Injury Report: DeKeyser Having MRI aka Corsi? More like Borsi!

[Invictus12]

I can tell you this as a matter of fact, Dekeyser's general possession and corsi numbers aren't great. Which usually illustrates he's not much of an offensive player. Which is fine, obviously. Dekeyser is what he is. And that's a good middle down shut down defenseman.

I don't even know how Corsi works so I won't dispute that one way or another. I do know what I see in comparison to our other players and those of opposing teams. Which is very subjective but I trust it for most part. Then again, I think someone made the Corsi argument for Kindl as well so...

Will he get there, I don't know. Definitely don't see him being a goal scorer. Making passes, he shown he's perfectly capable there. I also know that he's often trusted to be the anchor on the breakouts and he does well in that respect too.

 

[Flowah]

I don't even know how Corsi works so I won't dispute that one way or another. I do know what I see in comparison to our other players and those of opposing teams. Which is very subjective but I trust it for most part. Then again, I think someone made the Corsi argument for Kindl as well so...

Corsi is very simple. Take the number of shot attempts for and compare it to the number of shot attempts against. Shot attempts includes any kind of shot attempted whether it misses, gets saved, or blocked. The theory behind Corsi is that it is a proxy for possession. Teams with more possession attempt more shots because you need to possess the puck to attempt a shot. And teams with more possession deny the other team shots because they don't have the puck and so they can't shoot it.

Generally in hockey, more possession = win. You can't win if you don't score, you can't score if you can't shoot, you can't shoot if you don't have the puck. The reason they count missed and blocked is because it doesn't matter whether it gets blocked or the shot misses. It still means you had the puck before you shot it.

Kindl has good Corsi numbers but he gets pretty sheltered minutes so it's to be expected. I haven't seen DD's, but if his are on the wrong side and other teams get more shots on him than he gets on them when he's on the ice, that isn't good.

 

[Invictus12]

Corsi is very simple. Take the number of shot attempts for and compare it to the number of shot attempts against. Shot attempts includes any kind of shot attempted whether it misses, gets saved, or blocked. The theory behind Corsi is that it is a proxy for possession. Teams with more possession attempt more shots because you need to possess the puck to attempt a shot. And teams with more possession deny the other team shots because they don't have the puck and so they can't shoot it.

Generally in hockey, more possession = win. You can't win if you don't score, you can't score if you can't shoot, you can't shoot if you don't have the puck. The reason they count missed and blocked is because it doesn't matter whether it gets blocked or the shot misses. It still means you had the puck before you shot it.

Kindl has good Corsi numbers but he gets pretty sheltered minutes so it's to be expected. I haven't seen DD's, but if his are on the wrong side and other teams get more shots on him than he gets on them when he's on the ice, that isn't good.

First, thank you for taking the time to explain how Corsi works!

I already see a huge flaw here, especially when it comes to DRW. Last year, for the most part, the system we played would certainly not reflect the supposed idea of what Corsi represents. We spent a lot of time in opposing teams end setting up plays without ever even attempting a shot. That's just the way Babcock ran things. His entire philosophy was pretty much about keeping the game in the opposing end and play it safe to the point of frustration. We certainly played more in the offensive zone but mostly cycling the puck until an opportunity was open. With rushes going the other way where team is most certain wants to get the shot off. That's in no way a good measure how effective a player is, certainly not this team under Babcock.

 

[Flowah]

It's a great way to measure players and teams, even under Babcock. The Wings were one of the top Corsi teams.

It's not just about the shots you get off, but the ones you prevent the other team from taking. If the Wings were doing what you said, and playing it safe and keeping the puck in the opposing end, the enemy team wouldn't be able to take many shots because no one really shoots from their own zone. That's played out by the data.

Instead of having a knee-jerk gut reaction to defend your player or position, try to think more deeply about it. You should know that Corsi and its "cousin" Fenwick, are a couple of the best predictors of success for a team.

