seen time with each of the current centres other than Grabovski.
• 1:53 of penalty time per game ranks second among regular forwards on the team, and 80% of that is played with Tyler Bozak as his penalty-killing partner.
• PDO, which is on-ice save percentage for + against, is a reasonable approximation for how "lucky" the player’s +/- and related stats have been. Armstrong’s 101% isn’t remarkably high.
• Quality of Teammates as rated by +/-, Corsi, and Relative Corsi (moving across the chart) show a third-line player. Armstrong's shift-mates are not exactly the cream of the crop whether measured by results or shot differential.
• The Quality of Competition numbers show an average group of opposition players.
Production
|
PPG |
G/60 |
A1/60 |
P/60 |
GVT |
|
.47 |
.73 |
.82 |
2.10 |
4.7 |
• The per-60 numbers above are calculated from even-strength minutes; Armstrong hasn’t registered a point on special teams.
• His ES Points/60 is fourth on the team. For the minutes he gets, Armstrong is a surprisingly efficient point producer. In fact, at 2.10 he ranks 83rd in the NHL among players who have played at least 10 games. In other words, the average NHL team has about three players at his level of efficiency or greater.
• The A1/60 number is included to show that Armstrong is driving his own production—not many cheap second helpers here.
• While GVT combines a number of factors, it is included in this section because I believe it reflects offensive contributions better than defensive. A 4.7 is seventh on the team, and reflects a modest positive contribution.
Two-Way Play
|
OZone% |
OZFinish% |
Corsi |
Corsi Rel |
RATING |
ES Chc For |
ES Ch Ag |
TK |
GV |
|
45.9% |
50.7% |
-3.66 |
1.8 |
+.02 |
176 |
193 |
32 |
19 |
• Offensive Zone Start and Finish percentages show Armstrong in the defensive zone to start most of his shifts, with decent forward movement.
• Corsi is negative; however, Corsi Rel is a modest +1.8, meaning that he has at least been better than most alternatives in terms of shot-attempt differential.
• His lines have allowed a few more chances against than they have created for the Leafs.
• While it’s always important to take takeaway and giveaway stats with a grain of salt, Armstrong’s +13 differential is second on the team to only the departed Kris Versteeg.
(In)Tangibles
|
Hits |
Bk Shots |
PDraw/60 |
PTake/60 |
|
87 |
28 |
1.2 |
0.6 |
• The hits and blocked shots are more impressive than they appear considering his 20 missed games, but not remarkable.
• If Armstrong was brought in partially to be an agitator, his penalty statistics show that he has been successful. He draws a lot more penalties than he takes.
Comparables
This final chart shows what around $3 million of prime-aged winger gets you this season. I included any winger under 35, within half-a-million in cap hit, whose deal ends in unrestricted free agency.
|
Age |
Player |
Team |
Cap Hit |
GP |
P |
PPG |
ES P/60 |
TOI |
|
29 |
Williams, Justin |
LAK |
$3.5 |
69 |
57 |
0.83 |
2.69 |
17:13 |
|
31 |
Sturm, Marco |
WAS |
$3.5 |
24 |
10 |
0.42 |
1.74 |
14:08 |
|
32 |
Zubrus, Dainius |
NJD |
$3.4 |
67 |
26 |
0.39 |
1.37 |
17:17 |
|
29 |
Bourque, Rene |
CGY |
$3.33 |
69 |
42 |
0.61 |
1.57 |
17:25 |
|
30 |
Ponikarovsky, Alexei |
LAK |
$3.2 |
48 |
12 |
0.25 |
1.07 |
12:26 |
|
26 |
Brown, Dustin |
LAK |
$3.18 |
65 |
45 |
0.69 |
1.79 |
19:10 |
|
29 |
Vrbata, Radim |
PHX |
$3 |
67 |
39 |
0.58 |
1.78 |
16:20 |
|
28 |
Armstrong, Colby |
TOR |
$3 |
49 |
23 |
0.47 |
2.10 |
16:16 |
|
28 |
Frolov, Alexander |
NYR |
$3 |
67 |
26 |
0.39 |
1.63 |
13:52 |
|
31 |
Hagman, Niklas |
CGY |
$3 |
43 |
16 |
0.37 |
1.24 |
14:25 |
|
28 |
Ott, Steve |
DAL |
$2.95 |
69 |
26 |
0.38 |
1.05 |
16:52 |
|
32 |
Cole, Erik |
CAR |
$2.9 |
69 |
43 |
0.62 |
2.04 |
18:20 |
|
32 |
Cleary, Daniel |
DET |
$2.8 |
55 |
39 |
0.71 |
2.85 |
16:14 |
|
26 |
Clarkson, David |
NJD |
$2.67 |
68 |
15 |
0.22 |
0.96 |
13:46 |
|
35 |
Clark, Chris |
CLB |
$2.63 |
51 |
14 |
0.27 |
1 |
14:43 |
|
32 |
Samsonov, Sergei |
FLA |
$2.53 |
65 |
29 |
0.45 |
1.48 |
14:43 |
|
34 |
Samuelsson, Mikael |
VAN |
2.5 |
69 |
47 |
0.68 |
1.9 |
16:35 |
I was going to add a two-way stat or three to this chart, but we've already seen above that Armstrong hits, draws penalties, and plays decent two-way hockey in unfavourable circumstances. Finding that he is the third most efficient scorer at evens out of 17 wingers, I think the point is made. $3 million doesn't buy a lot, particularly when you're buying years of free agency; if this was the price for Cheese, then it was no worse than market value.
