Top NHL Players (Point Predictions)

[bagelbitesisbae 71]

(Likes on my NHL-related content is highly appreciated as it takes a lot of time and effort to produce quality NHL content. If you don't like my NHL-related content, please message me constructive criticism as I'll try to make changes to whatever you do not like.) 

 

Requested by the amazing, @Banackock

 

The 2018-2019 NHL season is starting in 31 days! Predicting players' point totals is really hard as different players step up every season. We are going to predict 10 different players' point totals. I am only doing McDavid, Stamkos, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Crosby, Giroux, Marchand, Ovechkin, Tavares, and Matthews. (Feel free to message me if you want me to predict a player of your choice.) 

 

Connor McDavid - (105 points) Connor McDavid was the Ted Lindsay Trophy winner and Art Ross Trophy winner last season. The Ted Lindsay signifies that you were the most outstanding playing in the league judged by the members of the NHL Player Association. The Art Ross Trophy signifies that you were the top points getter in the league. Everybody in the hockey community believes that Connor McDavid is the god of ice hockey. He's definitely making a strong case to be called the god of ice hockey. Some people may think 105 points is modest, but in the new age of hockey, points are hard to come by....even for superstars like Connor McDavid. I think that if the whole Edmonton lineup can step up, McDavid can definitely surpass 105 points. 

 

Steven Stamkos - (85 points) Steven Stamkos is a great, elite scorer. He won the Rocket Richard trophy in 2010 and 2012. Two seasons ago, he missed quite a lot of games due to injuries. Last season, he managed to get 86 points. Kucherov also stepped up his game heavily to the point where Stamkos could feed off of it. He had a lot more assists than goals last season (which is really odd considering he used to focus more on goals). If he doesn't get consistently injured, he can be a consistent point getter. That's why I see him getting 85 points. 

 

Nikita Kucherov - (90 points) Kucherov elevated his game to new heights last season. He got an even steven, 100 points. I don't see Kuch getting more than 90 points as he hasn't been amazingly consistent. He'll still be one of the top players in the NHL next season. Stamkos elevating his game really helped Kucherov reach his potential. 

 

Nathan MacKinnon - (98 points not being biased at all) Nathan MacKinnon literally blew it up in the NHL last season and so did the Colorado Avalanche. MacKinnon really took his role seriously as an altenate captain and got 97 points. Nathan hasn't been ranked as high as he should be because of him not being consistent. One of the problems that led to MacKinnon not being consistent the past few season was that fact that the team was doing bad, and the locker room chemistry sucked (thanks Dutchy). Now that Mikko Rantanen has reached new heights (literally, he grew like 6 inches over the Summer, lol), it really helps out MacKinnon reach his full potential. I can see MacKinnon be consistent throughout the rest of his career because he finally as the teammates he has been looking for. One of the things that also helped me predict his points is him being a Hart candidate and a Ted Lindsay candidate. Cheers to a great season.

 

Sidney Crosby - (82 points) Crosby isn't getting any younger, folks. When he was younger and in his prime, he was disgusting. I don't see his point totals jumping to new heights, but I actually see them going down. He only produced 89 points last year, and played a full 82 games. Crosby has won tons of awards, but there are younger players who will take over. 

 

Claude Giroux - (79 points) Giroux hasn't been consistent at all, whatsoever. I can't give him a high points prediction just because he had 102 points last season. If he can be consistent throughout the rest of his career, maybe, just maybe, he can get another 100 points in one season. I know age doesn't affect you too much until you an age of around 35, but he's 30 and not getting any younger. His teammates need to step it up next season if he wants to be another top point getter. 

 

Brad Marchand - (70 points) From a personal standpoint, Brad Marchand is a little bit overrated. He's gotten 85 points the past two seasons, but hasn't been entirely consistent. I'd be surprised if he hits 85 points again. He's obviously an elite ice hockey player, but him "playing" around has cost him several suspensions. He needs to man up and become the player he is supposed to be. 

 

Alexander Ovechkin - (75 points) Oh, Alexander Ovechkin, the Stanley Cup champion. Alex killed it and stepped up to the plate so the Washington Capital could win their first ever Stanley Cup. Ovechkin hasn't been consistent points-wise, but he has been consistent with goals. He has won multiple Rocket Richard trophies to place him as one of the best goal scorers to ever play in the NHL. I think he'll still be a top player in the NHL, but won't get as many points as he got last season. 