 

[Invictus12]

It's a great way to measure players and teams, even under Babcock. The Wings were one of the top Corsi teams.

It's not just about the shots you get off, but the ones you prevent the other team from taking. If the Wings were doing what you said, and playing it safe and keeping the puck in the opposing end, the enemy team wouldn't be able to take many shots because no one really shoots from their own zone. That's played out by the data.

Instead of having a knee-jerk gut reaction to defend your player or position, try to think more deeply about it. You should know that Corsi and its "cousin" Fenwick, are a couple of the best predictors of success for a team.

Overall perhaps. This isn't really a knee-jerk on my part. I've been complaining about this aspect of endlessly cycling the puck along the boards in opposing end the entire season. This was actually at the heart of reasons why I prefered not to play Montreal in playoffs last year. They had a lot of speed upfront with a lot of very good passers on the back-end. With the way they played and we played, I felt we'd get burned more often than not.

The way we played does have an effect on the way Corsi would look. If you cycle the puck looking for an opening all the time, without even attempting a shot, that actually speaks nothing of Corsi numbers even though you were in control of the play yet ended up with less shooting attempts.

 

[Flowah]

Again, you seem to be of the mistaken impression that not getting a lot of shot attempts is the be all end all of Corsi. It's not. That's only half the equation. The other half is limiting opponent shots, which comes *naturally* as a result of cycling it in their zone, which made itself apparent in the Wing's good Corsi numbers last season.

Corsi explains everything you're talking about very well, you just don't want to admit it. If you're scared of getting burned by a fast team with good passers it's because we don't take enough shots when we should and we aren't good enough at limiting the other team from taking shots. That will show itself in the numbers.

If you cycle the puck looking for an opening all the time, without even attempting a shot, that actually speaks nothing of Corsi numbers even though you were in control of the play yet ended up with less shooting attempts.

Yes it does. If you are cycling in their zone, then the other team isn't getting shots. Because Corsi compares your attempts to their attempts, if they aren't getting shots then that's very good for your Corsi.

 

[Invictus12]

Again, you seem to be of the mistaken impression that not getting a lot of shot attempts is the be all end all of Corsi. It's not. That's only half the equation. The other half is limiting opponent shots, which comes *naturally* as a result of cycling it in their zone, which made itself apparent in the Wing's good Corsi numbers last season.

Corsi explains everything you're talking about very well, you just don't want to admit it. If you're scared of getting burned by a fast team with good passers it's because we don't take enough shots when we should and we aren't good enough at limiting the other team from taking shots. That will show itself in the numbers.




Yes it does. If you are cycling in their zone, then the other team isn't getting shots. Because Corsi compares your attempts to their attempts, if they aren't getting shots then that's very good for your Corsi.

No, you're simply only taking part of what I say and ignoring the other part. I'm saying Corsi, has absolutely nothing to do with possession of a team or a player when you just simply control the play without actually making a shot. So, if your team doesn't get off the shot and the opposing team doesn't, that's a wash, correct? So what am I missing here??? Furthermore, if you control a play for a minute plus in the opposing end but never get off the shot, the other team finally gets the possession of the puck, rushes to the other end, attempts the shot, you regain the puck and spend the next two minutes in their end without again, actually attempting a shot, who gets the positive up in there Corsi numbers? With slight of exaggeration on my part here, that was often the scenario with this team last year because, again, we cycled the puck to look for an opening along the boards. We didn't, for most part, try and shoot and get a rebound off or make east west passes for one timers. Our whole philosophy was to lure the opposing d-men to follow and often, teams didn't get suckered in.

So where in the world does Corsi actually measures possession here?

 

[WingedWheel1987]

I wouldn't call that a wash. The team possessing the puck had a better chance of scoring than the team that didn't. If you consistently do that, i start to think of the phrase/saying, "good teams find a way to create puck luck."

 

[Invictus12]

I wouldn't call that a wash. The team possessing the puck had a better chance of scoring than the team that didn't. If you consistently do that, i start to think of the phrase/saying, "good teams find a way to create puck luck."

