Erik Karlsson vs Drew Doughty (All time)

[jbeck5]

Doughty was a top 10-15 defenseman last season too. It’s not hate to say you have to balance the offensive and defensive contributions for Karlsson and it doesn’t add up to a Norris caliber season. That trophy has become a points contest anyway.

It's always been a point contest.

You are just hating on offense the older you get. Go look back at the Norris trophy winners in the 90s and see where they rank in D points. Theyre almost always top 5. Offense is the biggest factor. It's what fans like. It's what they pay to see. Offense has always been the top factor in deciding which player is better. If the offense is close, then you debate other things. If not, then the guy with better offense is better. It works like that like 90-99% of the time.

 

[Bileur]

Lol he posts that same video in every Karlsson thread. Reminds me of an early 1800s frontiersman grabbing his trusty, beat-up old repeater when there’s trouble on the ranch lmao.

To be fair the repeater only becomes trusty when it’s taken down a bunch of wild animals attacking the herd.

 

[AvroArrow]

The bolded is simply false (he’s only been bad defensively after his two major injuries, granted that’s been affecting like 6 seasons in total) + offensive talent is much more rare than defensive capability.

It's not false. Injuries or not, he's been brutal when it comes to actually defending.

 

[AvroArrow]

Don't come here with sound logic and try to state the obvious that any knowledgeable hockey fan should understand. Erik Karlsson is ass defensively no matter how good he is defensively! Defense is crosschecking guys in front of your own net, and that's that.

Defense is being able to win puck battles, stick check effectively, separate the man from the puck, block shots, stop odd man rushes, force passes to low danger areas, create turnovers etc. Ignoring Doughty, watch guys like Toews, Slavin, Hedman, Josi, McAvoy, Makar, Ekholm, Theodore, Fox. These are guys who are actually good defensively.

Being able to make a breakout pass doesn't make you a good defender, it makes you a good transition player there's a big difference, Karlsson fan club is acting like break out passes = good defence.

The argument from the Karlsson fan club is so garbage. It is literally like suggesting that a player like JT Miller, all offence, zero defence should win the selke and is good defensively, because he scores points. Make it make sense.

"But he scores so many points and can make great transition plays and breakout passes! That means he's good defensively!"

"No that has nothing do with his defensive capabilities. He's horrible at actually breaking up an offensive play and has very low positional IQ and routinely get's beat by attacking players"

"OMG but he can make a breakout pass and score 100 points! how are you suggesting he isn't good defensively!?"

Literally what some of you are doing, makes absolutely no sense. Yes he's an elite scorer, yes he's dog shit defensively.

 

[koyvoo]

Most coaches would likely that the number one asset they’d like their biggest minute munching defensemen to have is a good first/outlet pass.

 

[ijuka]

Defense is being able to win puck battles, stick check effectively, separate the man from the puck, block shots, stop odd man rushes, force passes to low danger areas, create turnovers etc. Ignoring Doughty, watch guys like Toews, Slavin, Hedman, Josi, McAvoy, Makar, Ekholm, Theodore, Fox. These are guys who are actually good defensively.

Being able to make a breakout pass doesn't make you a good defender, it makes you a good transition player there's a big difference, Karlsson fan club is acting like break out passes = good defence.

The argument from the Karlsson fan club is so garbage. It is literally like suggesting that a player like JT Miller, all offence, zero defence should win the selke and is good defensively, because he scores points. Make it make sense.

"But he scores so many points and can make great transition plays and breakout passes! That means he's good defensively!"

"No that has nothing do with his defensive capabilities. He's horrible at actually breaking up an offensive play and has very low positional IQ and routinely get's beat by attacking players"

"OMG but he can make a breakout pass and score 100 points! how are you suggesting he isn't good defensively!?"

Literally what some of you are doing, makes absolutely no sense. Yes he's an elite scorer, yes he's dog shit defensively.

