TJ Brodie and the Norris

[btimbit]

This year? No. Future? possibly. But they really should separate best defenseman and defensive scoring

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Your evidence-based argument is deeply flawed and has shown nothing but wildly inconsistent results with respect to actually being able to analyze players on any kind of consistent basis.

This is wrong, and the debate's over, so you can continue to live in your cave and I won't argue with you.

The point is that even if you don't think that the evidence I put forward is convincing, you'd have to be a complete idiot to suggest that it has NO value. Goals and assists don't tell anywhere near a complete story of who a player is, but they give SOME information. Giveaways and takeaways don't tell a whole story, but they give you SOME information.

Consequently, even if you don't think the evidence is as convincing as the person offering it would like it to be, it's still at least some basis for an evaluation. Whereas someone saying "I watch hockey and you guys are just going to have to trust me because I'm an expert" is has no value whatsoever.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And he's now devolved into pure self-parody by basing an argument on plus minus... This is gold, Jerry.

You have the word Corsi in your damn name. Yet you ignore the most basic and telling stat there is to judge a defensemen.

The reason +/- is a bad stat to judge is because it's just as much as result of being on a good team as it is determining if your a good player. But when you see that his linemate is a +10 while having 10 points to his name, the stat becomes a lot more useful.

TJ Brodie is great offensively and defensively. This is proven by having a top-20 +/- stat on a bottom dwelling team.

Karlsson is a career -19. That means that 5 on 5 he gets scored on more than he scores. That's hard to do for someone who scores as much as he does.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I'll take Karlson. Doughty's come in the league every 3-5 years. Karlson's come into the league every decade or two.

Even if this were true, I still take Doughty. If it's overtime, game 7 of the finals, I know who I want on the ice, and it's not Erik Karlsson.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

You have the word Corsi in your damn name. Yet you ignore the most basic and telling stat there is to judge a defensemen.

The reason +/- is a bad stat to judge is because it's just as much as result of being on a good team as it is determining if your a good player. But when you see that his linemate is a +10 while having 10 points to his name, the stat becomes a lot more useful.

TJ Brodie is great offensively and defensively. This is proven by having a top-20 +/- stat on a bottom dwelling team.

Karlsson is a career -19. That means that 5 on 5 he gets scored on more than he scores. That's hard to do for someone who scores as much as he does.

owned. out of thanks

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is wrong, and the debate's over, so you can continue to live in your cave and I won't argue with you.

The point is that even if you don't think that the evidence I put forward is convincing, you'd have to be a complete idiot to suggest that it has NO value. Goals and assists don't tell anywhere near a complete story of who a player is, but they give SOME information. Giveaways and takeaways don't tell a whole story, but they give you SOME information.

Consequently, even if you don't think the evidence is as convincing as the person offering it would like it to be, it's still at least some basis for an evaluation. Whereas someone saying "I watch hockey and you guys are just going to have to trust me because I'm an expert" is has no value whatsoever.

And this is how it goes every time...

Start with 'you're all idiots', then move the goalposts from "I'm right!" to "well you have to agree that it has some value"

Yes, I (and I believe almost everyone) agree(s) that it has some value.

The problem is the arrogant, 'I am right and you're all blind!' way you always start the argument, before falling back to 'well, at least it's some basis for evaluation'

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Chris Pronger dragged the Oilers to the Stanley Cup finals. That's the impact the top defenseman in the game can have on your team.

Now people are trying to tell me that Karlsson is the best defensemen in the game and he can't even drag his team to the playoffs? He's the best defensemen in the game and he plays on the one of the worst defensive teams in the entire league? GTFO lol

[Enoch Root]

Oh, and...

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is wrong, and the debate's over, so you can continue to live in your cave and I won't argue with you.

The point is that even if you don't think that the evidence I put forward is convincing, you'd have to be a complete idiot to suggest that it has NO value. Goals and assists don't tell anywhere near a complete story of who a player is, but they give SOME information. Giveaways and takeaways don't tell a whole story, but they give you SOME information.

Consequently, even if you don't think the evidence is as convincing as the person offering it would like it to be, it's still at least some basis for an evaluation. Whereas someone saying "I watch hockey and you guys are just going to have to trust me because I'm an expert" is has no value whatsoever.

lol

[Finger Cookin]

I think there's an important distinction to be made in thinking that Karlsson will win the Norris because he's the best defenseman in the league, and thinking that Karlsson will win the Norris because he'll receive more votes for the award than any other defenseman.