I'm talking about how it actually reflects on the numbers themselves. When it comes to just pure having puck on your teams stick, I'd suspect Detroit might have been the best team in league last year. That won't necessarily reflect on Corsi numbers, from what I gather here because at the end of the day, part of the strategy was to keep that possession until you make an opening, which often never came and a shot was never made and often you lose the puck and get one from the opposing team.

 

[Flowah]

So where in the world does Corsi actually measures possession here?

As I said in my first post explaining it, it's a proxy. It's a very good one, compared to others. And short of literally sitting there with a stopwatch it's a good way to measure it, one backed by statistical evidence.

I'd suspect Detroit might have been the best team in league last year. That won't necessarily reflect on Corsi numbers

But it does. Because Corsi works. As I'm saying for the *third time* now, Detroit was one of the top teams in Corsi last season. You might think they just cycle forever endlessly and never attempt shots, but they are attempting some. And meanwhile they are denying the other team any shots. Plus when you look at the underlying data you'll see that, agreeing with your suspicions, Detroit didn't shoot very much. Detroit was a low event team. They didn't shoot much but they also prevented the other team from shooting even more than that so overall the Corsi ratio was really good.

It works.

 

[Invictus12]

As I said in my first post explaining it, it's a proxy. It's a very good one, compared to others. And short of literally sitting there with a stopwatch it's a good way to measure it, one backed by statistical evidence.

But it does. Because Corsi works. As I'm saying for the *third time* now, Detroit was one of the top teams in Corsi last season. You might think they just cycle forever endlessly and never attempt shots, but they are attempting some. And meanwhile they are denying the other team any shots. Plus when you look at the underlying data you'll see that, agreeing with your suspicions, Detroit didn't shoot very much. Detroit was a low event team. They didn't shoot much but they also prevented the other team from shooting even more than that so overall the Corsi ratio was really good.

It works.

Okay I see that it can be used in context with information but I'm still not sure how it evaluates individual players. I mean, if you're on the same line as Tatar for instance or Tatar himself, whose philosophy is shoot the puck and something will go in at some point, naturally your numbers would be a bit better. Then you have a guy like Nyquist who's more conservative with his shots and his pluses (or whatever the metric system is for corsi) might not be quite as high but at the same time both can generate equal amount of minuses...

My eyes kind of tell me they're pretty similar in both defense and offence and yet one is probably looking better on the metrics for no other reason than style.

 

[Actual Thought*]

It's a great way to measure players and teams, even under Babcock. The Wings were one of the top Corsi teams.

It's not just about the shots you get off, but the ones you prevent the other team from taking. If the Wings were doing what you said, and playing it safe and keeping the puck in the opposing end, the enemy team wouldn't be able to take many shots because no one really shoots from their own zone. That's played out by the data.

Instead of having a knee-jerk gut reaction to defend your player or position, try to think more deeply about it. You should know that Corsi and its "cousin" Fenwick, are a couple of the best predictors of success for a team.

That is a bit of an exaggeration because both systems have massive holes in them. For any case you can make for corsi you can find an equally opposite case. They may be useful in some cases but are far from a be all end all.

Okay I see that it can be used in context with information but I'm still not sure how it evaluates individual players. I mean, if you're on the same line as Tatar for instance or Tatar himself, whose philosophy is shoot the puck and something will go in at some point, naturally your numbers would be a bit better. Then you have a guy like Nyquist who's more conservative with his shots and his pluses (or whatever the metric system is for corsi) might not be quite as high but at the same time both can generate equal amount of minuses...

My eyes kind of tell me they're pretty similar in both defense and offence and yet one is probably looking better on the metrics for no other reason than style.

That's where the systems fall very short. Watching hockey with a bit of understanding of what you are seeing is much more valuable in terms of analysis.

 

[Invictus12]

That's where the systems fall very short. Watching hockey with a bit of understanding of what you are seeing is much more valuable in terms of analysis.

