Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
The argument that Keith is going to be better because it was Chicago making him bad, not him actually being bad, doesn't make any sense even if you're being charitable. I mean, he was one of their top d-men, playing a lot of minutes - if they were bad, you'd think he was a big part of why they were bad.
But regardless, you're effectively saying the stats are lying to us. Okay, fine. So what we're saying is that the only available evidence says that he's terrible, but we shouldn't trust it. Let's say we don't. Throw it in the garbage. We instead have to go with no evidence at all about whether he's any good or not. Would you sign a player at random for 5.5M for two years?
Further, it makes more sense to not throw out the stats but just assume that they underrate his abilities because he was on a team with poor defensive structure. Well, are the Oilers a team with significantly better defensive structure? How much is switching to the Oilers going to help? Because even if it does help somewhat, what that would do is take him from being statistically the worst defenseman in the league at preventing opposing team offence to... maybe replacement level? Maybe slightly above?
So everything goes right for you, your predictions were correct and Keith bounces back from terrible to passable. You're now paying a #5 defender 5.5 million for two years, and you gave up assets to do it.
There's just no way to spin it.
|
I like the fact that we have more than goals and assists than most ... but there is some ground behind stats are gospel and stats are lying to us.
I think who a player plays with and in what system is a factor that hasn't been 100% ironed out in underlying stats.
Tanev is a great example of that.
Canuck fans felt that Tanev was on the decline and that Hughes was equally as good with Tyler Myers.
This year Hughes implodes playing largely with Hamonic and Tanev looks like one of the better defensive defensemen in the game.
Lots to unpack there.