Blues Offseason Needs: How St. Louis Measures Up To NHL’s Conference Finalists

[TBone]

This one looks like a freebie from The Athletic.

-------------------------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

Blues offseason needs: How St. Louis measures up to NHL’s conference finalists

By Jeremy Rutherford
June 5, 2025 7:00 am CDT

- clip -

So with that, let’s use Dom Luszczyszyn’s Net Rating model to compare the state of the Blues’ roster to the average roster of the NHL’s four conference finalists: Florida, Edmonton, Dallas and Carolina.

The Net Rating model has a long track record of demonstrating predictive value, and even though it’s imperfect, there’s some reliability in how it can put into perspective which individual players are contributing to the team’s success from an offensive and defensive standpoint.

We will project the Blues’ lineup for the 2025-26 season — excluding unrestricted free agents Radek Faksa and Ryan Suter — and contrast it with one combining the ratings for the Panthers, Oilers, Stars and Hurricanes for an “average conference finalist” team.

Sure, it’s a bit skewed when you consider Edmonton has two all-world players in Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. But in order to compete, the Blues will need to add similar stars or get more out of their talent.

Here’s how they stack up:




To read more...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

[Harry S Deals]

This one looks like a freebie from The Athletic.

-------------------------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

Blues offseason needs: How St. Louis measures up to NHL’s conference finalists

By Jeremy Rutherford
June 5, 2025 7:00 am CDT

- clip -

So with that, let’s use Dom Luszczyszyn’s Net Rating model to compare the state of the Blues’ roster to the average roster of the NHL’s four conference finalists: Florida, Edmonton, Dallas and Carolina.

The Net Rating model has a long track record of demonstrating predictive value, and even though it’s imperfect, there’s some reliability in how it can put into perspective which individual players are contributing to the team’s success from an offensive and defensive standpoint.

We will project the Blues’ lineup for the 2025-26 season — excluding unrestricted free agents Radek Faksa and Ryan Suter — and contrast it with one combining the ratings for the Panthers, Oilers, Stars and Hurricanes for an “average conference finalist” team.

Sure, it’s a bit skewed when you consider Edmonton has two all-world players in Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. But in order to compete, the Blues will need to add similar stars or get more out of their talent.

Here’s how they stack up:




To read more...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

I dont think that is exactly necessary to compete for a Cup and how is Paraykos rating so low hes one of the top RHD in the NHL

[STL fan in MN]

This one looks like a freebie from The Athletic.

-------------------------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

Blues offseason needs: How St. Louis measures up to NHL’s conference finalists

By Jeremy Rutherford
June 5, 2025 7:00 am CDT

- clip -

So with that, let’s use Dom Luszczyszyn’s Net Rating model to compare the state of the Blues’ roster to the average roster of the NHL’s four conference finalists: Florida, Edmonton, Dallas and Carolina.

The Net Rating model has a long track record of demonstrating predictive value, and even though it’s imperfect, there’s some reliability in how it can put into perspective which individual players are contributing to the team’s success from an offensive and defensive standpoint.

We will project the Blues’ lineup for the 2025-26 season — excluding unrestricted free agents Radek Faksa and Ryan Suter — and contrast it with one combining the ratings for the Panthers, Oilers, Stars and Hurricanes for an “average conference finalist” team.

Sure, it’s a bit skewed when you consider Edmonton has two all-world players in Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. But in order to compete, the Blues will need to add similar stars or get more out of their talent.

Here’s how they stack up:




To read more...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

I dont think that is exactly necessary to compete for a Cup and how is Paraykos rating so low hes one of the top RHD in the NHL

I didn’t bother clicking on the article but there’s no way JR’s smart enough to come up with this stuff on his own so I can guarantee you he’s getting the data from Dom Luszczyszyn - the Athletic’s fancy stat guy. But Dom is a moron. I’m actually a proponent of fancy stats but Dom simply trusts his model over the eye test way too much. I’m not even sure he actually even watches hockey. Every year he’ll put out a list of what his model says is the best and worst contracts in the NHL and for at least 2-3 years now he’s had Parayko as one of the worst 2-3 contracts in the game, saying Parayko is really more like a $1-2M player. Only an incredibly overconfident, cocky moron would see results like that and think to himself “I need to publish this and bash Parayko because my model reveals he’s truly a 3rd pairing replacement level player” and not, “holy cr@p! Clearly my model isn’t accounting for all of the value a player can provide and I should investigate that and tweak my model before publishing the results so I don’t look like a moron.” But nope, Dom’s been posting garbage for years and then pompously proclaiming it as gospel. His model isn’t bad at all when it comes to offensive minded forwards but clearly he has it way too skewed to valuing some offensive values so defensive forwards and in particular defensive d-men get way undervalued in his model. Last I saw, he had Evan Bouchard rated as pretty much the best d-man in the history of the game.

