Hughes vs Makar -- Battle of the Titans

[HKSR]

9 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Update:

 

Quinn Hughes - 64 points  +34

Cale Makar - 60 points  +12

 

Hughes even has a game in hand.  As of right now, it's Quinn Hughes for the Norris.  Also, with Lindholm on the PP, look for Hughes to rack up even more assists.  He had 2 tonight from Lindholm tip ins.

 

Hughes is also on pace for 105 points.  The only defencemen in NHL history to score more than 105 points in one NHL season are Bobby Orr and Paul Coffey.  

You had me confused when you said Hughes has a game in hand lol.  I see you're talking about the schedule itself, not games played.  Makar has actually played 4 less games overall.  Hughes needs to build a bigger points gap to be noticed by the Eastern media though... they all have their eyes locked on Makar Makar Makar. 

[Coconuts]

7 minutes ago, HKSR said:

You had me confused when you said Hughes has a game in hand lol.  I see you're talking about the schedule itself, not games played.  Makar has actually played 4 less games overall.  Hughes needs to build a bigger points gap to be noticed by the Eastern media though... they all have their eyes locked on Makar Makar Makar. 

 

You may be right, the +/- argument is indicative of positive individual play but it's also a team statistic and I'm less certain about it mattering at the end of the day 

 

Makar has the more storied career and he's already a media favourite, if their point totals finish close together I will not be shocked to see Makar win

[Ronaldoescobar]

I think Makar is the front runner at the moment. Hughes (as another poster noted) will have to really increase the gap in points to take the Norris. 

[Elias Pettersson]

Last 6 games:

 

Quinn Hughes - 5 points  +1

Cale Makar - 0 points  -5

Noah Dobson - 6 points  -1

 

I think the Norris race is over.  Makar has slowed down significantly and Hughes is still plugging along, although he has slowed down as well.  

 

IMO, Noah Dobson might actually enter the race as the 3rd wheel.  

 

Quinn Hughes - 69 points  +33

Cale Makar - 60 points  +6

Noah Dobson - 58 points  +20

 

At his current pace, Dobson should pass Makar in points fairly soon.  By season’s end it could be Hughes vs. Dobson…

 

[HKSR]

13 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Last 6 games:

 

Quinn Hughes - 5 points  +1

Cale Makar - 0 points  -5

Noah Dobson - 6 points  -1

 

I think the Norris race is over.  Makar has slowed down significantly and Hughes is still plugging along, although he has slowed down as well.  

 

IMO, Noah Dobson might actually enter the race as the 3rd wheel.  

 

Quinn Hughes - 69 points  +33

Cale Makar - 60 points  +6

Noah Dobson - 58 points  +20

 

At his current pace, Dobson should pass Makar in points fairly soon.  By season’s end it could be Hughes vs. Dobson…

 

Lots of games left.  A hot streak for Makar and it could look a lot different.

[Miss Korea]

 

Where the hell did Makar go on this list?  I know he's lost step since coming back from that injury in January, but... seriously - where is he?

[Coconuts]

32 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Where the hell did Makar go on this list?  I know he's lost step since coming back from that injury in January, but... seriously - where is he?

 

Yeah, that's a bit of a weird one. Having Bouchard over Dobson is weird too though.

 

Josi's pretty close though, I was saying the other day that he's lowkey having a Norris caliber season. 

 

Makar and Hughes are neck and neck regarding point totals now, Makar's only three points back. If they stay neck and neck offensively it'll be interesting to see whether the difference between their +/- actually has any impact. Reputation is a real wildcard. 

[Miss Korea]

4 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

Yeah, that's a bit of a weird one. Having Bouchard over Dobson is weird too though.

 

Josi's pretty close though, I was saying the other day that he's lowkey having a Norris caliber season. 

 

Makar and Hughes are neck and neck regarding point totals now, Makar's only three points back. If they stay neck and neck offensively it'll be interesting to see whether the difference between their +/- actually has any impact. Reputation is a real wildcard. 

 

Makar should not deserve a Norris for this season.  He hasn't played up to his ability, although I think it's because he was rushed back from injury.

 

 

[Coconuts]

2 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Makar should not deserve a Norris for this season.  He hasn't played up to his ability, although I think it's because he was rushed back from injury.

