[PGT] Flames beat Vancouver, 6-3!

[GioforPM]

Stats are a difficult animal when it comes to the Selke. Historically I have always felt it’s a defensive award and offensive stats shouldn’t come into it as much. But they have. Hence you get Modano winning it over guys who were, at the time, given shadow roles against Gretzky et al. Naturally those guys scored less and were on for a decent amount of goals. But it always seemed like they were giving it to the best offensive player who was also pretty good at defence, as opposed to defensive specialists.

To me the award should come down to: if you were going to play a forward against the best player on the other team, be it McDavid, Ovechkin, Matthews, Mackinnon, Crosby, Gaudreau, who would you want on your team to shut them down.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And I would counter that with the following...

On ice even strength goals for and against:

Lindholm: 104 - 47, differential +57
Bergeron.: 50 - 33, differential +17

The reason we use chances instead of actual goals is sample size - chances should eliminate luck. But over the course of an entire season, the sample size for actual production is large enough, and chances are essentially irrelevant. What matters is outscoring the opposition.

Over the course of the season, the Flames outscored the opposition 104 - 47 with Lindholm on the ice. That's a historical season, and a total mic drop.

And Bergeron is so far behind that I don't care what any defensive analytics say.

And that is with Bergeron getting 12% more offensive starts than Lindholm. Sutter used Lindholm's line in way more defensive situations even strength than Cassidy did Bergeron's line. Bergeron's line actually got pretty cushy minutes relatively speaking. In that context, the Lindholm line dominance is even more amazing.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I mean if you can't win it being in this company....

https://twitter.com/user/status/1518099679799648257

How many of those guys won the Selke. While I agree that Lindholm is and should be in the running I'm not sure that list says anything about who should win.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Stats are a difficult animal when it comes to the Selke. Historically I have always felt it’s a defensive award and offensive stats shouldn’t come into it as much. But they have. Hence you get Modano winning it over guys who were, at the time, given shadow roles against Gretzky et al. Naturally those guys scored less and were on for a decent amount of goals. But it always seemed like they were giving it to the best offensive player who was also pretty good at defence, as opposed to defensive specialists.

To me the award should come down to: if you were going to play a forward against the best player on the other team, be it McDavid, Ovechkin, Matthews, Mackinnon, Crosby, Gaudreau, who would you want on your team to shut them down.

Yes, okay. But every team has a candidate for that. So how do you choose which one was the best?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by cannon7

And that is with Bergeron getting 12% more offensive starts than Lindholm. Sutter used Lindholm's line in way more defensive situations even strength than Cassidy did Bergeron's line. Bergeron's line actually got pretty cushy minutes relatively speaking. In that context, the Lindholm line dominance is even more amazing.

Speaking of usage...

SH TOI/GP

Lindholm: 2:07
Bergeron: 1:42

PP TOI/GP

Lindholm: 2:50
Bergeron: 3:02

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Ignoring the other side of the equation is the definition of the award. It doesn't matter if it was 204-47 - Lindholm still allows goals against at a higher rate.

It is easier to keep the puck out of your own net when you get 12% more offensive starts than the other guy. That's how many more Bergeron got relative to Lindholm.

If anything, Bergeron's stats are a bit padded because Cassidy needed his line to be a offensive producer (which it didn't even come close to the Lindholm line) and as such Bergeron saw considerably less time in his own zone. That's not taking anything away from Bergeron defensively. It's just that Sutter used the Lindholm line in all situations and they dominated in all situations. Whereas Bergeron's line was used as an offensive line even strength.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, okay. But every team has a candidate for that. So how do you choose which one was the best?

The one you’d choose out of every team’s best guy.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Your point here is that differential isn't proof of good defense, and I agree. And no, Florida isn't the best defensive team, simply because they have the best differential.

But Lindholm's case isn't just about offense. He has been stellar defensively as well. That line is both shutting down the opposition AND hammering them with their own offense.

Differential isn't everything, but it also shouldn't be ignored completely. Because it definitely DOES matter. And playing in the offensive zone is the best defense there is.

Lindholm's case is just about offense. That's the point I'm making. He's been good defensively, I won't argue that. But if he had put up 55 points, with exactly the same defensive results, he wouldn't be on anyone's radar. Even on the Flames, Backlund has better defensive results than Lindholm.


That's why I brought up Florida - as a team they have a profile very similar to Lindholm. They're the runaway leaders in +/- on the back of jaw-dropping offense and very good defense.



Playing in the offensive zone is great defense, agreed. But that should show up in the numbers. If two players allow goals at the same rate, and one spends way more time in the offensive zone, doesn't that mean he's also allowing way more goals when he has to defend?


It's a huge pet peeve of mine the way awards are more about media narrative than consistently applying the same criteria. I think it's incredibly dumb that elite defensive players will get no Selke attention until they have a career year in points. It really cheapens the award IMO when the media starts with a player and works their way back to the criteria. It's the same thing with the Hart trophy going to "star player who made the playoffs with the worst supporting cast" or the Jack Adams going to "coach who surprisingly made the playoffs". It's criminal that Bob Hartley has a Jack Adams but Jon Cooper, Mike Sullivan, and Joel Quenneville don't.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think he's referring to the underlying numbers ... Bergeron in literally on island when it comes to keeping the other team at bay when he's on the ice.