Why is high event worse than low event? Do you realize that defensive play gets its value from offensive play? Suppressing opponent's chances does absolutely nothing for you if you suppress your own team's chances more than you're suppressing your opponent's. What's important is increasing the ratio of your own chances in comparison to your opponent's. If you receive -10% corsi against but -30% corsi for while doing so, you're not a strong defensive player - you're just a bad low event player.

No that has nothing do with his defensive capabilities. He's horrible at actually breaking up an offensive play and has very low positional IQ and routinely get's beat by attacking players

I'm shocked there still are people who think good defense = getting hemmed in your own zone and blocking shots - and that that's somehow more desirable than keeping the puck in your opponent's side of the rink.

 

[Ben White]

Defense is being able to win puck battles, stick check effectively, separate the man from the puck, block shots, stop odd man rushes, force passes to low danger areas, create turnovers etc. Ignoring Doughty, watch guys like Toews, Slavin, Hedman, Josi, McAvoy, Makar, Ekholm, Theodore, Fox. These are guys who are actually good defensively.

Being able to make a breakout pass doesn't make you a good defender, it makes you a good transition player there's a big difference, Karlsson fan club is acting like break out passes = good defence.

The argument from the Karlsson fan club is so garbage. It is literally like suggesting that a player like JT Miller, all offence, zero defence should win the selke and is good defensively, because he scores points. Make it make sense.

"But he scores so many points and can make great transition plays and breakout passes! That means he's good defensively!"

"No that has nothing do with his defensive capabilities. He's horrible at actually breaking up an offensive play and has very low positional IQ and routinely get's beat by attacking players"

"OMG but he can make a breakout pass and score 100 points! how are you suggesting he isn't good defensively!?"

Literally what some of you are doing, makes absolutely no sense. Yes he's an elite scorer, yes he's dog shit defensively.

Funny cause all the bolded Karlsson is actually really good at (and the stats back it up). His weak areas are man on man defending and boxing out in front of the net (besides being less engaged defensively for parts of his SJ campaign but that’s another story).

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Don't come here with sound logic and try to state the obvious that any knowledgeable hockey fan should understand. Erik Karlsson is ass defensively no matter how good he is defensively! Defense is crosschecking guys in front of your own net, and that's that.

How about being on the ice for more goals against 5 on 5 than any player in the league last season?

 

[Xspyrit]

You're telling me. Some just don't want to believe that there can be a benefit to at least trying to limit chances against. All gas no brakes 4 lyfe!! or something... 80's are over. Time to evolve.

I have known Erik Karlsson from the start. I even invested in him and bought pretty much all his hockey rookie cards when they got out (I'll link a card I still have for fun). I then sold them a few years later turning it into a bazillion% profit. I know the guy, I know he can be nonchalant defensively (particularly when the team sucks, and I have criticized him for that in the past), I know he can get outmuscled, I know he can get burnt, he has problem pivoting and his injuries have just made it worse.

But there is aspects of defense that he is elite at. Poster @Buck Naked tried to explain (and probably others too). This is simply ignored by people who want to continue with this narrative.

It's fair to have an opinion but Doughty has 1 Norris and EK65 has 3 why state otherwise?

This statement of yours is simply not true.


Also if you are trying to infer that EK65 is on the same level of Doughty over their respective playoff careers I got news for you.....

Do we always have to explain sarcasm? Even when it's that obvious?

Care to explain ? Is Karlsson above average at actually defending ? He's consistently been one of the worst players in his own end for his entire career. Insane offensive talent, but for how good he is offensively, he's almost equally as bad defensively. Doughty plays a significantly stronger defensive game while putting up respectable numbers offensively.