You can acknowledge that Karlsson is almost a one dimensional defenseman while still thinking he will win the Norris, because historically the vote for the award tends to favor high scoring defensemen above all else. It's telling that Keith won the Norris in his two highest scoring seasons of his career (so far), for example.

[codynw]

I think if you put Doughty in a different system he'd score more too. Everyone always says he steps his offensive game up in the Olympics, but I think that probably has more to do with different coaches letting him do his thing. Sutter is holding him back.

Of course, it leads to championships, so he probably doesn't care that much.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And this is how it goes every time...

Start with 'you're all idiots', then move the goalposts from "I'm right!" to "well you have to agree that it has some value"

Yes, I (and I believe almost everyone) agree(s) that it has some value.

The problem is the arrogant, 'I am right and you're all blind!' way you always start the argument, before falling back to 'well, at least it's some basis for evaluation'

In order to notice the difference, all you have to concede is that it has some value. I was mocking FDW for just saying nonsensical crap based on nothing but words he was pulling out of his ass. He doesn't have any basis for it, he's just saying "I know what to look for in the defensive zone and lots of people don't, and I watch a lot of hockey, so maybe go watch some hockey and come back and tell me what you've learned". That's hilarious, and it's far more arrogant than pointing to evidence to support an argument, even if you happen to take the flat-earth view with regard to the value of that evidence

As for BWIF, lol again. No, plus minus is not the most important statistic. It's the least useful stat in hockey besides goalie wins.

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/ho...lus-minus-stat

But even if you did want to look at what happens in terms of goal scoring, look at Karlsson's most common linemates this year. When Karlsson is on the ice with Methot, the Sens score 55.9% of the goals. When Methot's without him, they score 35.7%. When EK is on the ice with Stone, the sens get 51.2% of the goals. When Stone's out there without Karlsson, 39.3%. When he's out there with Turris, they only get 45.9% of the goals. But when Turris doesn't have Karlsson? It's 36%.

Gee, I wonder whether he might be driving the bus on outscoring the other guys.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In order to notice the difference, all you have to concede is that it has some value. I was mocking FDW for just saying nonsensical crap based on nothing but words he was pulling out of his ass. He doesn't have any basis for it, he's just saying "I know what to look for in the defensive zone and lots of people don't, and I watch a lot of hockey, so maybe go watch some hockey and come back and tell me what you've learned". That's hilarious, and it's far more arrogant than pointing to evidence to support an argument, even if you happen to take the flat-earth view with regard to the value of that evidence

As for BWIF, lol again. No, plus minus is not the most important statistic. It's the least useful stat in hockey besides goalie wins.

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/ho...lus-minus-stat

But even if you did want to look at what happens in terms of goal scoring, look at Karlsson's most common linemates this year. When Karlsson is on the ice with Methot, the Sens score 55.9% of the goals. When Methot's without him, they score 35.7%. When EK is on the ice with Stone, the sens get 51.2% of the goals. When Stone's out there without Karlsson, 39.3%. When he's out there with Turris, they only get 45.9% of the goals. But when Turris doesn't have Karlsson? It's 36%.

Gee, I wonder whether he might be driving the bus on outscoring the other guys.

Well if he is, he's driving it in circles, because he isn't a + player.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

You have the word Corsi in your damn name. Yet you ignore the most basic and telling stat there is to judge a defensemen.

The reason +/- is a bad stat to judge is because it's just as much as result of being on a good team as it is determining if your a good player. But when you see that his linemate is a +10 while having 10 points to his name, the stat becomes a lot more useful.

TJ Brodie is great offensively and defensively. This is proven by having a top-20 +/- stat on a bottom dwelling team.

Karlsson is a career -19. That means that 5 on 5 he gets scored on more than he scores. That's hard to do for someone who scores as much as he does.

Yes because the player Karlsson is now is EXACTLY the same as the player he was when he entered the league. Or the same player he was when he was recovering from a sliced Achiles tendon. He has had three minus seasons - his first two in the league on a team with horrible goaltending and the season where he was still recovering from his Achilles injury and couldn't pivot but still lead dmen in point while not winning the Norris which some fools believe is only given to the blueliner with the most points.

