Rasmus Andersson watch — Will he stay or will he go?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I think he will be extended but not 8 years. like 5 years.

Could see that happening at all. He's a year away from signing the biggest of his career and it will be s retirement contract.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Wolven

It isn't that useful of a stat. It can give you a starting point to do analysis but it doesn't tell you a story or enable solid conclusions like the ones being thrown around here. If you want to prove a point you have to do a lot more lifting than to point at +/-.
~~Clipped for brevity~~
Anyway, ya. +/- is a weak stat and shallow analysis doesn't prove anything.

I believe we are saying the same thing here when it comes to plus-minus, no? In fact, you state that it is a starting point to do analysis. I only stated that +/- merely tells you that there is something worth looking into. That's all. I definitely did not conduct any type of analysis, shallow or otherwise. Are you sure you are quoting the right post here, or did you stop reading after the first sentence? LoL

I think of +/- this way. It is an alarm. When it does go off, you have no idea why it is going off or what you should do about it other than to quickly do some research. Maybe it is a fire alarm, and you should rush outside for safety. Maybe it is the nearby zoo's alarm warning everyone to stay inside because the man eating tiger escaped. All you know is that there is a weird noise happening. It is up to you to investigate it further, as it doesn't tell you anything. To complicate matters, when it is silent, it doesn't mean that there isn't anything going either.

As for Andersson - (and I snipped that from the quote, to save space), we don't disagree. Yes, Andersson has had plenty of good games. However, like I stated in my post, his numbers all went down this year. +/- was a great 'flag' in his career because it points to him taking a huge step up in deployment (both in having to become the shutdown guy for the first time in his career, as well as being the anchor on a pairing which is also new to him). That's all the plus-minus has done in this case. There is nothing you said that I disagreed with... other than you saying my shallow analysis I did with +/- - there was no analysis done, shallow or otherwise.

There is little insight that plus minus can provide, and when used in any form of analysis, can actually prove disastrous. It is simply a flag that SOMETIMES can capture a significant change in something.

Examples that +/- flags and a possible misconception, followed by my own rationale:
Crosby has a -20 this year, which is an outlier in his career:
1) Crosby is aging and no longer has the wheels to be reliable defensively, and just chooses to focus on his offensive abilities.
2) The team sucks, and Crosby isn't an outlier at all on the team itself. The goalie hasn't been good, the defence hasn't been good. His underlying metrics, however, are still good defensively. His -20 is more a reflection of the team than of his play.

McDavid being a huge plus player in his career so far:
1) McDavid is a way better defensive center than Backlund is, and it isn't even close!
2) The eye-test (and probably underlying metrics) tells you that McDavid is a generational point producer, and is just outscoring his defensive issues.

Andersson becoming a -38 player:
1) He sucks now. Now that his other Swedish friends left town, he is disinterested and doesn't compete any longer. He wants out.
2) His deployment has drastically changed and he played through a significant injury.

There is no way anyone can look at a plus-minus and draw an accurate conclusion without at least understanding the player and the position that the player was put into. It was a tough season in which he had some growing pains, but it had to do with what was asked of him rather than him regressing and simply having an 'off' year (plus the injury!).

What I can 100% conclude based on Andersson's plus-minus is ONLY this:
If Andersson does get traded and irrespective of the return, there will be at least a few posters that from that new team and conclude that they paid too much, and they will cite his -38 as empirical evidence that Andersson was the worst defencemen on the team and one of the worst in the entire NHL.

[GioforPM]

The whole thing is silly. I can't think of a poster who doesn't think it's a good idea to trade Andersson. The main debate is, or should be about value and when the best window is. An extension is pretty much just a fall back if the offers suck.

But some posters want to not only agree that the trade should happen, but push the narrative that Andersson sucks. Whether you agree with that or not, it's really quite an irrelevant point.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I believe we are saying the same thing here when it comes to plus-minus, no? In fact, you state that it is a starting point to do analysis. I only stated that +/- merely tells you that there is something worth looking into. That's all. I definitely did not conduct any type of analysis, shallow or otherwise. Are you sure you are quoting the right post here, or did you stop reading after the first sentence? LoL

Yes, I quoted your post because it was the most reasonable to engage in a thread that has become largely unreasonable but I was reflecting on a number of posts that were all-in on the +/- being the pinnacle of data points.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Labeling people is the best sign of a weak argument.

Lol? After having paragraph's of data thrown at you which you dodged, you can't genuinely say that.

Yes- you said he was last in xGF except you spent the next 100 words on a puff piece.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Lol? After having paragraph's of data thrown at you which you dodged, you can't genuinely say that.

Yes- you said he was last in xGF except you spent the next 100 words on a puff piece.

No I didn't.

I started with last in xGF60, and then dug into the expected plus minus and then into where the disparity was, shedding light on the fact that the plus minus number was somewhat misleading.