TL;DR: Dom’s a moron so I didn’t even bother reading this article.

[sdaltons]

So we are better defensively and in the net...and that's bad?

[Harry S Deals]

So we are better defensively and in the net...and that's bad?

Who knows had Buchy made a better play with the puck the Blues may still be playing hockey

[DawgDad]

So we are better defensively and in the net...and that's bad?

We have seen this before, under this GM. It eventually led to a Cup. Keep in mind he also assembled a 300 goal team near the end of the "window".

[a smell of green grass]

I bet that the free agents will be lining up to play with the Blues. Everyone wants to lose 5 teeth for a living, especially the really elite talent guys.

[Harry S Deals]

So we are better defensively and in the net...and that's bad?

We have seen this before, under this GM. It eventually led to a Cup. Keep in mind he also assembled a 300 goal team near the end of the "window".

Three scoring line, great 4th line, great D and goaltending = contender. Then let the chips fall, luck, health all is just as important as two "super stars". Oilers havent won anything in a long time, we will see

[a smell of green grass]

This is very incomplete analysis.

It's easy for somebody with a grade "C" to MINIMIZE the differences with the "A" class.

The true reveal is when you see how much in common the "C" class has with the "F" class.

[Army's Mom]

This one looks like a freebie from The Athletic.

-------------------------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

Blues offseason needs: How St. Louis measures up to NHL’s conference finalists

By Jeremy Rutherford
June 5, 2025 7:00 am CDT

- clip -

So with that, let’s use Dom Luszczyszyn’s Net Rating model to compare the state of the Blues’ roster to the average roster of the NHL’s four conference finalists: Florida, Edmonton, Dallas and Carolina.

The Net Rating model has a long track record of demonstrating predictive value, and even though it’s imperfect, there’s some reliability in how it can put into perspective which individual players are contributing to the team’s success from an offensive and defensive standpoint.

We will project the Blues’ lineup for the 2025-26 season — excluding unrestricted free agents Radek Faksa and Ryan Suter — and contrast it with one combining the ratings for the Panthers, Oilers, Stars and Hurricanes for an “average conference finalist” team.

Sure, it’s a bit skewed when you consider Edmonton has two all-world players in Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. But in order to compete, the Blues will need to add similar stars or get more out of their talent.

Here’s how they stack up:




To read more...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

I dont think that is exactly necessary to compete for a Cup and how is Paraykos rating so low hes one of the top RHD in the NHL

I didn’t bother clicking on the article but there’s no way JR’s smart enough to come up with this stuff on his own so I can guarantee you he’s getting the data from Dom Luszczyszyn - the Athletic’s fancy stat guy. But Dom is a moron. I’m actually a proponent of fancy stats but Dom simply trusts his model over the eye test way too much. I’m not even sure he actually even watches hockey. Every year he’ll put out a list of what his model says is the best and worst contracts in the NHL and for at least 2-3 years now he’s had Parayko as one of the worst 2-3 contracts in the game, saying Parayko is really more like a $1-2M player. Only an incredibly overconfident, cocky moron would see results like that and think to himself “I need to publish this and bash Parayko because my model reveals he’s truly a 3rd pairing replacement level player” and not, “holy cr@p! Clearly my model isn’t accounting for all of the value a player can provide and I should investigate that and tweak my model before publishing the results so I don’t look like a moron.” But nope, Dom’s been posting garbage for years and then pompously proclaiming it as gospel. His model isn’t bad at all when it comes to offensive minded forwards but clearly he has it way too skewed to valuing some offensive values so defensive forwards and in particular defensive d-men get way undervalued in his model. Last I saw, he had Evan Bouchard rated as pretty much the best d-man in the history of the game.

TL;DR: Dom’s a moron so I didn’t even bother reading this article.