On the other hand, I guess we could’ve re-signed Alexei Ponikarovsky, or held on to Niklas Hagman. Or outbid the Rangers on Alex Frolov. Still, Colby Armstrong is a better quote than any of those guys; and intangibles have to count for something.
PensionPlanPuppets.com is a fan community that allows members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Toronto Maple Leafs and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editor of PensionPlanPuppets.com.
78 comments
|
12 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
LONG LIVE CHEESE!
Fantastic stuff, thanks for putting this together.
The A1/60 number is included to show that Armstrong is driving his own production—not many cheap second helpers here.
This isn’t surprising to me. Colby’s puck-possession and great passes in the offensive zone are what I’ve noticed most watching him this year. (Well, besides his crazy pointed beak.)
His ES pts per 60 look great versus his peers in his salary cap range, and when you factor in PK ice-time and his penalties drawn vs penalties taken, he’s basically exactly as advertised, and definitely fair value at $3M.
In closing – suck it, Forbes!
WE MISS YOU TOMAS
A 1011 PDO ranks Armstrong 264th out of 859 NHL players.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
He’s about a half standard deviation above average. It’s not “WHOA UNSUSTAINABLE” but saying it’s normal or regular is a stretch. He’s gotten decent bounces this year.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Behind the net: on the old site, go to the Corsi report, in the new one, it’s in the shooting report.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Mar 14, 2011 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions
And while I’m not sure it always works out this way in practice, in theory PDOs tend to regress to 1000 (where your on-ice shooting percentage matches that of your opponents).
1011 is pretty high given that I suspect the Leafs’ poor overall goaltending this year likely has the team PDO below 1000.
"[Phil Kessel]'s as streaky as a flipped coin" - Shift
by The '67 Sound on Mar 14, 2011 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions
At the team level, it regresses really hard to 1000. Hot streaks/cold streaks can be viewed as unsustainable PDOs.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Mar 14, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Yup. IIRC NJ was around 940 when they sucked. In their streak they’re around 1040.
Basically they’ve been the same team all year, they’ve just gone from insanely unlucky to very lucky.
"[Phil Kessel]'s as streaky as a flipped coin" - Shift
by The '67 Sound on Mar 14, 2011 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I love all the people saying that Lemaire has gotten Kovalchuk playing right again. Before the coaching change, Kovalchuk was shooting 8.16% (8 goals, 98 shots, 33 games). Since he’s shooting 16.5% (17 goals, 103 shots, 34 games). Lemaire must really get into the heads of opposing goalies.
The First Certified Grabbo Lover
I most definitly agree that Lemaire isn’t the reason Kovy’s S%T went up (and also that the Devils were pretty unlucky and were clearly due for a big run).
However, I also beleive that the coaching change was a signicant factor in the Devil`s turnaround. And not just because it was a coaching change, but because they brought in Lemaire.
But how can you prove this. i`m guessing you can look at team Corsi, Fenwick, and shot location (for and against), comparig before and after Lemaire. PK and PP% might also be revealing (but these are effected by
% going up).
Also, watching game tape the way an NHL coaching staff would, analysing formations, breakouts, passing etc would show something I`m sure, but is beyond our means. In fact, everything I`ve just mentioned is beyond my means because I don`t have time.
