Hjalmarsson > Gunnarsson? (Advanced Stats for Defensive Dmen)

[BonMorrison]

Funny you use that as a comparable because I've been comparing Gunner to Hammer for years and nobody really listened until this season finally.

Hammer is obviously better offensively and defensively but Gunner is no slouch himself, I feel like they'd be pretty good partners.

 

[Dosing]

Gunnarsson's defensive partner is Dion Phaneuf and Hammer's is Johnny Oduya if you want to also take that into consideration.

And to the OP, Hammer is better than both Gunnarsson and Gorges.

I realize phaenuf isn't exactly elite but oduya is downright terrible imo so it doesn't really say much in favor of gunnarsson.

 

[Warden of the North]

Moving this to "By the Numbers". They may be able to help us understand a bit better.

 

[Sharp1024*]

I realize phaenuf isn't exactly elite but oduya is downright terrible imo so it doesn't really say much in favor of gunnarsson.

Hawks fan here. Been the biggest Hater of Oduya for years. Many goals somehow can be linked to Oduya play.

 

[Derrty]

Fellow Leaf fans were ripping Gunner last year when he was playing hurt. I said we would be set on the blue line if we had a Gunner on each pairing. Some thought I was nuts because they couldn't see that he was still suffering from the hip injury(iirc) and was very solid when healthy.

 

[THall4]

You dont even need to look at advanced stats to see the Hjalmarsson > Gunnarsson.

Hjalmarsson is a top 4 dman on a yearly Stanley Cup favorite...while Gunnarsson is a top 4 on a team that doesnt make the playoffs...proof is in the pudding.

 

[LiveeviL]

You dont even need to look at advanced stats to see the Hjalmarsson > Gunnarsson.

Hjalmarsson is a top 4 dman on a yearly Stanley Cup favorite...while Gunnarsson is a top 4 on a team that doesnt make the playoffs...proof is in the pudding.

Terrible post. So it is Hjalmarsson's doing that CHI makes the play-off and Gunnarsson is to blame for TOR perennial failings. Sure you might not have meant that, but your post was inviting and didn't say much else.

Anyway, Gunnarsson is an interesting case, I discussed it in November: Toronto board discussion, numbers and Gunnarsson

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You dont even need to look at advanced stats to see the Hjalmarsson > Gunnarsson.

Hjalmarsson is a top 4 dman on a yearly Stanley Cup favorite...while Gunnarsson is a top 4 on a team that doesnt make the playoffs...proof is in the pudding.

First of all, "proof is in the pudding" makes absolutely no sense at all. The phrase originated as "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", which means that you can say any number of superlatives about pudding, but if it doesn't taste good, then who cares? (it's a metaphor). It's since been mangled into the nonsense form (similar to "the exception proves the rule").

However, it makes about as much as sense as the rest of the claim. Yes, they are each contributors to their team. Single contributors.

By your theory, you don't ever need to look at any stats (so-called advanced or otherwise) to tell which player is better. What is their role and how good is their team? That's all you ever need.

 

[rick hawk]

How about this? Watch Hjalmarsson play a little bit. You'll soon see what a terrific defenseman he is.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

How about this? Watch Hjalmarsson play a little bit. You'll soon see what a terrific defenseman he is.

I'd expect a Chicago fan to talk about how great their own team's defenseman is.

You missed the point of the thread.

 

[Semantics]

Gunnarsson is a top 4 on a team that doesnt make the playoffs...proof is in the pudding.

So is Erik Karlsson.

 

[Jot]

This thread isn't about who is better than who. Its about how do we go about to prove who's better. Here's Oduya vs Hjmalmarsson.

Hjalmarsson
Quality of Competition: 6th league wide amongst dmen.
Offensive zone start %: 48.3%
On Ice Corsi: +6.77
Corsi Relative QoC: -8.4
Goals Against On ice/60: 2.05
Teams GA Off-Ice/60: 2.27
On Ice Sv%: .915
On Ice Sv% SH: .873
TOI: 21:16
SH TOI: 2:49
Blocks: 157
Hits: 39
Takeaways: 21
Giveaways: 100
+/- : +11

Oduya
Quality of Competition: 4th league wide amongst dmen.
Offensive zone start %: 48.6%
On Ice Corsi: +6.23
Corsi Relative QoC: -9.9
Goals Against On ice/60: 1.94
Teams GA Off-Ice/60: 2.56
On Ice Sv%: .918
On Ice Sv% SH: .828
TOI: 20:06
SH TOI: 2:07
Blocks: 114
Hits: 49
Takeaways: 15
Giveaways: 52
+/- : +11

As you can see you cant clearly make out which dman is superior.

 

[rick hawk]

I'd expect a Chicago fan to talk about how great their own team's defenseman is.

You missed the point of the thread.

The point is you don't have to analyze a bunch of mumbo jumbo. If you get the game you just have to watch the guy. Am I being clear enough for you????