Yeah, by the way the corsi argument gets thrown around this site, I would have thought it was something a lot more than attempts for and against....

 

[Flowah]

I mean, if you're on the same line as Tatar for instance or Tatar himself, whose philosophy is shoot the puck and something will go in at some point, naturally your numbers would be a bit better.

But it also measures attempts against. So if you're shooting a ton but you still give up a lot of attempts against, your Corsi isn't going to be good. You have to do both to have a good Corsi. If someone takes 100 shots attempts for but allows 120 against, he's going to have a worse Corsi than someone who only takes 50 attempts but allows only 30 against. Just shooting a lot isn't enough.

Yes, being on a line with Tatar will almost certainly raise that because he's a good possession player. But if you're a worse player then you'll bring his down. Worse players will drop it more than better players. You can compare that and see who's allowing more shots/getting more shots.

My eyes kind of tell me they're pretty similar in both defense and offence and yet one is probably looking better on the metrics for no other reason than style.

Here's the thing. I do not trust human eyes. I know just how unreliable they are. Eyewitnesses are notoriously untrustworthy. And that's on top of whatever biases you have. You also clearly disagree, based on the eye test, with myself and at least one other poster on Dekesyer's offensive abilities. Obviously if everyone just falls back on "well that's just what I see" then it's pretty pointless. You need something to back it up. Something objective. If someone is actually a good player, it will show up in the long term on the stats sheet somewhere. And apparently I have to make this disclaimer, but I'm not saying that Corsi is the only thing. +/- is there, goals, assists are there. QoC is there. Zone starts are there. All of that and more combines to give you a better concrete base upon which to judge a player.

Numbers and this kind of "Moneyball" stuff is just going to get better and better. We're just meat robots. We're predictable with the right information. People fought it in baseball too but not anymore. Hockey is tougher to nail down in pure numbers because it's more random but make no mistake it's gonna happen.

That is a bit of an exaggeration because both systems have massive holes in them. For any case you can make for corsi you can find an equally opposite case. They may be useful in some cases but are far from a be all end all.

You should point out to me where I said they were perfect or the be all end all.

Yeah, by the way the corsi argument gets thrown around this site, I would have thought it was something a lot more than attempts for and against....

Why? The theory is logical, the numbers back it up, and it has demonstrated predictive power. It's a key piece in player evaluations. Obviously there's more that goes into it but it's a big piece. Individual player evaluations can be more precisely had by teasing out what happens with different linemates and what happens "WOWY."

 

[opivy]

I trust numbers a lot more than the rashomon effect. Realistically you take the numbers to support what you see and vice versa. If everything in life was as simple as distilling things down to the end all be all then we'd live in a very boring world.

Also - when you look up the Corsi #'s the players who are the best in the eye test end up very highly rated. It's more a method to uncover some gems than a way to figure out "who's best". You already generally know who's best, it's the guys in the middle that teams want to whittle out via analytics and get at a bargain to fill out the middle lines and win a cup.

 

[Invictus12]

But it also measures attempts against. So if you're shooting a ton but you still give up a lot of attempts against, your Corsi isn't going to be good. You have to do both to have a good Corsi. If someone takes 100 shots attempts for but allows 120 against, he's going to have a worse Corsi than someone who only takes 50 attempts but allows only 30 against. Just shooting a lot isn't enough.

Yes, being on a line with Tatar will almost certainly raise that because he's a good possession player. But if you're a worse player then you'll bring his down. Worse players will drop it more than better players. You can compare that and see who's allowing more shots/getting more shots.

Here's the thing. I do not trust human eyes. I know just how unreliable they are. Eyewitnesses are notoriously untrustworthy. And that's on top of whatever biases you have. You also clearly disagree, based on the eye test, with myself and at least one other poster on Dekesyer's offensive abilities. Obviously if everyone just falls back on "well that's just what I see" then it's pretty pointless. You need something to back it up. Something objective. If someone is actually a good player, it will show up in the long term on the stats sheet somewhere. And apparently I have to make this disclaimer, but I'm not saying that Corsi is the only thing. +/- is there, goals, assists are there. QoC is there. Zone starts are there. All of that and more combines to give you a better concrete base upon which to judge a player.

