What is Daniil Miromanov?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Playing Miromanov with your best defenseman and giving him high defensive zone starts relative to his peers and playing him over 20 minutes per game

"He's being sheltered"

LMAO

Yet by that logic, replacing Weegar with Oesterle and keeping everything else the same is somehow more sheltering. Makes total sense.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not an appeal to authority. It's a jab at someone who suggested we have different definitions.

People have had the courtesy of actually working with your questions and providing answers.

Only someone stubbornly wanting to hold a position and keep arguing would still be in this mess.

So the NHL does not, in fact, have such a definition? Ok. Just making sure.

But I do appreciate you characterizing my requests for better stats as me being stubborn while a good chunk of CP gangs up. Surely you must be right if the mob is with you.

Using "courtesy" in the same post as taking "jabs" is especially rich.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Yet by that logic, replacing Weegar with Oesterle and keeping everything else the same is somehow more sheltering. Makes total sense.

The best defenseman plays against the other teams best players so playing Miromanov with your best defenseman means he is also playing against the other teams best players, which also means he is not being sheltered.

Combine that with high defensive zone starts and lots of ice time also mean he is not being sheltered. This is not hard to stuff to accept....or at least you would think.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The best defenseman plays against the other teams best players so playing Miromanov with your best defenseman means he is also playing against the other teams best players, which also means he is not being sheltered.

Combine that with high defensive zone starts and lots of ice time also mean he is not being sheltered. This is not hard to stuff to accept....or at least you would think.

Right. So NHL teams never pair lesser defenceman with better ones to spread out their defensive depth. Got it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Right. So NHL teams never pair lesser defenceman with better ones to spread out their defensive depth. Got it.

They but on the second and third pairings. Tanev was never playing on the 1st pair when he was sheltering guys

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Right. So NHL teams never pair lesser defenceman with better ones to spread out their defensive depth. Got it.

They might, but the lesser defenseman wouldn't be second on the team in even strength icetime (19:07/game which was more than Rasmus Andersson's 18:47/game).

I really do not think that the coaches or management view Miromanov the same as Pachal, Hanley, Solovyov, Kuznetsov, etc.

Even Strength Ice-time from March 9 to April 18
Pachal 13:41
Solovyov 15:12
Hanley 13:17
Okhotiuk 13:00
Gilbert 8:39

The profile you're describing (weak player paired with a good defenseman and sheltered with offensive zone starts) is Nikita Okhotiuk. He was paired with Andersson for 30mins of ice time and did okay with a 50%xGF. In the 70 minutes he played with Pachal he struggled a bit with a 47.4%xGF. He started in the offensive zone 58.4% of his shifts.

Miromanov started in the offensive zone the least of any Flames defensemen and as I shared in the OP, he did not struggle with xGF% with anyone. In fact his lowest xGF% was with Weegar at 53.5%.

Icetime and zone starts from NHL.com and xGF% from Moneypuck.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

They might, but the lesser defenseman wouldn't be second on the team in even strength icetime (19:07/game which was more than Rasmus Andersson's 18:47/game).

I really do not think that the coaches or management view Miromanov the same as Pachal, Hanley, Solovyov, Kuznetsov, etc.

Even Strength Ice-time from March 9 to April 18
Pachal 13:41
Solovyov 15:12
Hanley 13:17
Okhotiuk 13:00
Gilbert 8:39

The profile you're describing (weak player paired with a good defenseman and sheltered with offensive zone starts) is Nikita Okhotiuk. He was paired with Andersson for 30mins of ice time and did okay with a 50%xGF. In the 70 minutes he played with Pachal he struggled a bit with a 47.4%xGF. He started in the offensive zone 58.4% of his shifts.

Miromanov started in the offensive zone the least of any Flames defensemen and as I shared in the OP, he did not struggle with xGF% with anyone. In fact his lowest xGF% was with Weegar at 53.5%.

Icetime and zone starts from NHL.com and xGF% from Moneypuck.

"Miromanov was sHeLTerEd!1!"

It's funny to watch someone who refuses to admit being wrong twist themselves into pretzel with all the mental gymnastics they start doing to try and defend their weak position.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

So the NHL does not, in fact, have such a definition? Ok. Just making sure.

But I do appreciate you characterizing my requests for better stats as me being stubborn while a good chunk of CP gangs up. Surely you must be right if the mob is with you.

Using "courtesy" in the same post as taking "jabs" is especially rich.

Just get over yourself.

I haven't said a mean spirited thing through this. I've actually taken the time to answer every one of your posts with actual investigation and numbers.

You've been proven wrong by anyone's estimation.

Trying to play victim only adds to the running joke.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just get over yourself.

I haven't said a mean spirited thing through this. I've actually taken the time to answer every one of your posts with actual investigation and numbers.

You've been proven wrong by anyone's estimation.

Trying to play victim only adds to the running joke.

I can quote about a dozen other posters in this thread that do not see Miromanov the way you do. Maybe they're all wrong, too. And that is their right. But I don't see you going out of your way to correct them on their assessments.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on the standard of proof here. That's fine. You believe whatever you want.

But I'll tell you what. If in a year's time Miromanov is still proving himself to be a top pairing guy, I'll come back here and eat crow. And if he doesn't, hopefully you'll have the character to do the same.

Right now, while he has exceeded my expectations, I still see a flawed defenceman that is likely more a. third pairing guy than a top pairing guy at the NHL level.