The ironic part is, you going "one guy has 4 norrises" and thinking that's not a very basic understanding of the game of hockey, lol

Explain what? It's probably in every recent Karlsson thread... Look at buck Naked post history on the subject, he even brought up advanced stats, or Ben White or ijuka. Maybe Bileur or Nyquil. I don't know, it's nothing new. Do I have to explain the game of hockey? Retrieving the puck quickly and move it out controlled out of danger is a better defensive play than making a big hit along the walls, then fight in front of the net while your forwards are spending their whole shift hemmed in the defensive zone.

Not even commenting the last part of your post, dont have time for that

 

[Xspyrit]

people not seeing the defensive value of getting the puck out of your own zone explains a lot of the awful Karlsson takes that have been floating around here over the years

And it's quite funny to say the least. I mean, we're in 2023

Don't come here with sound logic and try to state the obvious that any knowledgeable hockey fan should understand. Erik Karlsson is ass defensively no matter how good he is defensively! Defense is crosschecking guys in front of your own net, and that's that.

Pierre Dorion was so happy to spend a 5th round pick on Erik Gudbranson in 2020-21. Look at how many front net crosschecks/60! But in reality, it was a disaster on the ice.

Another example, Holden-Hamonic played 65.8 ES minutes together last season and had a whooping 21.9 xG% (to be fair they used to be pretty decent but Holden totally fell off a cliff last season)

I'm a goalie and I can tell you that having those guys "who can defend" (as per some here) is not fun, it drains your energy

The argument against Karlsson in regards defense and effort levels pre-Matt Cooke is comical.

People will say his gap control is terrible, but that just wasn’t the way a gifted skater in Karlsson would defend.

While defending zone entries and one on one situations, it was almost a staple for him to let forwards think they beat him, pivot and catch them while they are both skating the same direction. His stick work was pretty damn good too.

This type of defending doesn’t scream zero effort to me as well.

Karlsson’s peak overall play was so damn impressive that he looked effortless in both ends of the ice

He was even abusing it at some point. As a goalie, I often give a more favorable angle to a shooter to influence him to shoot towards that spot. You see a lot of psychological games like this in soccer too

What he was looking to become in 2012-13 was something else. He was literally going end to end both ways on a regular basis, creating a scoring chance then break up a play. Then Matt Cooke arrived. He was still great after recovering but never the same player. It probably cost him a generational status

 

[Bileur]

Funny cause all the bolded Karlsson is actually really good at (and the stats back it up). His weak areas are man on man defending and boxing out in front of the net (besides being less engaged defensively for parts of his SJ campaign but that’s another story).

Facts. Karlsson has almost 100 takeaways more than any other defenseman since in came into the league.

 

[norrisnick]

I have known Erik Karlsson from the start. I even invested in him and bought pretty much all his hockey rookie cards when they got out (I'll link a card I still have for fun). I then sold them a few years later turning it into a bazillion% profit. I know the guy, I know he can be nonchalant defensively (particularly when the team sucks, and I have criticized him for that in the past), I know he can get outmuscled, I know he can get burnt, he has problem pivoting and his injuries have just made it worse.

But there is aspects of defense that he is elite at. Poster @Buck Naked tried to explain (and probably others too). This is simply ignored by people who want to continue with this narrative.

There are aspects of hockey that EK is elite at. He is in fact an elite hockey player.

It's not being ignored so much as there is no shared agreement with what is being debated. The point of contention for many is that defenseman is not just the name of a position, it is a role. If you ignore the role as unimportant and still try to debate about who the best defenseman is you're quite literally debating about two very different things.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

If the point of defensive play is NOT to get the puck out of your zone, then what exactly IS the point?

Indeed, playing so much on the opponent's side of the rink that you get 11 shots on goal is pretty good defense to me.

when you're starting less than 20% of the time in the defensive zone--with 65% ozone starts--on a negative possession team, you're getting pillowsoft minutes such that you HAD BETTER be a net positive because you're putting every other dman on your team at a huge disadvantage.

That's why all the bleeding goals against 5v5 is problematic, and why saying "see how much better they are with him on the ice" is completely misleading, especially on a team with no meaningful games after november.

