Second guessing the Booth trade after watching him

Semi_Colon,

No I never said he wasnt fast. He is. But I thought he was closer to Hansen fast than Joe Pavelski fast. So hes definitely fast, just not elite fast. This sort of explains everything I feel. Its not that hes not good, but he doesnt look like a gamechanger to me for the Canucks. They need that impact top 6 forward, at least 1, and Booth doesnt really seem like much of an upgrade over Raymond or even Samuelsson when healthy.

As for strong on the puck, I watched the whole game. I dont remember specific cycles now weeks later, and he may have had a good cycle, but a lot of people can cycle with the Sedins. Regardless I cant comment on a specific cycle I dont remember. What I felt watching the overall game though was that hes not strong enough on the puck. Hes not bad at it, maybe even above average, but to be a good top 6 forward in this league, the way the game is played now where there is no room anywhere, you have to be strong on the puck. The Sedins, Burrows, Kesler, and even Higgins are way better at that than him. And if you want to look at the Canucks competition, Kane, Toews, Sharp, Brunette, Hossa are all better protecting than puck than him either through strength or elusiveness, and dont even get me started on the Sharks. Marleau, Thornton, Pavelski, Clowe, Havlat, Couture, Handzus, are all elite at protecting the puck on the boards, and each one of them better than Booth.

But I want to go back to Higgins. I posted a negative fanpost about the Canucks prized new acquisition on a Canucks site, clearly 99% of people are going to disagree and cherry pick specifics they feel they can disagree with. But throw out all the specifics of why I was disappointed with Booth for a second, and lets ask ourselves this question. Why did the Canucks need a top 6 forward? Because they needed someone better than Raymond and Higgins to play with Kesler, yes? Everyone can agree with that statement.

Well, then the easy way for me to sum up my disappointment is that David Booth does not look better than Chris Higgins, especially not as a two-way player. And thats all there is to it. The Canucks needed a big second line upgrade over what they already had (Higgins), because what they had wasnt good enough (Higgins). David Booth does not look like he fits the bill. Higgins has looked better than him thus far. Is it possible Booth is as good? Yes? Is it possible he could even turn out a tiny bit better? Yes. But a tiny bit doesnt get you very far. The Canucks needed a big upgrade on their second line, and what Im seeing is that Booth either isnt an upgrade at all, or if he is, hes not nearly a big enough one. Thats all I was trying to say with my fanpost. And yes, I did analyze his ability in one game. There are things you cant analyze in just one game, but I got enough. Speed is good but not good enough to make him a great player without other elite skillsets, board-play and strength is maybe above average for an NHL hockey player but not where you want it to be for a top 6 forward, hockey sense is average at best (and thats a big one), he doesnt seem to have much creative playmaking ability in terms of passing, and his shot is pretty good. Thats what I saw, in addition to the skating specifics, and Im not sure its good enough.

Marcness52: I dont know what youre referring to since I wrote this awhile ago, but I think you just misunderstood me is all. Booth hits and fights more than your average finesse player, but thats not what Im talking about. im talking about protecting the puck on the boards. Nothing to do with what youre talking about.

Section 312: “is quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I have ever read. Somehow playing on a bad team with bad players helped him look good despite not having a high skill level? Wouldn’t a guy with less skill playing with guys with less skill look even worse?”

It’s not nonsensical unless the concept of contrast, not to mention opportunity, is nonsensical. Not that this was my core thesis, you’ll notice I was floating it out there more as an expression of my befuddlement with how much worse he looked than I had in my mind. With regard to why he looked worse than I thought he was, the “I dont know” part of the sentence, the bewilderment, is much more pertinent than a side idea I threw out there. In fact the whole sentence is an expression of bewilderment, meant to be read as such, in context, not cherry picked.

However, even with your cherry picking, its not nonsensical. Here are ways playing on a bad team makes players look good.

• The get more powerplay time and ice time than they deserve, so they get inflated stats and possession time.
• Related but not just related to ice time, teams always play through their best players. In other words, on Florida, David Booth was the top line sniper, he was one of the guys people were always looking to set up, and because the puck was always getting pushed to them, they looked like they were in the play a lot, and their stats were inflated. Teams dont win this way when your best players arent good enough, but it inflates their stats. See Matt Stajan, Niklas Hagman as great recent examples.
• Contrast. The teammates arent very good, so you look better in contrast. Contrast by itself wouldnt make complete sense, but it plays into getting more ice time than the teammates too. If you have a 5/10 player who gets no powerplay time, and Booth is a 7/10 player who does get powerplay time, not only is Booth going to look 2/10 better than the 5/10 player 5on5, but hes going to have all this bonus powerplay time controlling the puck, scoring, that makes him look like hes actually 3/10 or 4/10 better than the 5/10.
• This isnt even in terms of the bad teammates thing. Maybe he just wasnt as good as his stats in 2009, period, and it had nothing to do with his teammates. There was way more room on the ice in 2009 (and 2009 and before), which benefitted fast skill players. Now there is no room, anywhere, and players like Patrick O’Sullivan who were good scorers then arent now. Thats because the game has changed.

So I understand your logic insofar as bad linemates would make it harder for Booth to score, not easier. But in your “its nonsensical” analysis you forgot that there are so many other factors besides the one you thought of why being on a bad team can make a player look better than they are. Im not sure how you, Sean, and Canuckles missed that.

This is not data, lol. Data can fluctuate, different trials go differently. Hockey players have a set skillset, it does not fluctuate. Their performance game to game, their production will fluctuate game to game, but it usually comes down to a mean that is reflected of their skillset.

In other words, production/impact over the course of a season is dependent on skillset, and if skillset doesnt fluctuate, then production/impact doesnt either. Therefore, if I had judged Booth on his game 1 production and not his skillset, you would have a point, because production game to game can fluctuate. But because skillset does not fluctuate game to game, youre just confused, no offense.

Note. When I say skillset cant fluctuate game to game, that doesnt mean it cant fluctuate over longer periods of time. And if Booth improves his skillset drastically he will obviously be a much better player, and I will change my opinion. But Im only basing my opinion on the skillset he has now, and his skillset in game 1 is going to be the same as it is in game 10, so the people waiting for game 10 to have an opinion on his skillset either dont understand this, or just dont feel theyve seen enough of his skillset yet to come to a conclusion. I always watch games from a talent evaluation perspective so I get 90% of the information in 1 game.

Wouldnt want to be fair! Blasphemy.

But thank you Canuckelhead, as I took the time to write the fanpost here (that has obviously done a good job creating discussion), I appreciate being given a fair shake. You make a good point and its very possible. I mean its definitely possible. I did think he was better. I dont watch a lot of the Florida Panthers, but I remember a couple seasons ago David Booth and Steven Weiss breaking out, and sort of feeling like they were two peas in a pod. I think I always preferred Weiss, but Booth was right up there. So when Vancouver traded for Booth, thats what I was expecting. Someone almost as good as Weiss, and Weiss is an elite second line forward, and more than capable as a top line forward. But now the contrast between Weiss and Booth is so much greater than I remember, and thats definitely part of my disappointment here.