Numbers and this kind of "Moneyball" stuff is just going to get better and better. We're just meat robots. We're predictable with the right information. People fought it in baseball too but not anymore. Hockey is tougher to nail down in pure numbers because it's more random but make no mistake it's gonna happen.




Why? The theory is logical, the numbers back it up, and it has demonstrated predictive power. It's a key piece in player evaluations. Obviously there's more that goes into it but it's a big piece. Individual player evaluations can be more precisely had by teasing out what happens with different linemates and what happens "WOWY."

But it also measures attempts against. So if you're shooting a ton but you still give up a lot of attempts against, your Corsi isn't going to be good. You have to do both to have a good Corsi. If someone takes 100 shots attempts for but allows 120 against, he's going to have a worse Corsi than someone who only takes 50 attempts but allows only 30 against. Just shooting a lot isn't enough.

Yes, being on a line with Tatar will almost certainly raise that because he's a good possession player. But if you're a worse player then you'll bring his down. Worse players will drop it more than better players. You can compare that and see who's allowing more shots/getting more shots.

Yes but that still amounts more to a team effort as oppose to individual play. On top of that, chemistry between players does play a factor as well and I would imagine one line not working because one player, despite how good just doesn't happen to mesh well with his particular line mates. When it comes to defense, its even more murky as one might be more willing to throw his body or deflect the shot with his stick while the other is better at forcing a player to go around and never lets him get the shot off. Both effective but in different ways. One system might be more dependent on clogging up the middle but if you get through, you're odds are better of getting off a better scoring chance. There are a lot of this aspects here that you can't simply measure with for or against.

Here's the thing. I do not trust human eyes. I know just how unreliable they are. Eyewitnesses are notoriously untrustworthy. And that's on top of whatever biases you have. You also clearly disagree, based on the eye test, with myself and at least one other poster on Dekesyer's offensive abilities. Obviously if everyone just falls back on "well that's just what I see" then it's pretty pointless. You need something to back it up. Something objective. If someone is actually a good player, it will show up in the long term on the stats sheet somewhere. And apparently I have to make this disclaimer, but I'm not saying that Corsi is the only thing. +/- is there, goals, assists are there. QoC is there. Zone starts are there. All of that and more combines to give you a better concrete base upon which to judge a player.

While for the most part true, you ignore that numbers in this case are being used to interpret something a lot more complex than simple output. I'm pretty sure statistics would tell you that you can predict a massive amounts of information to a large degree but never individual aspects. In other words, I can see how this metric can to some degree evaluate a line or the entire team. (Even then a lot of context would need to be piled up on top) When you want to argue how an individual will or does play in a team game??? Yeah, numbers game doesn't really apply. What I disagreed with is that Dekeyser can develop a better offensive instinct and he already possess passing ability. (Something everyone seems to agree with) I doubt my eyes are deceiving me when he makes a tape to tape pass to a guy skating to the opponents blue line while he just recovered the puck in his zone. He does this often enough for me to conclude that the ability is at least there.

You can perhaps not 'believe me' and surely enough people do make a bunch of stuff up. Certainly, the argument you proposed doesn't really bring anything substantial on it's own.


Numbers and this kind of "Moneyball" stuff is just going to get better and better. We're just meat robots. We're predictable with the right information. People fought it in baseball too but not anymore. Hockey is tougher to nail down in pure numbers because it's more random but make no mistake it's gonna happen.


You should point out to me where I said they were perfect or the be all end all.

Baseball, while a team sport, is played much more on an individual level. Where it's mostly the pitcher versus the batter. (or whatever you call those guys) So if hockey was played entirely as a shoot out, I would actually agree with you.