Sure, play the guy to his strengths, he's a generational offensive dman, but if you're talking about all-situations #1s that don't hamstring the rest of the roster, Karlsson is high-maintenance and THAT is why his teams continually fail as he gets more and more points. No one gets more alibis on this forum than Erik Karlsson, despite him rarely even being able to outscore his own problems.

And again, here are my usual disclaimers--he's a top 3-5 dman of the generation and a surefire HOFer. But this "AINEC" stuff and complete ignorance of context is see through by most everyone else.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Defense is being able to win puck battles, stick check effectively, separate the man from the puck, block shots, stop odd man rushes, force passes to low danger areas, create turnovers etc. Ignoring Doughty, watch guys like Toews, Slavin, Hedman, Josi, McAvoy, Makar, Ekholm, Theodore, Fox. These are guys who are actually good defensively.

Being able to make a breakout pass doesn't make you a good defender, it makes you a good transition player there's a big difference, Karlsson fan club is acting like break out passes = good defence.

The argument from the Karlsson fan club is so garbage. It is literally like suggesting that a player like JT Miller, all offence, zero defence should win the selke and is good defensively, because he scores points. Make it make sense.

"But he scores so many points and can make great transition plays and breakout passes! That means he's good defensively!"

"No that has nothing do with his defensive capabilities. He's horrible at actually breaking up an offensive play and has very low positional IQ and routinely get's beat by attacking players"

"OMG but he can make a breakout pass and score 100 points! how are you suggesting he isn't good defensively!?"

Literally what some of you are doing, makes absolutely no sense. Yes he's an elite scorer, yes he's dog shit defensively.

First 2 are #1D defensive numbers
Maybe doesn’t fit @AvroArrow agendas like probably hoped it would.

Blocked passes - third
Zone denials - 31st
Puck possession - second
Zone exits - first

From sportlogiq for defenseman

 

[norrisnick]

when you're starting less than 20% of the time in the defensive zone--with 65% ozone starts--on a negative possession team, you're getting pillowsoft minutes such that you HAD BETTER be a net positive because you're putting every other dman on your team at a huge disadvantage.

That's why all the bleeding goals against 5v5 is problematic, and why saying "see how much better they are with him on the ice" is completely misleading, especially on a team with no meaningful games after november.

Sure, play the guy to his strengths, he's a generational offensive dman, but if you're talking about all-situations #1s that don't hamstring the rest of the roster, Karlsson is high-maintenance and THAT is why his teams continually fail as he gets more and more points. No one gets more alibis on this forum than Erik Karlsson, despite him rarely even being able to outscore his own problems.

And again, here are my usual disclaimers--he's a top 3-5 dman of the generation and a surefire HOFer. But this "AINEC" stuff and complete ignorance of context is see through by most everyone else.

That's my view as well. For how much he scores and how much he drives possession and his takeaway numbers and zone entries etc... how in the ever loving f*** did he still manage to be on for that many goals against?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

That's my view as well. For how much he scores and how much he drives possession and his takeaway numbers and zone entries etc... how in the ever loving f*** did he still manage to be on for that many goals against?

That's why the 'team' argument doesn't carry much weight to me

it's really not THAT different if you're getting 65% ozone starts with the best players on your team and the lion's share of PP time with little defensive time or responsibilities

you kind of lose the right to complain about other #1 dmen who are playing much more rounded minutes with stronger two-way results, they may be on a 'better' team but they're playing tougher minutes.

 

[Nico Cauzuki]

big respect for Karlsson's elite offensive game but Doughty was the whole package

give me #8

 

[Regal]

Why is high event worse than low event? Do you realize that defensive play gets its value from offensive play? Suppressing opponent's chances does absolutely nothing for you if you suppress your own team's chances more than you're suppressing your opponent's. What's important is increasing the ratio of your own chances in comparison to your opponent's. If you receive -10% corsi against but -30% corsi for while doing so, you're not a strong defensive player - you're just a bad low event player.