Oh, and for some reason I SBN won`t let me type question marks. I`m getting É.
When your keyboard goes to french, try tapping shift 3 times then hitting ctrl. If it doesn’t work the first time try a second time.
It sounds stupid but it works for me everytime.
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Mar 14, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
And if that doesn’t work, flip it onto it’s roof, douse with gasoline and set aflame.
Shouting at the refs optional.
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Mar 14, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I checked shot differentials and they’re largely unchanged (though total shots for and against are down slightly).
"[Phil Kessel]'s as streaky as a flipped coin" - Shift
by The '67 Sound on Mar 14, 2011 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that surprising to you? He’s not a great player.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
look
at his shooting percentage and say that again.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Mar 16, 2011 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Semi-related, George Parros has the highest on-ice sv% two or three years in a row. What a defensive stud!
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Mar 14, 2011 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Behind the Net had an ok article on the subject. The tentative conclusion was that the common thread for amazing sv% was low QoC.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Worth noting Armstrong’s injuries largely coincided with the periods of bad goaltending.
Resident Capologist
Сертыфікаваны Grabbo Палюбоўнік
Armstrong only allows low quality chances for the other team to get to our defense. With easier chances those defenders only give up low quality shots and thus Colby is directly responsible for our goaltending being good.
Pension Plan Puppets*
* Blog contains less than 2% puppet content by weight.
Is it possible that he’s just a bit above average as a player? I realise the point of the stat is to normalize for luck, but not every player is going to trend back to 1000, right? Some players are better and keep above, others are worse and stay below. So why wouldn’t this be considered normal? Maybe I’m misunderstanding the stat…
by Leaf in Habland on Mar 14, 2011 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe this is true. Really excellent players will sustain this slightly above 1000.
In Colby’s case, it’s probably mostly luck though ;)
Right behind Grabs and Kulie.
Meaning?
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Mar 14, 2011 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
ARMY
Nice post. I annoit you Vice Prime Minister of the Army fanclub :P
Certified Crosbovski lover. GET WELL SOON, SID
The universe moves depending on where Sidney Crosby is on the ice - IHeartPenguins
"I'm glad we've got the best fans in the league." - Tomas Kaberle on Leaf fans
I see what you’re doing with your march break
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Mar 14, 2011 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
That second “n” just didn’t want to stay in line. :) Thanks though.
I’m only the Honorary Sub-Committee Co-Chairman to the Board of Directors’ Assistant Vice-Comptroller, please.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
yeah I apparently stop spelling correctly as soon as I leave school :P
haha I’ll put that title on your membership card ;)
Certified Crosbovski lover. GET WELL SOON, SID
The universe moves depending on where Sidney Crosby is on the ice - IHeartPenguins
"I'm glad we've got the best fans in the league." - Tomas Kaberle on Leaf fans
Poni
Has anyone watched much of LA this year? What’s happened to Poni? He seems broken.
WE MISS YOU TOMAS
He was involved in the winning play against Dallas last night. First time I’ve seen him in the highlights all year, although it’s not like the Kings get much attention up here anyway
Professional cusser causer.
by T is for Truculence on Mar 14, 2011 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
First time I saw him play this year, he got a penalty and looked so awkward wearing black.
I changed the channel
Certified Crosbovski lover. GET WELL SOON, SID
The universe moves depending on where Sidney Crosby is on the ice - IHeartPenguins
"I'm glad we've got the best fans in the league." - Tomas Kaberle on Leaf fans
Per BtN, he’s getting laced with tough minutes (low qot, high qoc), and winning, albeit slightly. Kinda like Frolik.
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
Behindthenet quick link to QoC/QoT/Corsi/PDO/Zonestarts
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.
by red army line on Mar 14, 2011 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I think he’s had lots of injuries this year too.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
Like reading thoughts confined to 140 characters? I'm on Twitter too.
Not sure that this necessarily means much:
Finding that he is the third most efficient scorer at evens out of 17 wingers.
I’m not a fan of P/60 as a stat, because I think it’s misleading. Ice time and points scored may have some correlation, but I don’t think it’s linear at all. It’s entirely possible that with more ice time, a player would still score about the same number of points for any number of reasons (fatigue, harder defensive match-ups, etc.)
Cheese has higher ES P/60 than Kessel. I really don’t know what to make of that.