That's my opinion. On an internet forum. Go figure.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Right now, while he has exceeded my expectations, I still see a flawed defenceman that is likely more a. third pairing guy than a top pairing guy at the NHL level.

Maybe he is, but that doesn't change the fact that the Flames weren't sheltering him.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I can quote about a dozen other posters in this thread that do not see Miromanov the way you do. Maybe they're all wrong, too. And that is their right. But I don't see you going out of your way to correct them on their assessments.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on the standard of proof here. That's fine. You believe whatever you want.

But I'll tell you what. If in a year's time Miromanov is still proving himself to be a top pairing guy, I'll come back here and eat crow. And if he doesn't, hopefully you'll have the character to do the same.

Right now, while he has exceeded my expectations, I still see a flawed defenceman that is likely more a. third pairing guy than a top pairing guy at the NHL level.

That's my opinion. On an internet forum. Go figure.

The numbers suggest he's been very good. I don't see the need to jump on that bandwagon with the 20 game sample size, but they're not wrong if you ignore the total games played.

The numbers suggest he hasn't been sheltered. He could be sheltered in the future and could slide down the lineup but he hasn't so far.

So yeah ... lots of reason to disagree with a person suggesting he's sheltered when he's not. Less of a reason to disagree with people that think he's been good when he has.

I don't see him as a top four either. But I'm not looking for a statistical reason to prove that's the case like you erroneously did.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

I can quote about a dozen other posters in this thread that do not see Miromanov the way you do. Maybe they're all wrong, too. And that is their right. But I don't see you going out of your way to correct them on their assessments.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on the standard of proof here. That's fine. You believe whatever you want.

But I'll tell you what. If in a year's time Miromanov is still proving himself to be a top pairing guy, I'll come back here and eat crow. And if he doesn't, hopefully you'll have the character to do the same.

Right now, while he has exceeded my expectations, I still see a flawed defenceman that is likely more a. third pairing guy than a top pairing guy at the NHL level.

That's my opinion. On an internet forum. Go figure.

Your assessment wasn't corrected. One of your data points was.

[sharkov]

Why is danill miramanov?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Your assessment wasn't corrected. One of your data points was.

And then he proceeded to play victim, talk about “the mob,” and how it’s his right to be wrong.

All because the stats only available to the elite, hidden away on dark web sites like… NHL.com… showed the opposite.

This is definitely funnier than when he was pretending he’d watched Miro in Vegas’ system but I appreciate his longstanding commitment to the bit.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And then he proceeded to play victim, talk about “the mob,” and how it’s his right to be wrong.

All because the stats only available to the elite, hidden away on dark web sites like… NHL.com… showed the opposite.

This is definitely funnier than when he was pretending he’d watched Miro in Vegas’ system but I appreciate his longstanding commitment to the bit.

Lol, was that him that was claiming he had watched every game of Miramanovs (and obviously had spent the entire time scouting just that one player, for whatever reason)?

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Why is danill miramanov?

Because his parents were "in the mood" about 9 months before he was born.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And then he proceeded to play victim, talk about “the mob,” and how it’s his right to be wrong.

All because the stats only available to the elite, hidden away on dark web sites like… NHL.com… showed the opposite.

This is definitely funnier than when he was pretending he’d watched Miro in Vegas’ system but I appreciate his longstanding commitment to the bit.

And I appreciate the cranial rent and board. Please keep forcing yourself into the middle of every disagreement I have on CP. You have no idea how good it is for the ego.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Your assessment wasn't corrected. One of your data points was.

Which data point was that? That he was "relatively sheltered"? My data point was he saw almost no time shorthanded, averaging 3 seconds a game. I posit there is some subjectivity to "relatively sheltered". But some claim there is an official NHL definition that exists somewhere maybe.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Lol, was that him that was claiming he had watched every game of Miramanovs (and obviously had spent the entire time scouting just that one player, for whatever reason)?

Never claimed any such thing. Go back and read the thread. The claim was I'd seen him play and that he didn't stand out for me. Imagine getting so hung up on such a claim that you bring it up months later. Or even better, you mischaracterize by exaggerating it. Imagine how sad your life has to be to obsess over such things. CP has a growing cohort. I don't even know who this Wastedyouth person is...

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Which data point was that? That he was "relatively sheltered"? My data point was he saw almost no time shorthanded, averaging 3 seconds a game. I posit there is some subjectivity to "relatively sheltered". But some claim there is an official NHL definition that exists somewhere maybe.

It's a hockey stats sub culture term. They don't publish dictionaries.

But if you asked 100 hockey fans what sheltered means they'd likely have some or all of the following.

- weighted to offensive starts
- weighted to offensive face off starts
- playing less time against top opposition
- all of this five on five

If one agrees with that then Miromanov wasn't sheltered.

Bringing up shorthanded time, to me, is a complete red herring.

If you want to discuss defensive ability of the team's defensemen without the word sheltered then you may/could have a point (though a player could be more suited defensively to five on five play).

And this is from a guy that isn't suggesting the player is destined to be a top four defenseman.

But in my mind you used a term either incorrectly, or worse without even looking it up creating the need to go two pages in defending a position that never had a chance in the first place.

Stick to what you think the player will become and you had all the real estate in the world.

Picked an odd place to plant a flag. Agenda posting can be spotted a mile away.