Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
I wasn't a fan of the term of the contract not because he was considered a bad player and more that he was an injury prone player that statistically appeared to be on the decline. His advanced stats I believe did not look great in his last season in Vancouver but that was likely due to having to cover for Hughes who's a mess in his own end. His previous career high for games played was 70 games and miraculously he went two seasons (one was abbreviated) injury free for the team. Looks like a case of a change of scenery benefitting the player in his later years.
|
Players have good years and bad years, and I think fans are too quick to label the bad ones as a decline. His last year in Van was his 29/30 year - that is prime for a defenseman. I think situation (playing partner, utilization, quality of competition) play a huge role in performance for defensemen, and as you said, he was playing with Hughes, on a really bad team.
I also think fans are quick to label players as injury-prone. Injuries are random, and few players are actually more prone to them than everyone else is. For Tanev, he blocks a lot of shots, and plays along the boards a lot, so he is going to get hit. So his style of play increases the expected number of injuries, no question. But I still thank fans overplay that card.