1.52 xGA60 ... next closest guy is 1.79
66% CF% ... next closest guy is 62%
40.4 CA60 ... next closest guy is 42.2

He's gapping the entire league.

Appreciated, the xGA and CA make sense. To me CF% can be looked at as a proxy for +/-. If the data points of 50 GF and 33 GA are correct, the actual GF% is closer to 60 than 66.

I’d be curious where some of the previous year winners landed, guys like Kopitar. Sometimes some of these awards feel like reputation awards, and I wonder if there is an underlying metrics that correlates with the award

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The one you’d choose out of every team’s best guy.

Yes that is clear. The question is: using what criteria? That is what the current discussion is about.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Lindholm's case is just about offense. That's the point I'm making. He's been good defensively, I won't argue that. But if he had put up 55 points, with exactly the same defensive results, he wouldn't be on anyone's radar. Even on the Flames, Backlund has better defensive results than Lindholm.


That's why I brought up Florida - as a team they have a profile very similar to Lindholm. They're the runaway leaders in +/- on the back of jaw-dropping offense and very good defense.



Playing in the offensive zone is great defense, agreed. But that should show up in the numbers. If two players allow goals at the same rate, and one spends way more time in the offensive zone, doesn't that mean he's also allowing way more goals when he has to defend?


It's a huge pet peeve of mine the way awards are more about media narrative than consistently applying the same criteria. I think it's incredibly dumb that elite defensive players will get no Selke attention until they have a career year in points. It really cheapens the award IMO when the media starts with a player and works their way back to the criteria. It's the same thing with the Hart trophy going to "star player who made the playoffs with the worst supporting cast" or the Jack Adams going to "coach who surprisingly made the playoffs". It's criminal that Bob Hartley has a Jack Adams but Jon Cooper, Mike Sullivan, and Joel Quenneville don't.

Strongly disagree with the bold. If you think Lindholm is all about offense, not many will agree with you.

I agree that elite defensive players should not be ignored, simply because they didn't put up a lot of points. However, you are incorrectly dismissing Lindholm in an attempt to make that point.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Playing in the offensive zone is great defense, agreed. But that should show up in the numbers. If two players allow goals at the same rate, and one spends way more time in the offensive zone, doesn't that mean he's also allowing way more goals when he has to defend?

This is the fundamental flaw of Corsi. It doesn't take into account zone starts. If you get 75.9% offensive zone starts, like Patrick Kane, your Corsi is going to be inflated. Even then Kane is a disaster defensively. But a guy like Bergeron getting nearly 60% offensive zone starts is only going to benefit in terms of Corsi. If the Lindolm line had similar usage from Sutter it wouldn't even be up for debate.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes that is clear. The question is: using what criteria? That is what the current discussion is about.

They don’t need criteria. The voters look at each player and just make a choice.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They don’t need criteria. The voters look at each player and just make a choice.

So just have a popularity contest without any criteria or standards? Okay then.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So just have a popularity contest without any criteria or standards? Okay then.

Well that is kind of how it works, sadly. Hockey media for the most part isn't looking at advanced stats and what situations a player was used. It's mostly groupthink.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Strongly disagree with the bold. If you think Lindholm is all about offense, not many will agree with you.

I agree that elite defensive players should not be ignored, simply because they didn't put up a lot of points. However, you are incorrectly dismissing Lindholm in an attempt to make that point.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "Lindholm is all about offense". Lindholm has been very good defensively. Very good doesn't win awards. That's my whole point.


The only way to rank Lindholm #1 in the entire NHL is by including offense, and we're talking about an award for defense.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So just have a popularity contest without any criteria or standards? Okay then.

That’s basically it. Same as any other awards in sports and entertainment. What’s the criteria for best director?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That’s basically it. Same as any other awards in sports and entertainment. What’s the criteria for best director?

We're having a conversation about how the Selke should be determined.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

We're having a conversation about how the Selke should be determined.

I know, and I’m saying it’s determined the same way. You are looking for objective criteria in a subjective contest.

[Zevo]

I think people are confusing best 2 way forward with the best defensive forward.

Look at Guy Carbonneau, Pavel Datsyuk, and Anze Kopitars numbers. I picked them because they are all multiple Selke winners from different eras and were considered the gold standard for defensive forwards.

In 87/88 Carbonneau didn't crack the top 50 in scoring(he was 135th) and was 35th in +/-.

Interestingly in Datsyuks case he was near the top in both categories in his first two wins but his third straight win he was 26th in scoring and 21st in +/-.

Kopitar meanwhile was 17th in scoring and 2nd in +/- in his first win and 7th in scoring and 15th in +/- on his second win.

I think it has changed abit over the years where they now need show some offense compared to a few decades ago when it was all about defense but +/- doesn't seem to be the definitive stat here.