 

 

 

It'll be interesting to see if the rest of his game see's improvement next season if he can stay healthy and get a good summer or training in. It'll also be interesting to see whether Hughes maintains or builds upon his game or sees some regression. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Canucks regress next season, if they do it'll be interesting to see how much of it is tied to Hughes. 

[Diamonds]

20 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

Yeah, that's a bit of a weird one. Having Bouchard over Dobson is weird too though.

 

Josi's pretty close though, I was saying the other day that he's lowkey having a Norris caliber season. 

 

Makar and Hughes are neck and neck regarding point totals now, Makar's only three points back. If they stay neck and neck offensively it'll be interesting to see whether the difference between their +/- actually has any impact. Reputation is a real wildcard. 

Bouchard definitely shouldn't be over Dobson. Even disregarding that Dobson is much better defensively, both are PPG but Dobson plays on a much lower scoring team. Dobson's offense is actually a lot more impressive than Bouchard's.

[Coconuts]

8 minutes ago, Diamonds said:

Bouchard definitely shouldn't be over Dobson. Even disregarding that Dobson is much better defensively, both are PPG but Dobson plays on a much lower scoring team. Dobson's offense is actually a lot more impressive than Bouchard's.

 

Agreed, Dobson is by far NYI's most important player this season, the same can't be said of Bouchard. 

[Wilbur]

53 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Makar should not deserve a Norris for this season.  He hasn't played up to his ability, although I think it's because he was rushed back from injury.

 

 

I forget who was saying in on SN 650, but it was about a week ago and they were talking about how Makar's minutes this year where being sheltered heavily.  Ie. mainly with MacKinnon, WAY more O-zone starts, etc.

[King Heffy]

30 minutes ago, Diamonds said:

Bouchard definitely shouldn't be over Dobson. Even disregarding that Dobson is much better defensively, both are PPG but Dobson plays on a much lower scoring team. Dobson's offense is actually a lot more impressive than Bouchard's.

Agreed, Bouchard isn't even good enough to play on a legit NHL blueline with the way he plays in his own zone.  This chart only demonstrates that the only way to effectively evaluate players is by watching the game instead of trusting some analytics dweeb who has zero understanding of the sport.  

[Miss Korea]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

Agreed, Bouchard isn't even good enough to play on a legit NHL blueline with the way he plays in his own zone.  This chart only demonstrates that the only way to effectively evaluate players is by watching the game instead of trusting some analytics dweeb who has zero understanding of the sport.  

 

Do you have nothing more useful to do than just target my posts and talk nonsense?  This is like the third or fourth post in a day where you've just taken a shot at me.  Get a grip.

[King Heffy]

Just now, Miss Korea said:

 

Do you have nothing more useful to do than just target my posts and talk nonsense?  This is like the third or fourth post in a day where you've just taken a shot at me.  Get a grip.

No shot taken at you.  Unlike you, I'm capable of avoiding personal attacks on other posters.  Since you seem to be having some difficulty with reading comprehension, I'll clarify that I'm referring to the clowns who made these charts in the first place, not those who think they have any use.  You, on the other hand, seem to think that no one else has the right to an opinion that differs from yours, and can't have a civilized disagreement without resorting to personal attacks.  If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you'd have figured this out by now.

[Pears]

7 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

No shot taken at you.  Unlike you, I'm capable of avoiding personal attacks on other posters.  Since you seem to be having some difficulty with reading comprehension, I'll clarify that I'm referring to the clowns who made these charts in the first place, not those who think they have any use.  You, on the other hand, seem to think that no one else has the right to an opinion that differs from yours, and can't have a civilized disagreement without resorting to personal attacks.  If you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you'd have figured this out by now.

 

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, Pears said:

 

Show me where I've personally attacked another poster on here.

[HKSR]

4 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Where the hell did Makar go on this list?  I know he's lost step since coming back from that injury in January, but... seriously - where is he?

How do they calculate those "Offensive" and "Defensive" ratings?

[Miss Korea]

1 hour ago, HKSR said:

How do they calculate those "Offensive" and "Defensive" ratings?

 

This is Athletic, so couldn't tell you.  Also can't tell you where Makar is.

[Miss Korea]

3 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Show me where I've personally attacked another poster on here.

 

Why don't you show us someone who thinks Bouchard is an AHL defender.

 

Even the biggest Flames fan wouldn't say something as stupid as that.