"[Phil Kessel]'s as streaky as a flipped coin" - Shift
by The '67 Sound on Mar 14, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s a useful stat only if you’re comparing players with similar TOI. Comparing the P/60 of someone who plays 5 minutes a night versus someone who plays 25 minutes a night doesn’t make any sense.
WE MISS YOU TOMAS
As with all things, context matters.
That said, it’s BETTER for comparing the 5 min guy to the 25 min guy than raw point production, because you SHOULD be able to score more goals in 25 mins than 5.
What you are suggesting, I think, is some kind of nonlnearity in how the average should be calculated such that after a certain point you aren’t expected to produce as much in the extra ice time. Someone with a really large data set could probably model this… though you might need adjustments per individual player, if some have crosby-like levels of endurance.
What you are suggesting, I think, is some kind of nonlnearity in how the average should be calculated such that after a certain point you aren’t expected to produce as much in the extra ice time
Exactly. Colton Orr producing 0.5 pts/60 mins playing 5 or 6 minutes a night should not lead us to assume he would maintain that pace if he played 20 minutes a night, nor is it as valuable as someone who can put up 0.5 pts / 60 playing 20 minutes.
It’s a more useful stat than a raw point comparison, but not much.
WE MISS YOU TOMAS
It’s probably more accurate when comparing players at 16 and 18 minutes than it is for comparing players at 10 and 20 minutes. Less minutes almost inevitably means less critical situations.
But let’s face it, every stat comes with these caveats; you always have to look at it in context with other numbers and examples.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
I agree that you can’t simply replace counting stats with P/60, because fatigue is a factor. More minutes played means less time in between to rest; there’s no way that minutes 21-25 for a first-line forward are as fresh and quick as a third-liner’s 11-15.
By points-per-game, Army is still 8th out of 17. Given that he is labelled as a defensive/agitating forward, the fact that his production matches well with his salary is a good sign.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Definitely agree with this. He’s a forward who’s strong defensively and draws a lot of penalties, who also happens to have some offensive upside.
by Draglikepull on Mar 14, 2011 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
it’s pretty far from useful to bash a stat without any evidence to actually back up what you’re saying.
You’re saying it MIGHT have a correlation, but then have you actually gone out and explored it? Look at the top scorers in the NHL, and guess what, at ES, they generally score at a higher rate.
the P/60 stat is taken at 5 on 5… he could have added it at 5 on 4, or 4 on 5 just to illustrate it further, but top scorers are productive at 5 on 5, AND at 5 on 4.
Reality is, most players who take a regular shift on the top 3 lines play pretty similar minutes 5 on 5, it’s the PP and PK time that bumps guys up into the 18-20+ minutes range. With that understanding, than I don’t really think it makes sense to argue against the comparison.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Mar 16, 2011 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Even if it doesn’t mean that the player could score more with more minutes it is an important contribution. There is a finite number of minutes per game and if a player can score a lot with less minutes of ice time, that leaves more minutes for someone else to score…
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
Nice work.
All things considered, his ES point production is the most impressive. His overall point production would probably receive a boost if he saw any regular PP time.
BS
I doubt his skills lend themselves to the PP better than any of our other PP forwards. Maybe Bozak. See below. Suited or not, he’d probably receive even a modest boost
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Mar 14, 2011 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
No they do
because the PP is in a lot of ways about puck retrieval, passing, and screens in front of the goal… all things Armstrong does well.
Unfortunately we keep putting out guys that are good off the rush, into a situation where we want guys who are good at controlling play down low. Armstrong, and Kulemin on the wing with Grabovski or Kessel floating around, along with MacArthur, Phaneuf, or Gunnarsson on the points would be a solid PP in my opinion.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Mar 16, 2011 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions
That all makes good sense to me.
Don’t know what’s up. Too late now.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Mar 16, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks.
I’m not sure what role Armstrong could play on the PP—does he really dominate the front of the net in a static setup? It is worth noting that lack of minutes when talking about his production, though, since about a quarter of NHL goals are scored on the power-play these days.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
I’m not sure either if he’s suited or not to play on the Leafs PP. My comment referred more to your second point:
It is worth noting that lack of minutes when talking about his production, though, since about a quarter of NHL goals are scored on the power-play these days.
Whether or not he’s suited, he would likely see at least a modest increase in production.
