Why Erik Karlsson should win the Hart

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by sun

Meh, one of the best players in the league turned him inside-out. It happens.

JG has owned Doughty before too.

But he didn't turn him inside out. Karlsson just turned himself out of the play

[sun]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But he didn't turn him inside out. Karlsson just turned himself out of the play

Don't underestimate the Johnny mind control - "These are not the droids you're looking for"

[GranteedEV]

One thing about the sens, their forwards forecheck and cycle really damn well, and they've got some great finishers (Hoffman, Stone, Ryan, Turris) in their top 6.

Just because the Sens have no defensive depth doesn't mean Karlsson is the best defenseman in the league. It's like with us. we're way worse with Engelland on the ice because Engelland is not a top 4 defenseman, but that doesn't actually mean the on/off ice stats mean a whole lot.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But he didn't turn him inside out. Karlsson just turned himself out of the play

There was a play last year where Josh Jooris turned Karlsson inside out though.

[Samonadreau]

Doughty - 13 goals.
Karlsson - 11 goals.

Considering how much better Doughty is in every other dimension but point totals (assists). I don't see how anyone could say Karlsson is a better defenseman.

[Madrox]

You bumped this from like 10 days ago to post that? Karlsson's got more than 25 points on Doughty this year so far, and you're going to cherry pick the goals and say Doughty's better? Karlsson's leading his team in scoring by 15 points, he must really be getting a lot of help there too.

You can make a case for Doughty being better than Karlsson, but don't try to do it using cherry-picked offensive stats. It just makes you look silly.

[CroFlames]

Karlsson will win the Norris again since it's just morphed into the trophy for highest scoring d-man.

But to win the Hart, the Sens need to make the playoffs. That's the caveat for me.

[1qqaaz]

Since apparently only (offensive) stats matter in regards to the norris trophy, lets compare Karlsson with some other dmen other than just Doughty (who I agree probably deserves the norris).

Erik Karlsson
Goals: 11
Points: 68
+/-: -3
Hits: 72

Brent Burns
Goals: 24 (same as Doughty and Karlsson combined)
Points: 59
+/-: -2
Hits: 84

Oliver Ekman-Larsson
Goals: 19
Points: 49
+/-: -12
Hits: 143

Burns has been heating up. I wonder how the Karlsson-lovers would react if Burns eclipsed him in points (doubt but possible). I don't think many people think Burns is in consideration for the Noris, even though he's more physical than Karlsson and has more than twice the goals.

Suter, Vlassic and Seabrook are all having great offensive seasons for players who are often classified as "defensive defensemen". Even when defensive guys double their offensive output, they still likely won't get much consideration.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Burns is very good, and I think extremely underrated... but he is generally playing with other very good players. He isn't a passenger, obviously, he makes his teammates look good, but they do the same for him.

The difference with Karlsson is how much of a disaster the Senators are without him on the ice. Marc Methot has been a steaming pile of garbage this year and has spent more time with Karlsson than anyone else. If you think the Habs have been exposed by losing price, the Senators would be in much the same situation without Karlsson.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Madrox

You bumped this from like 10 days ago to post that? Karlsson's got more than 25 points on Doughty this year so far, and you're going to cherry pick the goals and say Doughty's better? Karlsson's leading his team in scoring by 15 points, he must really be getting a lot of help there too.

You can make a case for Doughty being better than Karlsson, but don't try to do it using cherry-picked offensive stats. It just makes you look silly.

Yup I bumped it. Go cry me a river.

The point was that Doughty is all around a superior defenseman and he has more goals. Karlsson's edge on Doughty is supposed to be his offense but he doesn't even have as many goals.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The difference with Karlsson is how much of a disaster the Senators are without him on the ice.

So what that tell us, is the Senators lack depth at defense. What that doesn't tell us, is that Karlsson is the most valuable player in the league. Most valuable to his team, maybe, but not absolutely most valuable.

Also the Sens' top forwards group (Stone, Turris, Ryan, Zibanejad, Hoffman, Pageau) is far from "a disaster". Maybe they, like every other forward group in the league, do need a functional puck-mover. But unlike, for example our forward group, or even Edmonton's forward group, they are consistently strong below the hashmarks and a dangerous group of finishers.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

So what that tell us, is the Senators lack depth at defense.

I think it says a bit more than that - if you have a really bad team that's suddenly made into a pretty good one when one guy happens to be on the ice, that says a lot about how much of a difference he makes.

Also the Sens' top forwards group (Stone, Turris, Ryan, Zibanejad, Hoffman, Pageau) is far from "a disaster".

It's highly variable. Stone looks like a legitimate top line two way player who sees everyone he plays with do better, but he's the only one clearly in that category with his play this season. Turris has been fine, but not "top line center" level by any means. Mike Hoffman is a threat, but quite one-dimensional. Ryan is playing like he belongs on the 2010 Oilers, Zibanejad has been very disappointing (I expected a breakout season from him) and Pageau really has no business in the top six.