 

John Tavares - (90 points) - I think John Tavares is going to reach his prime this year as he is going to be surrounded by better linemates. JT got 84 points last year despite his team doing very, very bad. The defense is questionable on Toronto, but I don't think it will affect JT too much as he can make his own plays if he needs to.

 

Auston Matthews - (65 points) In his first season in the NHL, he managed to get 40 goals and 69 points. He has been a consistent around 60 points getter, but he definitely hasn't reached full prime yet. I don't think playing second line minutes will affect him too much, but it definitely doesn't help him earn a ton of points. 

 

(Please like my NHL-related content because it helps me know that you like it. Post suggestions down below and I'll try to write up something for you.)

 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by bagelbitesisbae

[Banackock 8,049]

McDavid = 95. Tired of carrying the team.

Mackinnon = 70 to 80. 

Matthews hits 70-80 imo.

Tavares somewhere in the 80's.

Ovechkin I'd say 75 is good. 

 

For my Oilers:

Lucic = 50 pts

Kassian = 39 on the dot

Nuge = 65 - Draisitl sits around there maybe too. maybe 70+

 

 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

I might be crazy for this, and it might just be that I feel we have the luxury of being able to do it with the recent success, but if I'm the Pens, I actually consider seeing what the market has for Crosby/Malkin/Phil/Letang and eventually try to work toward a Guentzel, Sprong, and Murray future. Definitely not this year in particular (we are, after all, only a season removed from two cups) but either next year or the year after, if we'd like to get a decent return on the big 4 rather than ride them into the ground like the Wings did with Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Lidstrom.

[Devise 4,475]

56 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

I might be crazy for this, and it might just be that I feel we have the luxury of being able to do it with the recent success, but if I'm the Pens, I actually consider seeing what the market has for Crosby/Malkin/Phil/Letang and eventually try to work toward a Guentzel, Sprong, and Murray future. Definitely not this year in particular (we are, after all, only a season removed from two cups) but either next year or the year after, if we'd like to get a decent return on the big 4 rather than ride them into the ground like the Wings did with Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Lidstrom.

 

I totally feel you. From a GM tactics perspective it totally makes sense. Unfortunately I think that much like many teams the ride out perspective is what we'll see. At least until they are much older. Mid to late 30s probably? Probably the same for Caps with Ovie/Nicky/Oshie/Carlson. I don't know why, as you'd figure it makes logical sense but a lot of NHL teams seem to ride out the homegrown draft picks provided they get some success with them. Obviously you mentioned Detroit, but in general a lot of the big names that get drafted to teams end up sticking it there for much of their career. I think it'd have to take a big dip in terms of on ice quality for teams like that to consider the move for assets. Which is going to be tough since I do think even on their worst seasons, just having some of those names pretty much means your a playoff team. 

 

You saw Calgary get rid of Iginla, but even that was pretty late. And that was a team that was struggling to make the playoffs no less. 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

2 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

I totally feel you. From a GM tactics perspective it totally makes sense. Unfortunately I think that much like many teams the ride out perspective is what we'll see. At least until they are much older. Mid to late 30s probably? Probably the same for Caps with Ovie/Nicky/Oshie/Carlson. I don't know why, as you'd figure it makes logical sense but a lot of NHL teams seem to ride out the homegrown draft picks provided they get some success with them. Obviously you mentioned Detroit, but in general a lot of the big names that get drafted to teams end up sticking it there for much of their career. I think it'd have to take a big dip in terms of on ice quality for teams like that to consider the move for assets. Which is going to be tough since I do think even on their worst seasons, just having some of those names pretty much means your a playoff team. 

 

You saw Calgary get rid of Iginla, but even that was pretty late. And that was a team that was struggling to make the playoffs no less. 

Yeah more hockey GMs need to Belichick it, get rid of guys a year or two before they drop, rather than 3-4 years after.

[Banackock 8,049]

I think teams like Pens/WSH may run it out with those guys.. they're faces of the franchise - sorta makes sense. Though, if they were to move them, the price would be pretty damn big. 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

2 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I think teams like Pens/WSH may run it out with those guys.. they're faces of the franchise - sorta makes sense. Though, if they were to move them, the price would be pretty damn big. 