Once again though, when it comes to people, and as person who follows economics quite a bit, you can predict the numbers of general masses. If you want to pin point individual performance, any social scientist will tell you that's impossible. Quite infact, your kind of argument is very much what led to the economic crises in 07. Numbers made sense, reality didn't agree.

Why? The theory is logical, the numbers back it up, and it has demonstrated predictive power. It's a key piece in player evaluations. Obviously there's more that goes into it but it's a big piece. Individual player evaluations can be more precisely had by teasing out what happens with different linemates and what happens "WOWY."

So how exactly do you account for maturity? Or plain interest? Or enthusiasm? Or ability to adapt? Strive to learn? Ambition? Kind of all important aspects in playing the game and keep being good at it and progressing farther. Some get it sooner, some later, some never. You have plenty of players that look all but done at age 30 even and finally 'find their game back' when they're 35. Human behavior isn't quite as robotic as you make it out to be. It can be predicted to a large degree based on our similarities. (That's actually how psychics approach and fool people, based on the common denominator) You want to predict individual performance in a place where it's a bit more intimate and that a whole different can of worms.

 

[Invictus12]

I trust numbers a lot more than the rashomon effect. Realistically you take the numbers to support what you see and vice versa. If everything in life was as simple as distilling things down to the end all be all then we'd live in a very boring world.

Also - when you look up the Corsi #'s the players who are the best in the eye test end up very highly rated. It's more a method to uncover some gems than a way to figure out "who's best". You already generally know who's best, it's the guys in the middle that teams want to whittle out via analytics and get at a bargain to fill out the middle lines and win a cup.

Again, if you go entirely by masses, it's true. You go by individual and your whole concept falls apart. It's kind of the reason we call guys 'gems' when they get drafted in the later rounds but end up being exceptional players. That's also true in quantum theory. So when you want to argue certainty, your in for a shock.

 

[Henkka]

Yeah, by the way the corsi argument gets thrown around this site, I would have thought it was something a lot more than attempts for and against....

Is there any stat site that would separate players with only def-zone starts and corsis against`? Or more Fenwick, because in Fenwick, blocked shots are not counted. Good shot blockers should look better in Fenwick against data that at Corsi against data.

Guys like Kindl are sheltered from def.zone, but they take some starts from there. They can't be sheltered from all starts. That's the data I want to compare on Kronwall/Ericsson/DeKeyser and better if it is with qualcomp.

I hate that corsi for, because it turns for/against values good for a shooting player. I don't give a **** how defenceman shoots or not. I just want to know does he prevent shooting from opposite team. That's defending.

 

[Bench]

If only advanced stats could fix DeKeyser.

 

[Yemack]

I mean... literally every stat needs contextualization. Primary assists are generally more valuable than secondary, but not always. Not all goals are of equal value. Some are literally bounced in off of you by pure luck, others are you taking it coast to coast. I've never see the kind of pushback against goals and assists that I see for Corsi. It's ridiculous.

And no, no GM would just look at the stat sheet to draft. It would be equally ridiculous to ignore it and judge completely on the eye test.

how else would you rate a player? use Corsi? just because you think eye tests are not objective enough for some people doesn't mean it's not the best available tool right now for reasons I stated above.

btw I'm not denouncing stat completely. if you read my posts that's pretty evident. However, when reading your post, one can easily say that it's more like you are denouncing eyeball test to a quite a degree just because it's not 'numbers'. I kinda like statistic tools but when using statistic tools I just want it to be used in right way with high standard. Corsi and Fenwick or whatever, I guess some people can tell a story about a player using those but I just dont see how it can tell more about a player than using your brain and eyes.

Back to your regular Dekeyser discussion.

 

[Actual Thought*]

If only advanced stats could fix DeKeyser.

Indeed. This injury along with Pav's delays our chance to see the team that is intended to be iced. The opening 3-4 weeks won't even resemble what is intended to be the team. Hopefully they don't slip too deep in the standings.

