Follow @james_tanner123 Today is Sunday of the long-weekend and as such I am soon to be rushed out the door to head to a sweet BBQ that will feature guitar, badminton, and a fire.
Good times.
But I have some time while my wife takes several hours to get ready. What I want to do with it, is to argue against something I read in the paper this morning: That "the Rangers are the only team left in the playoffs without a number-one centre."
The reason I want to write about this is because it isn't true, but also because one thing I've really developed an interest in during my time as a hockey writer is the way players are evaluated.
Most of the time, it seems to me, that players are pigeon-holed by their reputations and then no matter what they do, it is almost impossible for them to be widely recognized for a different reason.
Take the Rangers' Brassard, he was drafted 6th overall by Columbus, but in three full seasons (and parts of two others) he was unable to post more than 50 points. He was still thought to have high potential when he was traded to the Rangers, and he definitely lived up to it, just not maybe in the way some people hoped coming out of junior. Regardless of how invested some of us are in stats, we still live in a world that predominately judges players by their first impression and their total points.
A career high of 60 points and a number-one centre? Impossible!
Because Brassard doesn't score a point-per-game, he isn't considered by many to be a "number one centre." If you just look at the point totals, they are underwhelming - in two full seasons with the Rangers he has point totals of just 45 and 60 points.
One point here though: unless you've only been an NHL fan for a couple of years, you're more than likely trained to think that those aren't very high totals. But, in a season where the scoring title was won with 87 points, 60 is probably higher (relatively) than it seems.
For example, whether the top scorer has 100 or 130 points, 80 still seems impressive. It should, therefore, follow that if the top scorer doesn't crack 90, that 60 should be seen in a much more impressive light. To put this point in perspective: in 2005-06 the top scorer was Joe Thornton and he had 125 points. The (approximately, due to ties) 40th ranked scorer was Henrik Sedin with 18 goals and 75 points.
In 2006, no one doubted that Henrik was a number-one centre. Brassard this year had 19 goals, 41 assists for 60 points and a finish of about 40th. 60 points are pretty good when 87 gets you a title, is my point here, not that Brassard is better than Sedin, because he isn't.
I also think that advanced stats and sites like WarOnIce.com have given us tools to evaluate players with more things than just points, by doing this I believe that Brassard is easily revealed to be a "number one centre."
However first we have to define just what that means. When Steve Simmons said the Rangers don't have one, maybe he meant they don't have a "star" in the marketing sense of the word. Getzlaf, Stamkos and Toews are name-brand super-stars and deservedly so.
But is Brassard perhaps closer to their level than given credit for? Even if he's not one of the ten or twenty best overall players in the league (like the three centres on the other teams left) can't he still be an effective top-line centre?
Let us check some stats:
At even-strength, Derick Brassard scored the 9th most points/ 60 minutes,among centres this past season. Relative to ice-time, he scored at a higher rate than Steven Stamkos.
He was 11th in even-strength total points among centres - only eight off the league-lead and six behind Crosby. He also missed two games.
Tied for second in Assists with Crosby, one behind Ribeiro (again, at even-strength).
Leads all NHL centres in assists/ 60 minutes of ice time.
A very resctable 52% CF rating.
60 total points, which is around 20th for his position (Hard to say, because a lot of guys listed on the chart are predominantly wingers).
But here's the thing, Brassard only plays 17.20 minutes per game, most top centres play between 19-21. For whatever reason (partly because he doesn't really kill penalties, but not entirely) Brassard doesn't get the total ice-time that a lot of his peers do. Some of this is because the way his coach likes to keep his players fresh, part is because he is really a co-#1 with Steppan (also underrated).
Overall though, no matter how you slice it, the only way to say the Derick Brassard isn't a legit number-one centre is to just look at his 60 points and be too lazy to put that in context.
Oh, and he's also only three games away from leading his team to back-to-back Finals appearances.
Derick Brassard can centre the top line on my team any day.
Thanks for reading.