I think we will, I just don't think we should. The league is a business and the players are commodities. Commodities with homes and lives, to be sure, so I can see the appeal of running it out, but honestly with a few younger pieces already in place (the three guys I mentioned above) you ship those four, you extend the window 6-7 seasons in exchange for maybe 2-3 short term seasons of adjustment.

[Banackock 8,049]

2 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

I think we will, I just don't think we should. The league is a business and the players are commodities. Commodities with homes and lives, to be sure, so I can see the appeal of running it out, but honestly with a few younger pieces already in place (the three guys I mentioned above) you ship those four, you extend the window 6-7 seasons in exchange for maybe 2-3 short term seasons of adjustment.

Depends who you are and what you are. Crosby deserves to retire a Penguin. Like Sakic, Like Yzerman, Like Doan etc. Would it be smart to move? Depends who you ask.

 

As a GM, 100% yes and I'd do it before 33. After that, you have what - 2-4 years MAX and thats on the decline. Players like that peak around those times. Early 30's-ish. 

[Devise 4,475]

Just now, diamond_ace said:

I think we will, I just don't think we should. The league is a business and the players are commodities. Commodities with homes and lives, to be sure, so I can see the appeal of running it out, but honestly with a few younger pieces already in place (the three guys I mentioned above) you ship those four, you extend the window 6-7 seasons in exchange for maybe 2-3 short term seasons of adjustment.

 

True. But I also wonder if it's a tough thing to do from a market perspective. Consider the relative little value a big name like Iginla got when he was traded. Realistically for names like a Crosby, Malkin etc your talking huge trade value. Even at 33 or 34 unless the points/on ice product has dropped vastly more than I deem it likely. But no GM from another team is going to take that on. Why would they? Trade young players and assets for an aging franchise player nearing the end of their prime? With HUGE salary implications no less? That creates a situation where the GM trading the players has to give up less value for them. And while sure, technically that makes a lot more sense than just riding them out when it's unlikely you'll see as much success as when they were in their prime. 

 

Ultimately I think as the value factors in, you factor that in with all the real life stuff. Stability, integrity, etc. I think GM's often gain more than they show when they decide to ride out names like the ones we are mentioning. Ask yourself this, if Crosby played his career with Pitt regardless of the remaining successes, assuming he retires happy and healthy? The next time Pitt needs to draft a superstar franchise player and try to sign him to a contract, do you think it's likely that player not only agrees but sticks it out long term? Probably. In fact I'd venture as far to say that the more professional/stable you've been as a franchise with players of that ilk the better relations in general you probably build just on reputation. Forget that said people could call or Crosby himself could take to those players to get them to join. You build a loyalty. We already see that, even in Pitt with names like Lemiux so attached to the franchise well after playing career is over. 

 

[Devise 4,475]

I also think some of that speaks to the focus on the NHL to be a bit more "people" friendly than just a business. Trades do happen, but often star players are provided the respect and stability you don't often see in a lot of other sports. A lot of NHL teams have players that are probably "untouchable" or that are likely to ride out their careers with said franchise or close. 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

3 minutes ago, Devise said:

 

True. But I also wonder if it's a tough thing to do from a market perspective. Consider the relative little value a big name like Iginla got when he was traded. Realistically for names like a Crosby, Malkin etc your talking huge trade value. Even at 33 or 34 unless the points/on ice product has dropped vastly more than I deem it likely. But no GM from another team is going to take that on. Why would they? Trade young players and assets for an aging franchise player nearing the end of their prime? With HUGE salary implications no less? That creates a situation where the GM trading the players has to give up less value for them. And while sure, technically that makes a lot more sense than just riding them out when it's unlikely you'll see as much success as when they were in their prime. 

 

Ultimately I think as the value factors in, you factor that in with all the real life stuff. Stability, integrity, etc. I think GM's often gain more than they show when they decide to ride out names like the ones we are mentioning. Ask yourself this, if Crosby played his career with Pitt regardless of the remaining successes, assuming he retires happy and healthy? The next time Pitt needs to draft a superstar franchise player and try to sign him to a contract, do you think it's likely that player not only agrees but sticks it out long term? Probably. In fact I'd venture as far to say that the more professional/stable you've been as a franchise with players of that ilk the better relations in general you probably build just on reputation. Forget that said people could call or Crosby himself could take to those players to get them to join. You build a loyalty. We already see that, even in Pitt with names like Lemiux so attached to the franchise well after playing career is over. 