 

[HockeyinHD]

I don't think it's as much he needs to get his shot through, as it's just not very accurate. Hell, he misses the net altogether quite a bit.

I agree. In his first 180 games Kronwall's shooting percentage was 3.9. In his first 156 Dekeyser's is 3.2. Kronwall got more PP IT, and shooting percentages go up there.

Kronwall was billed as an offensive defenseman for as long as I can remember.

Lots of guys are inaccurately billed as things though. Kronwall's not the first, the last or the worst case of that. Kronwall has always been a well-rounded dman, not a guy who showed elite abilities either offensively or defensively. He's been strong on both sides of the ice, but there have been loads of guys better than him offensively and loads better defensively. Not many better in both ways at the same time.

Dekeyser was never labeled that, though he has improved in that regard. Kronwall always had a dynamic offensive element to his game.

A) Kronwall has never had a dynamic offensive element to his game. His career highs in either goals or assists would rarely win a given season's scoring races at the position. He doesn't have a threatening shot, he doesn't have exceptional accuracy, and he's not a wizard passing the puck up the ice. We've seen elite offensive dmen in Detroit. Come on. As a 40 year old Lidstrom put up more goals than Kronwall has ever scored in any season and more assists than Kronwall has ever had in any season... in the same year. Kronwall's very good offensively, but let's not lose sight of what being elite actually means. Kronwall puts up 37-39 year old Larry Murphy numbers. Actually, that's not true. Murphy's pair of 52 point seasons is more than Kronwall's ever put up in Detroit.

B) I don't think Dekeyser is a better offensive player than Kronwall at his best or is likely to become such. I do think he is a better defensive player than Kronwall, and if he can get as close to Kronwall offensively as he is past Kronwall defensively, we're talking about equivalent net talents.

Also, as Kronwall declines matching Kronwall at his best becomes a meaningless distinction.

I don't quite get where this poo-poo'ing of Dekeyser's offensive potential comes from, to be honest. Very common refrains here with regards to young/inexperienced players are a)that an expanded role would lead to expanded production and b) so and so is 'trending upwards, so we should expect that to continue.

Between year 2 and year 3 Dekeyser's point production actually increased around 8% (in terms of points per game) while his IT/g actually went down just over 3%. He actually is trending upwards. Yeah, it's a short trend and yeah, I don't see some amazingly high ceiling here but let's say Dekeyser eventually tops out after improving his ES point production/minute another 8% over what he did last year while his IT and usage remains generally the same, but perhaps increasing slightly in terms of raw IT/g to the high 21's, so a 3-5% overall bump.

That would move him reliably into the top 15 in the whole NHL in terms of ES points at the position and right up there next to guys I like to call Duncan Keith, Shea Weber, and Kris Letang.

I mean, come on. Let's not throw too much shade at the guy's production.

You thought Ericsson was better than Quincey last year? I agree with you he was better than Smith or Kindl.

By the tail end of the season when Ericsson was (we now know) physically wrecked, not really. For the majority of the past two years though? For sure.

 

[Frk It]

I agree. In his first 180 games Kronwall's shooting percentage was 3.9. In his first 156 Dekeyser's is 3.2. Kronwall got more PP IT, and shooting percentages go up there.



Lots of guys are inaccurately billed as things though. Kronwall's not the first, the last or the worst case of that. Kronwall has always been a well-rounded dman, not a guy who showed elite abilities either offensively or defensively. He's been strong on both sides of the ice, but there have been loads of guys better than him offensively and loads better defensively. Not many better in both ways at the same time.