Also +/- is not just a 5 on 5 stat. It is also affected by short handed goals which will affect Karlsson more since he plays much more on the PP (usually as the only dman) than the PK. It is also affected by empty net goals.

You proclaim Doughty better because of his team's record yet Karlsson was playing in the playoffs last season unlike Doughty. Ottawa is not one of the worst teams in the league - they're in the middle third. And head to head this season against each other Karlsson is a +3 and Doughty is a -4.

You may or may not watch a lot of hockey but I don't think you watch it intelligently.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think if you put Doughty in a different system he'd score more too. Everyone always says he steps his offensive game up in the Olympics, but I think that probably has more to do with different coaches letting him do his thing. Sutter is holding him back.

Of course, it leads to championships, so he probably doesn't care that much.

Agreed. Doughty would get more points playing for Hartley if you swapped him onto our team because Hartley's system promotes defensemen scoring more than Sutter's does. More cycling with Sutter. More quick strike breakouts and defensemen jumping in as 3rd attacker in Hartley's system.

[GranteedEV]

Karlsson is a reliable defensive player in the same sense that Yandle, Burns, Klingberg, Hamilton, and OEL are reliable defensive players. They're not going to actively cost you when you deploy them correctly but they're not guys you want checking the best lines. And that's fine. But it's silly to think he's the best defenseman in the league when guys like Keith and Doughty and Brodie are so much more multi-faceted.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Well if he is, he's driving it in circles, because he isn't a + player.

Well, he has an on ice save percentage of .909 at even strength, good enough for 23rd out of 26 Senators who've played 50 minutes this year. I mean, you could try to blame him for that, but... https://hockey-graphs.com/2014/07/07...ve-percentage/

Also comes with playing more than 30 minutes a night for a bad team.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Chris Pronger dragged the Oilers to the Stanley Cup finals. That's the impact the top defenseman in the game can have on your team.

Now people are trying to tell me that Karlsson is the best defensemen in the game and he can't even drag his team to the playoffs? He's the best defensemen in the game and he plays on the one of the worst defensive teams in the entire league? GTFO lol

I would take Doughty over Karlson as well, but be fair here. Karlsson did a great deal of heavy lifting in dragging the Senators into the playoffs last year, and he is by far the largest reason they are in shouting distance of the post-season this.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Karlsson is a reliable defensive player in the same sense that Yandle, Burns, Klingberg, Hamilton, and OEL are reliable defensive players.

I wouldn't put OEL on that list, he's stronger defensively than those others names mentioned by a large margin. In my opinion.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think if you put Doughty in a different system he'd score more too. Everyone always says he steps his offensive game up in the Olympics, but I think that probably has more to do with different coaches letting him do his thing. Sutter is holding him back.

Of course, it leads to championships, so he probably doesn't care that much.

He scores more when he plays on Team Canada's All-Star team - the same thing could be said about basically hockey player on earth.

The whole "Doughty could score more if he wanted to" argument is such a farce. Wherever you land on this debate, the idea that you can discount Karlsson's massive offensive edge because of a hypothetical scenario is ridiculous. Karlsson is scoring at a historic rate for defensemen relative to his peers, but Doughty could apparently do it too easily if he wanted. I mean, he only has 123 points versus Karlsson's 208 points in the last three systems - systems account for a 40% drop in scoring, right?

If Doughty could score more if he wasn't in such a defensive system, why doesn't he get penalized for looking better defensively when he's surrounded by more responsible defensive and better overall players? It's the exact same baseless argument.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by JayP

He scores more when he plays on Team Canada's All-Star team - the same thing could be said about basically hockey player on earth.

The whole "Doughty could score more if he wanted to" argument is such a farce. Wherever you land on this debate, the idea that you can discount Karlsson's massive offensive edge because of a hypothetical scenario is ridiculous. Karlsson is scoring at a historic rate for defensemen relative to his peers, but Doughty could apparently do it too easily if he wanted. I mean, he only has 123 points versus Karlsson's 208 points in the last three systems - systems account for a 40% drop in scoring, right?

If Doughty could score more if he wasn't in such a defensive system, why doesn't he get penalized for looking better defensively when he's surrounded by more responsible defensive and better overall players? It's the exact same baseless argument.

Whoa, I didn't mean Doughty would score more than Karlsson if he were in a different system. Just that if he had a different coach he'd get more points than he does for Sutter.