His model definitely isn't the end all, be all - and it is grossly skewed towards offensive players. That said, I think more of my problem with it is how the Athletic must force every writer to only use Dom's model - it's not so much Dom that I find arrogant, as much as the entire publication pushing his model as the standard.

That said, it does "validate" two of the most common complaints that have been voiced here, which I find interesting:

1. Faulk is the weak link in our Top 4 D.
2. Joseph/Sundqvist are anchors in our Top 9.

[Blues Dave]

I agree with the drift I'm getting from everyone responding to this point. And it's hard to go by where our season ended to predict the future. We were pretty much coming on like gang busters. No offense to the OP, he gives us something to talk about.

[Harry S Deals]

I agree with the drift I'm getting from everyone responding to this point. And it's hard to go by where our season ended to predict the future. We were pretty much coming on like gang busters. No offense to the OP, he gives us something to talk about.

The margin for winning and losing in the playoffs is paper thin. There is a lot of luck involved, puck bounces one way or another the 16 teams that qualify are not separated by that much. The Blues scored more goals than Florida this year and the Blues allowed fewer goals than Edmonton. The Blues need to stick to the process and see fully what they have with Holloway, Bolduc, Neighbours, Bolduc, Tucker etc.

[Blues Dave]

I agree with the drift I'm getting from everyone responding to this point. And it's hard to go by where our season ended to predict the future. We were pretty much coming on like gang busters. No offense to the OP, he gives us something to talk about.

The margin for winning and losing in the playoffs is paper thin. There is a lot of luck involved, puck bounces one way or another the 16 teams that qualify are not separated by that much. The Blues scored more goals than Florida this year and the Blues allowed fewer goals than Edmonton. The Blues need to stick to the process and see fully what they have with Holloway, Bolduc, Neighbours, Bolduc, Tucker etc.

I agree Harry
.

[DawgDad]

This one looks like a freebie from The Athletic.

-------------------------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

Blues offseason needs: How St. Louis measures up to NHL’s conference finalists

By Jeremy Rutherford
June 5, 2025 7:00 am CDT

- clip -

So with that, let’s use Dom Luszczyszyn’s Net Rating model to compare the state of the Blues’ roster to the average roster of the NHL’s four conference finalists: Florida, Edmonton, Dallas and Carolina.

The Net Rating model has a long track record of demonstrating predictive value, and even though it’s imperfect, there’s some reliability in how it can put into perspective which individual players are contributing to the team’s success from an offensive and defensive standpoint.

We will project the Blues’ lineup for the 2025-26 season — excluding unrestricted free agents Radek Faksa and Ryan Suter — and contrast it with one combining the ratings for the Panthers, Oilers, Stars and Hurricanes for an “average conference finalist” team.

Sure, it’s a bit skewed when you consider Edmonton has two all-world players in Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. But in order to compete, the Blues will need to add similar stars or get more out of their talent.

Here’s how they stack up:




To read more...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

I dont think that is exactly necessary to compete for a Cup and how is Paraykos rating so low hes one of the top RHD in the NHL

I didn’t bother clicking on the article but there’s no way JR’s smart enough to come up with this stuff on his own so I can guarantee you he’s getting the data from Dom Luszczyszyn - the Athletic’s fancy stat guy. But Dom is a moron. I’m actually a proponent of fancy stats but Dom simply trusts his model over the eye test way too much. I’m not even sure he actually even watches hockey. Every year he’ll put out a list of what his model says is the best and worst contracts in the NHL and for at least 2-3 years now he’s had Parayko as one of the worst 2-3 contracts in the game, saying Parayko is really more like a $1-2M player. Only an incredibly overconfident, cocky moron would see results like that and think to himself “I need to publish this and bash Parayko because my model reveals he’s truly a 3rd pairing replacement level player” and not, “holy cr@p! Clearly my model isn’t accounting for all of the value a player can provide and I should investigate that and tweak my model before publishing the results so I don’t look like a moron.” But nope, Dom’s been posting garbage for years and then pompously proclaiming it as gospel. His model isn’t bad at all when it comes to offensive minded forwards but clearly he has it way too skewed to valuing some offensive values so defensive forwards and in particular defensive d-men get way undervalued in his model. Last I saw, he had Evan Bouchard rated as pretty much the best d-man in the history of the game.

TL;DR: Dom’s a moron so I didn’t even bother reading this article.