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Mar 14, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
he would be excellent at puck retrieval and net presence, which frankly our powerplay doesn’t see enough of unless kulemin is on the ice.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Mar 16, 2011 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Nice article.
A whole lot of analysis, but I’m sorry to tell you, what I’m truly bringing away from this is that I’m very happy the Leafs aren’t paying $3 million for Steve Ott.
That’s what I brought away from looking at the numbers, too. Not that Army is amazing—he doesn’t stand out in most areas—but that $3M doesn’t buy a whole hell of a lot of free-agent winger, and going for the moderately gifted but complete player might have been a smarter choice than was thought at the time.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Re: the pre-season Colby debate, it’s worth noting that he’s scoring as well as he did in Pittsburgh (without Crosby!!!)… he’s picked up his PPG, hit and blocked shots since last year in Atlanta… and doing this while having his PP time effectively eliminated (he saw a fair amount in his early seasons.) A couple of other useful facts:
He’s 2 for 2 in shoot-outs (which we often forget, and that compares to Grabs + Kessel + Kulie who are 3 for 15…
He has 3 first goals of the game (tied for 2nd on team)…
He’s one of the Leafs’ strongest road performers (with 16 of his 23 points)…
He’s taken some serious hits this season, to the eye and the hand, both fairly critical parts, and kept on ticking…
And in terms of luck, his shooting % this year is actually below his career average…
plus… INTANJLEBLES!
Follow someone else on Twitter.
by not norm ullman on Mar 14, 2011 12:01 PM EDT reply actions
Nothing like a good road perfromer
BS
by MapleLeafMole on Mar 14, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
That one shootout move was nasty
20 miles to Legoland!
by nhlcheapshot on Mar 14, 2011 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for these addenda! I considered including the shootout number. The injuries are important to consider; Grabovski’s injury-plagued 2009-10 tricked a lot of people into thinking he wasn’t the player he is; I myself have to admit that I never expected him to turn into a 30-40-70 guy.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Thanks for the front-page, recs and comments.
Thanks also for linking to mf37’s excellent piece which argued the other side of this earlier in the season, this is derivative from that work and I appreciate it being put in context.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
JINX!!1
>:(
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
Ahem. Well. Looks like I won’t have to update this at the end of the season.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Looks like you already heard that Armstrong was done for the year.
That’s rough.
by Spezzal Teams Playa on Mar 15, 2011 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions
not to say that's a problem
but if we factor his very solid production in for next year, then we can look forward to a solid 3rd line/2nd line.
Here are the Leafs top 9 forwards heading into next season… one year older, one year wiser, and hopefully more productive and consistent at both ends of the ice:
Grabovski, MacArthur, Kulemin, Kessel, Lupul, Armstrong, Kadri, Bozak, and who? Brent? Boyce? Crabb? we need one more guy at this point. Colborne gets a shot in camp, but I doubt he’s ready yet.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Mar 16, 2011 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
The six on that list who are signed come in at just under $20 million, bonuses in. Add $4 to $5 million for Bozak and MacArthur… Really not bad for a core, assuming Kadri is ready. If one of Komisarek or Finger come around at least a little and the other is buried, our defense isn’t horribly overpriced either.
We have room for an “A” piece, but I am very nervous about paying A prices for older vets in free agency. Hopefully Burke can turn some of the accumulated assets into that piece.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Honestly
I’d just let it grow for another year. Put Gustavsson and Reimer in net… just let em develop. I don’t see another piece improving them that drastically from right now any more than their own development would.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Mar 17, 2011 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Away for a week so late on this conversation
When MF made his article Colby had started terrible. He has really picked up his offensive contribution since then and looks worth his money. But if Nirbo had done this complete analysis on Jan 1 he would have probably come to the same conclusion.
So perhaps MF was just a tad early with his (small sample size). To be fair 49 GP doesn’t seem like a particularly high GP either
I am drinking the Kule-aid!
Certified Kule lover!
Since my analysis overlaps with Mr. Forbes’ to a significant degree, I have no doubt that I would’ve come to similar conclusions. But that just shows how much Armstrong had picked his offensive game up the last few months before I jinxed him into breaking his foot.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
49 GP isn’t a large sample size, of course, but that’s the extent of his Leaf career. I didn’t want to dig into his stats with other teams, others did that when he was signed and it would’ve made for a less coherent article I’m sure.
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

by 
