I'm shocked there still are people who think good defense = getting hemmed in your own zone and blocking shots - and that that's somehow more desirable than keeping the puck in your opponent's side of the rink.

There’s actual defending without the puck which includes things like stick work and positioning and breaking up plays and boxing out in front of the net, and then there’s chance suppression which includes those things plus your ability with the puck to transition out of your zone and keep it there. Moving the puck is certainly an important aspect of being great defensively, but so is defending without the puck. Karlsson has had periods of solid defense off the puck and when his skating was better he could recover better and his version of defense was more about pressuring the puck carrier, but in-zone defense has been an issue for him overall, particularly in front of the net.

The insinuation that people who being up in zone defense think good defense is being hemmed in your zone is nonsense. The fact is that even the best possession players are still defending 40% of the time, and Karlsson has never had possession numbers that high.

 

[norrisnick]

That's why the 'team' argument doesn't carry much weight to me

it's really not THAT different if you're getting 65% ozone starts with the best players on your team and the lion's share of PP time with little defensive time or responsibilities

you kind of lose the right to complain about other #1 dmen who are playing much more rounded minutes with stronger two-way results, they may be on a 'better' team but they're playing tougher minutes.

That and San Jose inexplicably had a top 10 (8th) PK. Read into that what you will...

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

when you're starting less than 20% of the time in the defensive zone--with 65% ozone starts--on a negative possession team, you're getting pillowsoft minutes such that you HAD BETTER be a net positive because you're putting every other dman on your team at a huge disadvantage.

Are you seriously trying to say Karlsson had easy minutes (playing 25+ minutes a night) on a shit San Jose team because 65% of the faceoffs in the offensive zone (when most line changes occur on the fly, so zone starts are pretty irrelevant, or misleading at best)?

There's always certain things you can count on with HFBoards, Raccoon Jesus, norrisnick, wetcoast, and HarrisonFord making horrible bad faith Karlsson arguments because they are so insecure that Karlsson might just be better than their favorite player. Been going on for 10+ years now, and you all continue to look more and more wrong as the years pass. Imagine being present for the 2017 playoffs and still holding a belief that Karlsson is a problem on his own team. Absolute clown take.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Are you seriously trying to say Karlsson had easy minutes (playing 25+ minutes a night) on a shit San Jose team because 65% of the faceoffs in the offensive zone (when most line changes occur on the fly, so zone starts are pretty irrelevant, or misleading at best)?

There's always certain things you can count on with HFBoards, Raccoon Jesus, norrisnick, wetcoast, and HarrisonFord making horrible bad faith Karlsson arguments because they are so insecure that Karlsson might just be better than their favorite player. Been going on for 10+ years now, and you all continue to look more and more wrong as the years pass. Imagine being present for the 2017 playoffs and still holding a belief that Karlsson is a problem on his own team. Absolute clown take.

We're talking relatively, here.

Compared to other #1 dmen--starting (AND getting on) the rink in the dzone less than 20% of the time with next to no PK time is soft minutes, when the vast majority of your time on the rink is starting/hopping on in the offensive zone with the best players on the team and the PP1 unit.

As I have held for those ten years--you can only play the minutes put in front of you. Can't fault a coach for deployment, especially when the guy is an offensive weapon.

But what we CAN hold him accountable for--To trace it back as we know you have a hard time in good faith following a string of quotes--the original assertion was putting 11 shots on goal is good defense. Hey, I agree! Stay away from your net. But it needs context--and despite those minutes, he was absolutely bleeding GA to the point where he hardly broke even...and when you're comparing THOSE minutes to the GA for other dmen on the team who are relatively getting absolutely buried in their dzone starts, hence at a disadvantage...

Pretending that he had a good defensive year in spite of all that evidence is either bad faith or ignorant. I'll let you choose as you usually do.