 

Lemieux was also in such a weird spot too - the team owed him several years of contracts and couldn't pay it, he offered to convert it into equity as a percentage of the team, intending at the time to simply be a minority owner and help the process along toward finding a new guy. Burkle and his group come in and persuade Lemieux into a bigger share in exchange for his group providing the funds. It's doubtful that the team will ever really be in that type of spot again, but I know Lemieux developed a bond of sorts with Crosby, so maybe he buys him into the management group at some point. Even if Crosby is untouchable, and maybe Malkin - Phil and Letang aren't though.

[Devise 4,475]

4 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

Lemieux was also in such a weird spot too - the team owed him several years of contracts and couldn't pay it, he offered to convert it into equity as a percentage of the team, intending at the time to simply be a minority owner and help the process along toward finding a new guy. Burkle and his group come in and persuade Lemieux into a bigger share in exchange for his group providing the funds. It's doubtful that the team will ever really be in that type of spot again, but I know Lemieux developed a bond of sorts with Crosby, so maybe he buys him into the management group at some point. Even if Crosby is untouchable, and maybe Malkin - Phil and Letang aren't though.

 

Yeah you see that a lot too with the teams that rode out these players. Broduer leaves Blues Management to head back to where? NJ. Sakic is in management in Colorado. It's a common thing where a franchise attempts to keep big hockey names around to cultivate a legacy/community around those players. Whether that means bringing them in management, or with statues outside. The list goes on. Obviously star players still get traded. I'm just saying I could totally see why a lot of GM's only tend to trade those lifer stars when they ask to be traded. Everything seems to be about keeping them happy, and ultimately not that it's a shocker most stars prefer to be happy with stability. Which makes sense as they all eventually have families and stuff. It's nice to live in the same city and not have to worry about the travel and the moving and what have you. 

[Tyler 885]

Think you're high on Tavares and low on Matthews/Giroux.

[Tyler 885]

5 hours ago, Banackock said:

Lucic = 50 pts

 

 

 

[Banackock 8,049]

Just now, Tyler said:

 

 

One can wish. 

[Tyler 885]

Just now, Banackock said:

One can wish. 

 

it's like me saying Alzner is a top 4 d when in reality I wouldn't want him top 4 on Laval

[jacobaa19 191]

9 minutes ago, Tyler said:

 

it's like me saying Alzner is a top 4 d when in reality I wouldn't want him top 4 on Laval

HE’LL BOUNCE BACK! HE HAS TO lol i know he wont

[Quik 4,113]

Assuming he’s healthy for the full year, Matthew will be closer to 65 goals than 65 points. With a JT taking the heavier matchups, Matthews is going to feast on 2nd lines this year. 

[Tyler 885]

8 minutes ago, jacobaa19 said:

HE’LL BOUNCE BACK! HE HAS TO lol i know he wont

 

Alzner is god awful man. One of the worst players I've ever watched on the Habs.

[Tyler 885]

8 minutes ago, Quik said:

Matthew will be closer to 65 goals

[jacobaa19 191]

Just now, Tyler said:

 

Alzner is god awful man. One of the worst players I've ever watched on the Habs.

Yup I hate it they took him over fucking Markov! I loved Markov

[Quik 4,113]

6 minutes ago, Tyler said:

 

Closer, not actually hit 65 lol

 

I think 46 goals and over 90 points if he’s healthy is a pretty safe bet, which would mean his goals are closer to 65 than points. #Maffs

[Tyler 885]

10 minutes ago, Quik said:

 

Closer, not actually hit 65 lol

 

I think 46 goals and over 90 points if he’s healthy is a pretty safe bet, which would mean his goals are closer to 65 than points. #Maffs

 

Hmmm I think 70-75 is a lot more likely. Offense will be spread out this season. 

[Tyler 885]

17 minutes ago, jacobaa19 said:

Yup I hate it they took him over fucking Markov! I loved Markov

 

Even Emelin is better

[BarzalGoat 728]

6 hours ago, bagelbitesisbae said:

John Tavares - (90 points) - I think John Tavares is going to reach his prime this year as he is going to be surrounded by better linemates. JT got 84 points last year despite his team doing very, very bad. The defense is questionable on Toronto, but I don't think it will affect JT too much as he can make his own plays if he needs to

 

No no, Barzal 90 points, Snake will score 9. Simple rounding error.