Nothing puff about it.

So another drive by as the response? Just making my case for me. Appreciate it.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Just thinking out-loud here, but wouldn't you expect your 'shutdown' defencemen to be last in xGF60? It sort of makes sense to me, especially considering that this is the first season in which Rasmus was tasked with that assignment.


What are we arguing here - that he sucks? Or that he had a difficult season with the increased responsibilities?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Just thinking out-loud here, but wouldn't you expect your 'shutdown' defencemen to be last in xGF60? It sort of makes sense to me, especially considering that this is the first season in which Rasmus was tasked with that assignment.


What are we arguing here - that he sucks? Or that he had a difficult season with the increased responsibilities?

I don't think he's a shut down defenseman and was miscast.

He is a high event transition defenseman that had the worst xGA60 and the beset xGF60.

Not sure that's a guy that should be shouldered with the best of the opposition on a nightly basis. But then I'm not sure with Tanev gone they have anyone (maybe Bahl?) that should be taking that on.

The team lacks a true defender now.

[dammage79]

It's not a be all end all stat but in my humble opinion if you walk out of the season with a -25 to -40 , you got caved in.

But to be fair to Razz. This horrible season appears to be an outlier in his career. His worst season prior was ..... Last season at -11. Then -9 and minus -7 way back in his 3rd and 4th full time season.

[rogermexico]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think he's a shut down defenseman and was miscast.

He is a high event transition defenseman that had the worst xGA60 and the beset xGF60.

Not sure that's a guy that should be shouldered with the best of the opposition on a nightly basis. But then I'm not sure with Tanev gone they have anyone (maybe Bahl?) that should be taking that on.

The team lacks a true defender now.

I feel like that's top of the UFA shopping list for the summer - a reliable defence-first top four guy that upgrades Hanley and takes over a lot of the hard minutes Rasmus was playing.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Just thinking out-loud here, but wouldn't you expect your 'shutdown' defencemen to be last in xGF60? It sort of makes sense to me, especially considering that this is the first season in which Rasmus was tasked with that assignment.


What are we arguing here - that he sucks? Or that he had a difficult season with the increased responsibilities?

The problem with labeling a player as the shutdown defender is that he has significant more minutes against elite competition.

Bahl and Rasmus were partners most the year and they got

Rasmus - 468 mins against elite
Bahl - 437 mins against elite

Weegar did not play with Rasmus much during the season.

Weegar - 408 mins against elite

The difference isn't that much. It's not like Weegar and the waiver guys they picked up were sheltered.

When you dig into quality of teammate, Weegar gets a way bigger bump in my mind than Rasmus. Rasmus should get a bump as stats show that he played better than -38 against elite competition when looking at scoring chances.

But quality of teammate never gets brought up.

Weegar with Kadri or Backlund vs Elite:

262 mins 10 GF 0 GA

Rasmus with Kadri and Backlund vs Elite:

319 mins 9 GF 9 GA

Rasmus also gets Bahl vs Weegar's Hanley or Miromanov.

IMO everything points to Weegar being hands down this teams #1 dman and every bit as capable to play against elite competition as Rasmus. Paired with a Bahl rather than AHL level dmen, I see Weegar taking over the role as preferred match up against the other team's best players.

I agree with Bingo that Rasmus was miscast due to the Flames having no better options, but IMO he showed that he isn't that guy and I knew he wasn't before the season as him and Hanifin always got lit up against Elite forwards too.

I've said many times, Rasmus was in a role a few years again playing with some elite players and getting #1 pp time, best he could do was 50 points. He was often frustrating on the PP. Tons of PP dmen getting more than 50 points in today's NHL.

So, for me he is a decent 2nd pairing dman that does not excel on the PP or Pk. IMO you can replace him with a Tanev and pay a Tanev $4.5 mil. If this is the case, why would we keep him as Tanev types float around this league yearly.

Why would any team pay 1st rounders for a guy that can be replaced by a veteran defensive dman? We need to trade him this summer and get the best return we can, when Parekh makes this team, he will never see the PP again.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think he's a shut down defenseman and was miscast.

He is a high event transition defenseman that had the worst xGA60 and the beset xGF60.

Not sure that's a guy that should be shouldered with the best of the opposition on a nightly basis. But then I'm not sure with Tanev gone they have anyone (maybe Bahl?) that should be taking that on.

The team lacks a true defender now.

That's exactly how I see Rasmus as well, though I do believe this past season will help him become a better defender overall in the future.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by rogermexico

I feel like that's top of the UFA shopping list for the summer - a reliable defence-first top four guy that upgrades Hanley and takes over a lot of the hard minutes Rasmus was playing.

That's how I see it and it would be good asset management to trade Rasmus for picks and sign a 28–31-year-old veteran defensive dman for around what Rasmus makes right now.