Edited March 15 by Miss Korea

[King Heffy]

8 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Why don't you show us someone who thinks Bouchard is an AHL defender.

 

Even the biggest Flames fan wouldn't say something as stupid as that.

Because I'm entitled to my opinion, whether you want to accept that or not.  You've had guys like @Rekker also say that he couldn't play on his team, but every time that you see this, you resort to personal attacks.  Why would I bother humouring you when that's inevitably where the conversation is going?  You pull charts on here, and get upset when people question their validity when you yourself admit you have no idea how they're calculated or who did the calculation.  You're not here to debate in good faith.

Edited March 15 by King Heffy

[Miss Korea]

43 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Because I'm entitled to my opinion, whether you want to accept that or not.  You've had guys like @Rekker also say that he couldn't play on his team, but every time that you see this, you resort to personal attacks.  Why would I bother humouring you when that's inevitably where the conversation is going?  You pull charts on here, and get upset when people question their validity when you yourself admit you have no idea how they're calculated or who did the calculation.  You're not here to debate in good faith.

 

Rekker wasn't talking about Bouchard - he was talking about Morgan Rielly and the Leafs, who have proceeded to win games with or without him in the lineup.  You two tried to spin it like he was the cause of them losing, when the players, fans, AND the media were all discussing the entire team's return to form.  But no - "all Rielly's fault" for you guys.

 

That's the thing about you, Hef.  You can have as many opinions as you want.  But when someone gets back at you and demands proof, you never, EVER provide any.  In fact, why don't you start a thread with that opinion you once gave me - that Quinn Hughes should've played in the AHL for the first two years.  See how quickly your "opinion" gets shot down.

[King Heffy]

5 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Rekker wasn't talking about Bouchard - he was talking about Morgan Rielly and the Leafs, who have proceeded to win games with or without him in the lineup.  You two tried to spin it like he was the cause of them losing, when the players, fans, AND the media were all discussing the entire team's return to form.  But no - "all Rielly's fault" for you guys.

 

That's the thing about you, Hef.  You can have as many opinions as you want.  But when someone gets back at you and demands proof, you never, EVER provide any.  In fact, why don't you start a thread with that opinion you once gave me - that Quinn Hughes should've played in the AHL for the first two years.  See how quickly your "opinion" gets shot down.

 

On 2/13/2024 at 2:42 PM, Rekker said:

I share the same spite for dmen, always have, that can't play D as Heffy does. Reilly, Barrie, Bouchards of the world are not welcome on my team. Lol.

Opinions, by their very definition, do not provide proof.  However, here is a fact that, despite your claim to the contrary, Rekker said exactly what I claimed he did.  That's a hell of a lot better proof than the random numbers that you admit in this very thread you have no clue about who made them or how they were made, or the personal insults you insist on directing towards anyone who disagrees with you.

[Miss Korea]

3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

 

Opinions, by their very definition, do not provide proof.  However, here is a fact that, despite your claim to the contrary, Rekker said exactly what I claimed he did.  That's a hell of a lot better proof than the random numbers that you admit in this very thread you have no clue about who made them or how they were made, or the personal insults you insist on directing towards anyone who disagrees with you.

 

That's all you are, Heffy.  No proof.  Just unsubstantiated opinion after opinion.  Extremely bad opinions if you ask anyone.  Why don't you stand up for yourself and post the second part of my reply?  Go ahead and tell everyone you think Hughes should've been an AHLer his first two seasons.

[King Heffy]

10 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

That's all you are, Heffy.  No proof.  Just unsubstantiated opinion after opinion.  Extremely bad opinions if you ask anyone.  Why don't you stand up for yourself and post the second part of my reply?  Go ahead and tell everyone you think Hughes should've been an AHLer his first two seasons.

You literally requested I find anyone who supported my opinion.  I provided Rekker as an example.  You then claimed he didn't say what I stated he did, and then I provided proof.    Why in holy hell would I continue this conversation when you have no interest in a civilized debate?  I'm sorry reading comprehension seems to difficult for you, but that doesn't give you the right to speak for everyone, which you seem to insist on doing for myself, Alf, anyone in the political threads.  You are not the only person entitled to an opinion on here.  Did I think Hughes should have started in the AHL?  Yes.  Was I wrong?  Also  yes.  I can admit when I was wrong; you should try that some time.

Edited March 15 by King Heffy