His model definitely isn't the end all, be all - and it is grossly skewed towards offensive players. That said, I think more of my problem with it is how the Athletic must force every writer to only use Dom's model - it's not so much Dom that I find arrogant, as much as the entire publication pushing his model as the standard.

That said, it does "validate" two of the most common complaints that have been voiced here, which I find interesting:

1. Faulk is the weak link in our Top 4 D.
2. Joseph/Sundqvist are anchors in our Top 9.

Serious question, WHO needed The Athletic to tell them this?

Couple of points here:
1. 2LD was the weaker link, or close to on par with 2RD, until Broberg fell from the heavens. Remains to be seen if Faulk's issue are recoverable or a sign of decline.
2. Joseph/Sunny are energy guys. They do come up short of where the Blues ideally want to be with the 3rd line. With all the wingers healthy Joseph is depth or 4th line. Army needs to find the player to bridge to Dvorsky and bump Sunny down a line.
3. All teams start next season 0-0-0. The Blues right now appear to be in a much better position than they were coming out of camp last season. They could look even better soon.

[Natl20]

So Robert Thomas, who got Selke votes, is a 0.5 defense, just praying that he doesnt fall a couple notches to equal the others 'depth' players.

These rankings are stupid

[Frank Barone]

This one looks like a freebie from The Athletic.

-------------------------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

Blues offseason needs: How St. Louis measures up to NHL’s conference finalists

By Jeremy Rutherford
June 5, 2025 7:00 am CDT

- clip -

So with that, let’s use Dom Luszczyszyn’s Net Rating model to compare the state of the Blues’ roster to the average roster of the NHL’s four conference finalists: Florida, Edmonton, Dallas and Carolina.

The Net Rating model has a long track record of demonstrating predictive value, and even though it’s imperfect, there’s some reliability in how it can put into perspective which individual players are contributing to the team’s success from an offensive and defensive standpoint.

We will project the Blues’ lineup for the 2025-26 season — excluding unrestricted free agents Radek Faksa and Ryan Suter — and contrast it with one combining the ratings for the Panthers, Oilers, Stars and Hurricanes for an “average conference finalist” team.

Sure, it’s a bit skewed when you consider Edmonton has two all-world players in Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl. But in order to compete, the Blues will need to add similar stars or get more out of their talent.

Here’s how they stack up:




To read more...

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/640003 ... finalists/

I dont think that is exactly necessary to compete for a Cup and how is Paraykos rating so low hes one of the top RHD in the NHL

I didn’t bother clicking on the article but there’s no way JR’s smart enough to come up with this stuff on his own so I can guarantee you he’s getting the data from Dom Luszczyszyn - the Athletic’s fancy stat guy. But Dom is a moron. I’m actually a proponent of fancy stats but Dom simply trusts his model over the eye test way too much. I’m not even sure he actually even watches hockey. Every year he’ll put out a list of what his model says is the best and worst contracts in the NHL and for at least 2-3 years now he’s had Parayko as one of the worst 2-3 contracts in the game, saying Parayko is really more like a $1-2M player. Only an incredibly overconfident, cocky moron would see results like that and think to himself “I need to publish this and bash Parayko because my model reveals he’s truly a 3rd pairing replacement level player” and not, “holy cr@p! Clearly my model isn’t accounting for all of the value a player can provide and I should investigate that and tweak my model before publishing the results so I don’t look like a moron.” But nope, Dom’s been posting garbage for years and then pompously proclaiming it as gospel. His model isn’t bad at all when it comes to offensive minded forwards but clearly he has it way too skewed to valuing some offensive values so defensive forwards and in particular defensive d-men get way undervalued in his model. Last I saw, he had Evan Bouchard rated as pretty much the best d-man in the history of the game.

TL;DR: Dom’s a moron so I didn’t even bother reading this article.

His model definitely isn't the end all, be all - and it is grossly skewed towards offensive players. That said, I think more of my problem with it is how the Athletic must force every writer to only use Dom's model - it's not so much Dom that I find arrogant, as much as the entire publication pushing his model as the standard.

That said, it does "validate" two of the most common complaints that have been voiced here, which I find interesting:

1. Faulk is the weak link in our Top 4 D.
2. Joseph/Sundqvist are anchors in our Top 9.

How does this validate that Faulk is a weak link when he is rated above Fowler?

This data seems questionable and probably doesn't validate anything.