Weegar - UFA
Bahl - Parekh

Bahl IMO would be a great partner for Parekh

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

The problem with labeling a player as the shutdown defender is that he has significant more minutes against elite competition.

Bahl and Rasmus were partners most the year and they got

Rasmus - 468 mins against elite
Bahl - 437 mins against elite

Weegar did not play with Rasmus much during the season.

Weegar - 408 mins against elite

The difference isn't that much. It's not like Weegar and the waiver guys they picked up were sheltered.

When you dig into quality of teammate, Weegar gets a way bigger bump in my mind than Rasmus. Rasmus should get a bump as stats show that he played better than -38 against elite competition when looking at scoring chances.

But quality of teammate never gets brought up.

Weegar with Kadri or Backlund vs Elite:

262 mins 10 GF 0 GA

Rasmus with Kadri and Backlund vs Elite:

319 mins 9 GF 9 GA

Rasmus also gets Bahl vs Weegar's Hanley or Miromanov.

IMO everything points to Weegar being hands down this teams #1 dman and every bit as capable to play against elite competition as Rasmus. Paired with a Bahl rather than AHL level dmen, I see Weegar taking over the role as preferred match up against the other team's best players.

I agree with Bingo that Rasmus was miscast due to the Flames having no better options, but IMO he showed that he isn't that guy and I knew he wasn't before the season as him and Hanifin always got lit up against Elite forwards too.

I've said many times, Rasmus was in a role a few years again playing with some elite players and getting #1 pp time, best he could do was 50 points. He was often frustrating on the PP. Tons of PP dmen getting more than 50 points in today's NHL.

So, for me he is a decent 2nd pairing dman that does not excel on the PP or Pk. IMO you can replace him with a Tanev and pay a Tanev $4.5 mil. If this is the case, why would we keep him as Tanev types float around this league yearly.

Why would any team pay 1st rounders for a guy that can be replaced by a veteran defensive dman? We need to trade him this summer and get the best return we can, when Parekh makes this team, he will never see the PP again.

I don’t really think this answers the question of what we’re arguing. What conclusion are you making here? Because if it really is that he’s a 2nd pairing defenceman who isn’t good on the PP or the PK, easily replaced, and isn’t worth a first but should also be traded now because… something… then I’m not sure who is making the counter point.

The chances of him getting traded are like 90+% and everyone seems fine with that and your position is we should trade him but it’s stupid for other teams to trade for him?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

The problem with labeling a player as the shutdown defender is that he has significant more minutes against elite competition.

Bahl and Rasmus were partners most the year and they got

Rasmus - 468 mins against elite
Bahl - 437 mins against elite

Weegar did not play with Rasmus much during the season.

Weegar - 408 mins against elite

The difference isn't that much. It's not like Weegar and the waiver guys they picked up were sheltered.

When you dig into quality of teammate, Weegar gets a way bigger bump in my mind than Rasmus. Rasmus should get a bump as stats show that he played better than -38 against elite competition when looking at scoring chances.

But quality of teammate never gets brought up.

Weegar with Kadri or Backlund vs Elite:

262 mins 10 GF 0 GA

Rasmus with Kadri and Backlund vs Elite:

319 mins 9 GF 9 GA

Rasmus also gets Bahl vs Weegar's Hanley or Miromanov.

IMO everything points to Weegar being hands down this teams #1 dman and every bit as capable to play against elite competition as Rasmus. Paired with a Bahl rather than AHL level dmen, I see Weegar taking over the role as preferred match up against the other team's best players.

I agree with Bingo that Rasmus was miscast due to the Flames having no better options, but IMO he showed that he isn't that guy and I knew he wasn't before the season as him and Hanifin always got lit up against Elite forwards too.

I've said many times, Rasmus was in a role a few years again playing with some elite players and getting #1 pp time, best he could do was 50 points. He was often frustrating on the PP. Tons of PP dmen getting more than 50 points in today's NHL.

So, for me he is a decent 2nd pairing dman that does not excel on the PP or Pk. IMO you can replace him with a Tanev and pay a Tanev $4.5 mil. If this is the case, why would we keep him as Tanev types float around this league yearly.

Why would any team pay 1st rounders for a guy that can be replaced by a veteran defensive dman? We need to trade him this summer and get the best return we can, when Parekh makes this team, he will never see the PP again.

Agree with all of that.

But I'd point out that Bahl wasn't seen as a huge upgrade over say Hanley or Pachal when the season started.

So we'd also have to decide how much playing with Andersson helped Bahl become what he is.

Its not like Bahl was brought in as a sure fire top four shutdown defenseman.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

The problem with labeling a player as the shutdown defender is that he has significant more minutes against elite competition.

Bahl and Rasmus were partners most the year and they got

Rasmus - 468 mins against elite
Bahl - 437 mins against elite

Weegar did not play with Rasmus much during the season.

