You're in the bag for this guy, and its hilarious that you're couching it "in the spirit of Draftnik, those are facts." Because: nope.pcm wrote:1. He played 5 games with the Penguins this season. He contributed to more goals than Boychuk so far, fwiw.Pavel Bure wrote:Yeah he was labeled as having a game similar to a young Todd Bertuzzi. Then we actually got to see him. No hands, no physicality, no speed, no hockey smarts, no edge, nothing.columbia wrote:You're assuming that he has a game to be found.
2. The vast majority of his NHL games have come on the 4th line.
3. In the AHL, he's scored @ .35 goals per game.
4. He averaged as many hits per game on the 4th line last year as Adams and Cooke.
5. For WBS in the playoffs last year, he upped his game and improved his regular season scoring pace.
In the spirit of Draftnik, those are facts. No hands? No physicality? No hockey smarts? The facts tell a different story. My assessment is that he has no confidence. The fault for that surely lies at his feet as much as it does at the teams', but regardless, it was obvious he wasn't going to get a chance here. So good luck to him in Winnipeg.
This argument will be revisited in about 1 year when we check in on the season Tangradi is having with them, when he's finally turned 24, which is statistically when his type of player "finds their game." Crow will be served. But to whom?
1. Yes, Boychuk has played 7 games with the Pens and has zero goals. Tangradi played 45 games and scored one goal. Advantage Tangradi?
2. I guess. I somewhat agree that the hook was maybe a bit early this season. I do know that when he played with Malkin, he produced little. In 2010-2011, the forward he played the most with in those 15 games was Malkin (31.1% of the time). Last year it was Adams (49%). This year it was Neal (48%) and Malkin (45%). I don't know about "vast majority", but whatever, point Tangradi I suppose.
3. What a beast.
4. This one. This is my favorite. When analyzing a prospect who is projected to be a goal-scoring power forward, a quality metric is definitely "how many hits per game does he average in comparison to career fourth liner/PKer Craig Adams and a career third-liner and PKer/pest Matt Cooke." Hits are one of the worst counting stats to begin with. Adams and Cooke also log plenty of PK minutes, offering more chances for hits, given that we don't possess the puck during those periods. Tangradi was the most sheltered player on the team last year in terms of offensive zone starts and qual of competition, and plays no PK.
5. Nice. Upped his game. From .83 PPG to .90 PPG (without even noting that the sample size for the latter is 10 games).
Here's some other cool facts: Tangradi got 43 seconds of PPTOI/G last year. The players immediately in front of him in that statistic were Cooke (1:11) and Despres (1:06). Cooke put up 1G/5A and Despres 0G/1A. Tangradi: 0G/0A.
Another cool fact: He's 24 now. Not 23. So next year, when you revisit it, make sure to change your template to when he "finally" turns 25.
Reasonable Conclusion: Tangradi, at this stage, can best be described as a very good AHL player, but not quite good enough to make an impact in the NHL. His "hands" in the AHL don't translate to NHL goalies, who are light years ahead of those in the AHL, nor NHL defensemen who are bigger, faster, and take away space much more quickly. There is a slight chance that perhaps he wasn't given enough time on a scoring line and didn't fit this team/system and could reach his alleged potential elsewhere. I hope he does, but it's hard to suggest at this point that he's more likely to succeed in the NHL than he is to wash out.
Your conclusion: he just needs "confidence."
The fact that you were calling people "ignorant" in the other thread for describing him as possessing little to no trade value -- and then he gets traded for the least valuable asset short of an outright release -- sums it up.