You don't need to analyze numbers to prove that Marilyn Monroe was better looking than Whoopi Gholdberg.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The point is you don't have to analyze a bunch of mumbo jumbo. If you get the game you just have to watch the guy. Am I being clear enough for you????

Oh, you're being very clear. Are you familiar with narrative bias?

I know, you "get the game". Are you immune to narrative bias?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You don't need to analyze numbers to prove that Marilyn Monroe was better looking than Whoopi Gholdberg.

Are you suggesting that what we're currently doing in this thread is the hockey equivalent to that?

 

[rick hawk]

Are you suggesting that what we're currently doing in this thread is the hockey equivalent to that?

Bingo, Professor!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Bingo, Professor!

I haven't been a professor for eleven years, but thanks.

 

[rick hawk]

I haven't been a professor for eleven years, but thanks.

I'm sure it never leaves you...

 

[Johnny Engine]

First of all, "proof is in the pudding" makes absolutely no sense at all. The phrase originated as "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", which means that you can say any number of superlatives about pudding, but if it doesn't taste good, then who cares? (it's a metaphor). It's since been mangled into the nonsense form (similar to "the exception proves the rule").

As an aside...
I'm going to come to "the exception that proves the rule"'s defense. It's a good way to describe a wildly noticeable outlier.
For example, if the rule is "Smooth skaters who can move the puck make good defensemen," Phil Housley "proves the rule" because it's easy to see that smart, positional PMDs like Zubov and Bouwmeester are nothing like Phil Housley (by watching, or stats, or whatever you want to use).

As for a more general comment on the topic at hand, I wouldn't put too much stock in partners. Being Phaneuf's partner puts a defenseman in many more difficult match-up situations than being Oduya's partner, even if Phaneuf probably offers more help. QoC and on/off comparisons with partners can help, but I wouldn't go using partners as a be-all end-all argument, because you could really use that to argue both sides.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

As an aside...
I'm going to come to "the exception that proves the rule"'s defense. It's a good way to describe a wildly noticeable outlier.
For example, if the rule is "Smooth skaters who can move the puck make good defensemen," Phil Housley "proves the rule" because it's easy to see that smart, positional PMDs like Zubov and Bouwmeester are nothing like Phil Housley (by watching, or stats, or whatever you want to use).

Generally, that phrase was shortened from "the exception proves the rule [exists]". For instance, if you see a sign saying "Free Parking on Sundays", then you may assume an implied "No Free Parking on non-Sundays".

The problem is that today, it's typically used like this:

"You can't win a Stanley Cup without an elite goaltender"

"What about the Blackhawks with Antti Niemi?"

"Oh, that's the exception that proves the rule."

But I digress...

 

[cgf]

Eye test is subjective and influenced by the players respective team. If the teams forwards are constantly exposing the D than they make the D jobs look difficult making them look worse and vice versa

This is a weird point since the eye test does a much better job of identifying contextual factors like the support they get from forwards than do simple advanced stats.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

This is a weird point since the eye test does a much better job of identifying contextual factors like the support they get from forwards than do simple advanced stats.

Much better job?

Well, no, but your brain believes that your eyes are doing a much better job. Why wouldn't it? They're your eyes and your brain.

 

[Pyromaniac]

lol at OP's obvious attempt to try and prove that Gunnarsson is better then Hjalmarsson, without actually coming out and saying it.

So... show me, prove that Hjalmarsson is > Gunnarsson.

Im sure if a poll was done with the 2 it would be incredibly lopsided in Hjalmarsson's favor and rightfully so.

Pretty sure that's the OP admitting that Hammer is better.

Maybe you feel the need to attach an ulterior motive to a simple question because you do exactly what you are accusing the OP of.

 

[Hammer Time]

This thread isn't about who is better than who. Its about how do we go about to prove who's better. Here's Oduya vs Hjmalmarsson.

Hjalmarsson
Quality of Competition: 6th league wide amongst dmen.
Offensive zone start %: 48.3%
On Ice Corsi: +6.77
Corsi Relative QoC: -8.4
Goals Against On ice/60: 2.05
Teams GA Off-Ice/60: 2.27
On Ice Sv%: .915
On Ice Sv% SH: .873
TOI: 21:16
SH TOI: 2:49
Blocks: 157
Hits: 39
Takeaways: 21
Giveaways: 100
+/- : +11

Oduya
Quality of Competition: 4th league wide amongst dmen.
Offensive zone start %: 48.6%
On Ice Corsi: +6.23
Corsi Relative QoC: -9.9
Goals Against On ice/60: 1.94
Teams GA Off-Ice/60: 2.56
On Ice Sv%: .918
On Ice Sv% SH: .828
TOI: 20:06
SH TOI: 2:07
Blocks: 114
Hits: 49
Takeaways: 15
Giveaways: 52
+/- : +11

As you can see you cant clearly make out which dman is superior.

On-ice stats are notoriously poor at separating the impact of defensive partners. Your best bet is to look at WOWY ("with or without you") stats which basically compare a player's impact when they are on the ice with a particular partner or not.