Weegar - 408 mins against elite

The difference isn't that much. It's not like Weegar and the waiver guys they picked up were sheltered.

When you dig into quality of teammate, Weegar gets a way bigger bump in my mind than Rasmus. Rasmus should get a bump as stats show that he played better than -38 against elite competition when looking at scoring chances.

But quality of teammate never gets brought up.

Weegar with Kadri or Backlund vs Elite:

262 mins 10 GF 0 GA

Rasmus with Kadri and Backlund vs Elite:

319 mins 9 GF 9 GA

Rasmus also gets Bahl vs Weegar's Hanley or Miromanov.

IMO everything points to Weegar being hands down this teams #1 dman and every bit as capable to play against elite competition as Rasmus. Paired with a Bahl rather than AHL level dmen, I see Weegar taking over the role as preferred match up against the other team's best players.

I agree with Bingo that Rasmus was miscast due to the Flames having no better options, but IMO he showed that he isn't that guy and I knew he wasn't before the season as him and Hanifin always got lit up against Elite forwards too.

I've said many times, Rasmus was in a role a few years again playing with some elite players and getting #1 pp time, best he could do was 50 points. He was often frustrating on the PP. Tons of PP dmen getting more than 50 points in today's NHL.

So, for me he is a decent 2nd pairing dman that does not excel on the PP or Pk. IMO you can replace him with a Tanev and pay a Tanev $4.5 mil. If this is the case, why would we keep him as Tanev types float around this league yearly.

Why would any team pay 1st rounders for a guy that can be replaced by a veteran defensive dman? We need to trade him this summer and get the best return we can, when Parekh makes this team, he will never see the PP again.

I mostly agree here, but I think he is better than you think he is.



I think he is a valuable defencemen still. What I think is that - outside of his trash-talking which is underrated at throwing off the other team as well as giving your own team a bit of energy - is that he doesn't possess elite-level skill. Skating, playmaking, defending, shooting (he has a bomb, but doesn't get it off fast enough or accurately enough, and his wrister/snap isn't elite either), and he isn't overall physical or elite in transition. What he is, however, is good at everything, bad at nothing. There's value in that.


What I really think is that Andersson is not an 'anchor' for a pairing. Weegar is an anchor. Tanev was an anchor. Hannifin was more of an anchor than Andersson. Andersson is, however, a very good partner who can do everything well. I am comfortable having him in the #2 or #4 slot on a contender. Definitely #4 on a contender, and if injuries happen, you trust him to be a good #2 on a cup-winning team. I think this makes sense, right?


I think he is a valuable piece. Very good player and not someone that I think the Flames have to trade away if the goal is to continue competing while rebuilding on the fly, unless his contract is too much.


However, I much prefer to trade him because I want the Flames to lean-in on the rebuild more. That's my biggest motivator when it comes to an Andersson trade (other than his ask being too big). I think once Bahl gets a couple more years in the NHL, he can be that 'anchor' on the 2nd pairing and Andersson would look great on that 2nd pairing. Parekh will be a #1 guy, and hopefully it is either Weegar or someone else that ends up being the #2.

So I mostly agree with your thoughts, but just feel he given his "Good at basically everything", I feel he is worth more than I think you feel he is worth, that's all. He definitely isn't a shut-down guy, but like I wrote above, I do feel this past season's experience at it will help him to become a better defencemen next season and beyond.

[Tbull8]

Does anyone have a breakdown of how his +/- changed before and after the injury?
Like was he badly negative on average all year? or did the last 10-12 games skew it

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by rogermexico

I feel like that's top of the UFA shopping list for the summer - a reliable defence-first top four guy that upgrades Hanley and takes over a lot of the hard minutes Rasmus was playing.

I agree, and preferably on the left side, since the team will need a reliable partner for the young offensive RHD that are coming up through the system.

Originally Posted by Macho0978

IMO you can replace him with a Tanev and pay a Tanev $4.5 mil. If this is the case, why would we keep him as Tanev types float around this league yearly.

When Tanev was with the Flames, various metrics rated him as the single best shutdown defenceman in the league. Guys of that quality definitely do not ‘float around this league yearly’.

That said, a player doesn't have to be as good as Tanev to be a perfectly decent shutdown guy. So I agree with you, except for the bit of hyperbole.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I'm always puzzled when someone has such a massive axe to grind with a specific player. Whether or not he had a bad season, this is a player who has been a good Flame. I can't stand how some fans treat players on their way out.

Except Mike Smith. F that guy.

Mike Smith is the only former Flame that I would go out of my way to say #### you to.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Tbull8

Does anyone have a breakdown of how his +/- changed before and after the injury?
Like was he badly negative on average all year? or did the last 10-12 games skew it

Naw, that stat was off for the second hlaf of the year. But mostly, I think, because his offence dried up.