Most of the team has shot differential and scoring chance numbers that look like last year's Buffalo Sabres. Karlsson plays something like 30 minutes a night, during which the team is competitive... but for the other 30 they might be the worst team in hockey.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think it says a bit more than that - if you have a really bad team that's suddenly made into a pretty good one when one guy happens to be on the ice, that says a lot about how much of a difference he makes.

They aren't a pretty good one when he's on the ice. They're a bad team with him as well.

Karlsson doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as Hart.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think it says a bit more than that - if you have a really bad team that's suddenly made into a pretty good one when one guy happens to be on the ice, that says a lot about how much of a difference he makes.


It's highly variable. Stone looks like a legitimate top line two way player who sees everyone he plays with do better, but he's the only one clearly in that category with his play this season. Turris has been fine, but not "top line center" level by any means. Mike Hoffman is a threat, but quite one-dimensional. Ryan is playing like he belongs on the 2010 Oilers, Zibanejad has been very disappointing (I expected a breakout season from him) and Pageau really has no business in the top six.

Most of the team has shot differential and scoring chance numbers that look like last year's Buffalo Sabres. Karlsson plays something like 30 minutes a night, during which the team is competitive... but for the other 30 they might be the worst team in hockey.

IMO you may be surprised if say Karlsson was injured for a spell to see the team play more responsible defensively as his high risk/reward style is probably taxing on the team in the big picture. Obviously they won't be able to replace his points but they may play a more solid team game.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Lol at FDW again just saying things. I picture you wearing a wooden placard on a street corner with a cup full of pencils shouting the virtues of Drew Doughty.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

IMO you may be surprised if say Karlsson was injured for a spell to see the team play more responsible defensively as his high risk/reward style is probably taxing on the team in the big picture. Obviously they won't be able to replace his points but they may play a more solid team game.

Why would he need to get injured for us to run this test? The Sens already spend just over 50% of their games without him - he plays about 29 minutes per game. There's information available on various websites that track each player's stats when playing with Karlsson and playing without. All of that information suggests that most of the team is a train wreck without him, not more responsible defensively.

For example, the Sens are the worst team in the league at giving up shots five on five, but they give up fewer shots with Karlsson on the ice than any other Sens defenseman. He ain't the problem there.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Lol at FDW again just saying things. I picture you wearing a wooden placard on a street corner with a cup full of pencils shouting the virtues of Drew Doughty.

Why would he need to get injured for us to run this test? The Sens already spend just over 50% of their games without him - he plays about 29 minutes per game. There's information available on various websites that track each player's stats when playing with Karlsson and playing without. All of that information suggests that most of the team is a train wreck without him, not more responsible defensively.

For example, the Sens are the worst team in the league at giving up shots five on five, but they give up fewer shots with Karlsson on the ice than any other Sens defenseman. He ain't the problem there.

It's very hard to not get a sense of what FDW is talking about when watching a Sens game.

The coaching style does seem to adjust/change when Karlsson is on ice, but the team still looks quite bad. This adjustment also justifies the need for him to get injured to "run this test".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That would be pretty odd; "we're playing X system with this guy but once he's off, change the system"... I don't think so. The team looks different with EK on the ice because when he's on, everything runs through him. So I don't agree that it's a change in coaching strategy, except to the extent that Cameron probably gives him a pretty long leash to do his thing.

Even if you were right though, that would suggest the coaches should be fired immediately, because it would mean that they change the way the Sens play when Karlsson gets to the bench so as to be more defensively responsible, only to see the team get worse defensively and give up even more shots and scoring chances. Ouch.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Lol at FDW again just saying things. I picture you wearing a wooden placard on a street corner with a cup full of pencils shouting the virtues of Drew Doughty.

Why would he need to get injured for us to run this test? The Sens already spend just over 50% of their games without him - he plays about 29 minutes per game. There's information available on various websites that track each player's stats when playing with Karlsson and playing without. All of that information suggests that most of the team is a train wreck without him, not more responsible defensively.

For example, the Sens are the worst team in the league at giving up shots five on five, but they give up fewer shots with Karlsson on the ice than any other Sens defenseman. He ain't the problem there.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That would be pretty odd; "we're playing X system with this guy but once he's off, change the system"... I don't think so. The team looks different with EK on the ice because when he's on, everything runs through him. So I don't agree that it's a change in coaching strategy, except to the extent that Cameron probably gives him a pretty long leash to do his thing.

Even if you were right though, that would suggest the coaches should be fired immediately, because it would mean that they change the way the Sens play when Karlsson gets to the bench so as to be more defensively responsible, only to see the team get worse defensively and give up even more shots and scoring chances. Ouch.

You've argued against yourself here.

EE was saying that the Sens would possibly be a better team without him because they would play a different system.

You argued that they already play half the game without him (which totally misses the point, and it doesn't work that way), then you argue they aren't going to change the system for half the game.

Well of course they're not, that's the point. When he isn't on the ice, they play the same game. But that game is designed around him. So of course they are going to be worse at it when he isn't on the ice.

What EE is saying is that the Sens would be a better team without him because they wouldn't play that high risk style - they would in fact play a different system.

The bottom line is that great players make their team better. Karlsson doesn't not make the Sens better. They have been building around him for several years and they have exactly the same issues that they have always had. He's a point producer and nothing more.