CantHaveTkachev
Legends
Some of us need more than one season from somebody is anoit them a top 20 d-manHow the actual **** is Slavin not in yet?
He's back to being underrated from the looks of it.
Some of us need more than one season from somebody is anoit them a top 20 d-manHow the actual **** is Slavin not in yet?
He's back to being underrated from the looks of it.
Originally Posted by DominicBoltsFan View Post
How the actual **** is Slavin not in yet?
He's back to being underrated from the looks of it.
Some of us need more than one season from somebody is anoit them a top 20 d-man
Only a Rangers fan would say Fowler is a slightly better version of MDZ. That alone told me everything I needed to know about that poster's opinion, which is to say he wouldn't know his head from his ass when it came to Fowler.
I'm not going to talk about analytics again. I still think they are hugely questionable when it comes to individual players, especially defensemen. Nothing I've seen recently changes that, including the fact that Fowler was just a 25-minute defenseman for one of the best teams in the NHL. One of the best defensive teams too.
Yes, even with his seemingly awful analytics, he was a huge part of that team's success.
Other than SA/60, Anaheim was below average in every shot suppression metrics. They were fantastic in goals against metrics though, but seeing how much Ducks fans overrate Gibson, it leads to a lot of people concluding goaltending bailed them out than the "Not every shot in the same area is of the same quality" saying. Also it doesn't matter how good the team is, because whenever Fowler was on the ice, the Ducks were far worse in every metrics available, INCLUDING goals against metrics.
I do so love when people think they can determine a player's worth entirely through questionable statistics. Especially when they've all but proven they don't observe the player much.
Letting these numbers lead you by the nose doesn't mean you know a player.
For your information I do think Fowler is still a great player, if the advanced stats committee thinks he's not even a 3D then they're dumb, but at the same time I don't see how Fowler is the 21st best Dman in the league and better than Krug, Slavin, Trouba, Klingberg, etc. Because I doubt you watch those 4 much either and from short sample size of watching all 5 mentioned Dman, I'd say Fowler was the least impressive. I get if I watched more of Fowler my opinions could change, but at the same time if I watched all of them through season by season sample size, my opinion could still remain the exact same as today (Aka those 4 are better than Fowler), and advanced stats simply back it up. Fowler is better defensively than Klingberg and has proven can carry difficult passengers better and overall moves the puck better than Klingberg, but Klingberg wins in everything else, and has better efficiency when moving the puck. The other 3 Dman? I think they're better than Fowler in just about everything but pure puck moving, but again better efficiency. Fowler is an elite 2D, while the other 4 are lowend 1D.
Some of us need more than one season from somebody is anoit them a top 20 d-man
Some people might need to see McDavid put up another dominant year before calling him a top-20 C. Some people know what a stud #1 looks like when they see it.
I mean while I think Slavin is a top 20 Dman, McDavid's pedigree as a rookie and pre-draft appointed him to be an automatic top 3 C, and he's only shown that since.
Krug, a 21 minute defenseman, is a low end 1D? Not buying it.
Where the **** did Fowler come from?
Nobody watches Slavin play and comes away unimpressed. His ascension to #1 status was fast and decisive. The people who are under rating Slavin are the ones who simply haven't watched him. He has such a rapidly growing and strong collection of non-Canes fans because the people who do catch a Canes game notice it immediately. Much in the same way that any non-Hockey fan would watch an Oilers game and say "wow that McDavid kid is amazing".
This is the issue with "appointing" status due to factors other than what the player is doing on the ice at the NHL level.
Krug, a 21 minute defenseman, is a low end 1D? Not buying it. Yeah, yeah, I know. Analytics. I'm also not buying Klingberg ahead of Fowler, especially if we're looking at this most recent season.
I think an argument can be made for Slavin and Trouba. I've never said otherwise. But if Krug and Klingberg are low end 1D, I'm going to scoff when you suggest that Fowler is not.
At any rate, you just admitted you're letting the statistics dictate your opinion. I certainly don't expect people to thoroughly watch every single player, but I'd also expect someone to admit it without passing off their opinion as informed. If you don't watch a player much, maybe you just aren't in a good position to tell others how good they are. And on those few occasions you might watch them, if you're letting the statistics influence your feelings on a player, you're just as likely as any team fan to have your perception warped by confirmation bias. That is, you expect to see something, so that's what you're looking for. That might be good plays, or it might be mistakes, but if that's what you're focusing on, those are the actions that will be isolated in your head.
Too many think that their observations are completely objective, because they are trying to match a player to the statistics they favor. "The numbers don't lie." has become the default defense, like it means the statistics, and the opinions that they generate are immune to criticism. That's become a source of frustration for me, because I like these statistics. I just don't give them the same importance as some, and I think the difference between good metrics and poor ones are smaller than people like to admit. Bottom line? I think they get misused a lot. I think they should be supplementary to watching a player, and vice versa. Watching a player doesn't tell you everything either. Both approaches leave gaps in your knowledge.
Krug votes are a joke. He's 3rd on his team in ES TOI/g, 61st in the league. He's not only not top 20, he's not even top 30.
that great...he did it for one season
do it on a consistent basis (at least play 2 full NHL seasons IMO) then we will talking about #1 stud-status
IMHO, yes. If you're playing 2nd pairing minutes, you're not a top line defender.So were the Vlasic, Hamilton and Paraynko votes jokes, too? How about the Hjarlmasson votes?
If you're not playing regular top pairing minutes at even strength, it likely means you're being sheltered for one reason or another and likely, you're not a top 30 defender and yes, I feel the same way about Vlassic or Hjalmarsson. If they're so great at shutting down top lines, why aren't they playing more?I for one don't think Hamilton is a top 30 Dman, he's getting there but not quite yet. THe reason I think Parayko is a top 30 Dman is because he's truly dominant in his role and his partner is very mep. Vlasic is a top 30 Dman because he takes the hardest competition in the league and is always top 2 defensively (Occasionally Hjalmarsson is better than him defensively like 2014-2015 and 2013-2014, and this season I think Giordano has been better overall) along with solid production. Hjalmarsson isn't a top 30 D purely because of offense.
However people really need to stop using TOI as a big factor in determining how good a player is. Just as high TOI can favour a defenseman's status in rankings, it could easily hinder. Let's take Hamilton and Klingberg for example. Hamilton takes more Dzone starts, tougher competition and less PP time. Both take on almost non-existent PK time. Klingberg plays more minutes overall, meaning he has slightly easier chances to produce (Far less relative Dzone starts) and much more time to produce. In this case Hamilton's production within his time especially given his circumstances and how he still excels in them shows he's the better Dman despite playing far less minutes.
If you're not playing regular top pairing minutes at even strength, it likely means you're being sheltered for one reason or another and likely, you're not a top 30 defender and yes, I feel the same way about Vlassic or Hjalmarsson. If they're so great at shutting down top lines, why aren't they playing more?