When we're talking career--EK absolutely has the ability to play great defense. more often than not, whether focus or effort or whatever, he doesn't. He doesn't seem to often be able to put together a great offensive season with an even passable defensive season. And that's fine, that's not his style, usually the outcome is he scores more than he gives up. Again, we're talking relative to the best of the best here--he's a top 3-5 defenseman of the generation depending how you slice it, I know you always want to paint me as someone who thinks he's some dumpy plug because its' easier for your cause than making a coherent argument, but that's not the case.

We can--and have--argued till we're blue in the face if that's 'winning hockey' or not. But the trends have held true for his whole career so far. Eager to see if a THIRD team brings something different than expected.

 

[HarrisonFord]

While I don't care to get into this debate this post is certainly ironic given your inclusion in the earliest iterations of the Drew vs Karlsson threads

Let's not pretend you weren't part of the Drew Doughty echo chamber. You know, as president of his fan club.

I’m a fan of good defencemen who play sound, winning hockey. I’m a Leafs fan not a Kings fan.

 

[Golden_Jet]

We're talking relatively, here.

Compared to other #1 dmen--starting (AND getting on) the rink in the dzone less than 20% of the time with next to no PK time is soft minutes, when the vast majority of your time on the rink is starting/hopping on in the offensive zone with the best players on the team and the PP1 unit.

As I have held for those ten years--you can only play the minutes put in front of you. Can't fault a coach for deployment, especially when the guy is an offensive weapon.

But what we CAN hold him accountable for--To trace it back as we know you have a hard time in good faith following a string of quotes--the original assertion was putting 11 shots on goal is good defense. Hey, I agree! Stay away from your net. But it needs context--and despite those minutes, he was absolutely bleeding GA to the point where he hardly broke even...and when you're comparing THOSE minutes to the GA for other dmen on the team who are relatively getting absolutely buried in their dzone starts, hence at a disadvantage...

Pretending that he had a good defensive year in spite of all that evidence is either bad faith or ignorant. I'll let you choose as you usually do.

When we're talking career--EK absolutely has the ability to play great defense. more often than not, whether focus or effort or whatever, he doesn't. He doesn't seem to often be able to put together a great offensive season with an even passable defensive season. And that's fine, that's not his style, usually the outcome is he scores more than he gives up. Again, we're talking relative to the best of the best here--he's a top 3-5 defenseman of the generation depending how you slice it, I know you always want to paint me as someone who thinks he's some dumpy plug because its' easier for your cause than making a coherent argument, but that's not the case.

We can--and have--argued till we're blue in the face if that's 'winning hockey' or not. But the trends have held true for his whole career so far. Eager to see if a THIRD team brings something different than expected.

5 on 5 offensive zone starts EK and Makar right next to each other, 4th and 5th for D with 500 minutes played.

 

[Mattb124]

That's my view as well. For how much he scores and how much he drives possession and his takeaway numbers and zone entries etc... how in the ever loving f*** did he still manage to be on for that many goals against?

Questioning how a team can be get scored on so often despite one of its players having good individual metrics pretty much spells out the issue. The Sharks were a terrible team last year.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

5 on 5 offensive zone starts EK and Makar right next to each other, 4th and 5th for D with 500 minutes played.

If that's supposed to be a gotcha, its' actually an illustration of exactly the point

Makar gave up 38 goals
Karlsson...96

team effects doesn't account for EVERYTHING, yet that's the alibi he's gotten his whole career. When the team does great, its' because of karlsson...when the team does poorly, it's poor karlsson, what's he supposed to do? No one else gets that shelter.

The guy is a f***ing phenomenal generational offensive hockey player, he doesn't need to be perfect, and he doesn't need these bullshit excuses for his shit defensive play. If he WERE the full package he'd be the best dman of all time, and he's not, he's "merely" a surefire first ballot hall of famer amongst some of the greats. Apparently that's not enough and you're just a hater for suggesting otherwise.