A) Kronwall has never had a dynamic offensive element to his game. His career highs in either goals or assists would rarely win a given season's scoring races at the position. He doesn't have a threatening shot, he doesn't have exceptional accuracy, and he's not a wizard passing the puck up the ice. We've seen elite offensive dmen in Detroit. Come on. As a 40 year old Lidstrom put up more goals than Kronwall has ever scored in any season and more assists than Kronwall has ever had in any season... in the same year. Kronwall's very good offensively, but let's not lose sight of what being elite actually means. Kronwall puts up 37-39 year old Larry Murphy numbers. Actually, that's not true. Murphy's pair of 52 point seasons is more than Kronwall's ever put up in Detroit.

B) I don't think Dekeyser is a better offensive player than Kronwall at his best or is likely to become such. I do think he is a better defensive player than Kronwall, and if he can get as close to Kronwall offensively as he is past Kronwall defensively, we're talking about equivalent net talents.

Also, as Kronwall declines matching Kronwall at his best becomes a meaningless distinction.

I don't quite get where this poo-poo'ing of Dekeyser's offensive potential comes from, to be honest. Very common refrains here with regards to young/inexperienced players are a)that an expanded role would lead to expanded production and b) so and so is 'trending upwards, so we should expect that to continue.

Between year 2 and year 3 Dekeyser's point production actually increased around 8% (in terms of points per game) while his IT/g actually went down just over 3%. He actually is trending upwards. Yeah, it's a short trend and yeah, I don't see some amazingly high ceiling here but let's say Dekeyser eventually tops out after improving his ES point production/minute another 8% over what he did last year while his IT and usage remains generally the same, but perhaps increasing slightly in terms of raw IT/g to the high 21's, so a 3-5% overall bump.

That would move him reliably into the top 15 in the whole NHL in terms of ES points at the position and right up there next to guys I like to call Duncan Keith, Shea Weber, and Kris Letang.

I mean, come on. Let's not throw too much shade at the guy's production.



By the tail end of the season when Ericsson was (we now know) physically wrecked, not really. For the majority of the past two years though? For sure.

It's all a matter of opinion, at the end of the day.

And can I ask a question... Nyquist and Dekeyser are 6 months apart. How come Dekeyser is going to get way better but you think Nyquist is done developing?

When it comes to Dekeyser, it's just as simple as I don't think he has the tools to run a PP, and at 25 I don't see him waking up tomorrow with a significantly more accurate shot and better hands to receive passes and work a cycle. If he does, that's totally awesome. Like I said and have said, I just don't see it. Even if he never gets 1% better I still like him a lot and want him here long term.

For what it's worth, I think your description of Kronwall is way off and I think he is without a doubt elite offensively when it comes to defenseman in the present NHL. Comparing him to a top 5 defenseman ever and what Larry Murhpy did in freaking 1998 is 100% worthless.

Here's how Kronwall was described at age 21 (2002):

Kronwall’s skill level is undeniable; his offensive abilities are very impressive

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/4557/a_closer_look_at_niklas_kronwall/

 

[Actual Thought*]

It's all a matter of opinion, at the end of the day.

And can I ask a question... Nyquist and Dekeyser are 6 months apart. How come Dekeyser is going to get way better but you think Nyquist is done developing?

When it comes to Dekeyser, it's just as simple as I don't think he has the tools to run a PP, and at 25 I don't see him waking up tomorrow with a significantly more accurate shot and better hands to receive passes and work a cycle. If he does, that's totally awesome. Like I said and have said, I just don't see it. Even if he never gets 1% better I still like him a lot and want him here long term.

For what it's worth, I think your description of Kronwall is way off and I think he is without a doubt elite offensively when it comes to defenseman in the present NHL. Comparing him to a top 5 defenseman ever and what Larry Murhpy did in freaking 1998 is 100% worthless.

Player don't "wake up" and suddenly improve in a particular area. They work at it. Any player in the league can work at improving aspects of their game and achieve improvement. I am surprised you don't get that give you are a fan of a sport like hockey.
Defencemen always take longer to develop than forwards. They almost always top out much later in their careers. Dekeyser is still likely 2-3 years from his peak and definitely trending upward.

 

[redwingsphan]

If only advanced stats could fix DeKeyser.

Love the subtlety.