Dion Phaneuf: The Phanny 400

[zeke]

I'd prefer that no one plays 26 minutes per game. Given that the optimal shift length is 40 seconds, I think playing time should fluctuate between 20 and 23 minutes for our top-4 defensemen.

not for me. with two skaters like this i'd play the bejeszus out of them.

 

[Duffman955]

Top 25 in Dman scoring overall and in P/60 at even strength.

Positive possession player.

and the best hitter in hockey.

But he's easily replaced by Cameron schlemko

 

[Bravid Nonahan]

If Phaneuf made 5.5M, no one would think he is overpaid. He only makes 1.5M more. I personally don't think it's a huge deal.

 

[hotpaws]

If Phaneuf made 5.5M, no one would think he is overpaid. He only makes 1.5M more. I personally don't think it's a huge deal.

and when the next player comes up for a contract he'll say i'm worth x but throw another 1-2 m on there for ***** and giggles and don't worry about the cap since it seems it doesn't apply too the Leafs

 

[Bravid Nonahan]

and when the next player comes up for a contract he'll say i'm worth x but throw another 1-2 m on there for ***** and giggles and don't worry about the cap since it seems it doesn't apply too the Leafs

That would be pretty stupid.

No one says you should overpay. But if you overpay on one guy, it's not the end of the world.

It really isn't.

It's not like we're paying someone 7M who isn't even worthy of an NHL roster spot. He is a darn good player, but slightly overpaid.

 

[hotpaws]

That would be pretty stupid.

No one says you should overpay. But if you overpay on one guy, it's not the end of the world.

It really isn't.

It's not like we're paying someone 7M who isn't even worthy of an NHL roster spot. He is a darn good player, but slightly overpaid.

most/all teams have overpaid guys but that doesn't mean it's a good situation to have or doesn't impact the rest of your roster

and why do you think the rest of roster will believe they shouldn't push for the same over payment or believe that since we're overpaying DP they should temper there salary demands ?

Rielly needs a new deal and even if we bridge him Dion will still have 2-3 years left when he comes up again so yea it is a much bigger issue than you're trying to make it .

It's imperative LL moves DP and the sooner the better . The teams not going anywhere in the short term , he's not sheltering anyone and we don't need him on the pp so what's the use of keeping him ?

 

[Tak7]

If Phaneuf made 5.5M, no one would think he is overpaid. He only makes 1.5M more. I personally don't think it's a huge deal.

Of course the 1.5M more is a big deal!

If it wasn't a big deal, he wouldn't still be a Maple Leaf!

The only reason Phaneuf is still a Leaf, is because they couldn't find any takers last year and in the summer.

They tried hard to him, and couldn't.

It's a big deal lol.

 

[rdogg]

Of course the 1.5M more is a big deal!

If it wasn't a big deal, he wouldn't still be a Maple Leaf!

The only reason Phaneuf is still a Leaf, is because they couldn't find any takers last year and in the summer.

They tried hard to him, and couldn't.

It's a big deal lol.

I think the biggest problem with trading Dion is that he has another 5 seasons after this one @ 7 Million.

 

[BackHandShelf22]

most/all teams have overpaid guys but that doesn't mean it's a good situation to have or doesn't impact the rest of your roster

and why do you think the rest of roster will believe they shouldn't push for the same over payment or believe that since we're overpaying DP they should temper there salary demands ?

Rielly needs a new deal and even if we bridge him Dion will still have 2-3 years left when he comes up again so yea it is a much bigger issue than you're trying to make it .

It's imperative LL moves DP and the sooner the better . The teams not going anywhere in the short term , he's not sheltering anyone and we don't need him on the pp so what's the use of keeping him ?

Top 4 defensemen are impossible to find these days. Which defenseman in the system has top 3 potential and can contribute now....exactly. He's protecting other players like Percy and Tj brennan from being exposed. Good role model for the young players coming up too.

The Dion deal wasn't constituted by anyone currently in the organization. The comparison would be a weak argument. The agent would go through the usual method of comparing someone of similar experience/age/value. There's not alot of salary on the books right now and for the future as it stands today. Shouldn't be an issue getting Rielly in.

I think the biggest problem with trading Dion is that he has another 5 seasons after this one @ 7 Million.

Pretty much. That's the sticking factor. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried about what he'll be in 3-4 years, but he's playing some good hockey right now. Worry about doomsday when it comes. Not much you can do.

 

[yubbers]

He spit put back to back career worst seasons the year he signed and the next. He'd have to completely fall apart to keep that trend going this year. But we are in the second half and we are talking about Dion so it's possible.

It can't get any worse than the previous 2 years out were officially screwed. Babcock has done s good job increasing his value

He has done a better job this year with the penalties. After leading the league in minors then 2nd last year overall. I guarantee that stat works against him tremendously when teams are considering him

 

[champs*]

This is what he has done for Dion,Gardner,JVR ... Babcock controls what situations these players play in, makes sure there shifts starts in the offensive zone, less defensive responsibility. Less costly mistakes, so these guys look great lol

Gardner is a great possession d-man with a cute corsi, but he is horrible defensively. This why babcock tries to play him as little as possible in the d-zone, no pk,etc

 

[Tak7]

I think the biggest problem with trading Dion is that he has another 5 seasons after this one @ 7 Million.

Correct.

Teams don't want his contract.

5 seasons at 5 million is steep, but more likely to be moved than what he's on now.

Which is why the poster above, suggesting 1.5 million isn't all that important, is off his rocker.

 

[WillNytheSwedishGuy]

What makes the Phaneuf deal that much worse is that the old management regime didn't even structure his salary in a manner that would make him an attractive acquisition to cap floor teams eventually. His salary winds down a little bit over the course of the deal, but he's got signing bonus amounts spread across every year.

 

[91Kadri91*]

This is what he has done for Dion,Gardner,JVR ... Babcock controls what situations these players play in, makes sure there shifts starts in the offensive zone, less defensive responsibility. Less costly mistakes, so these guys look great lol

Gardner is a great possession d-man with a cute corsi, but he is horrible defensively. This why babcock tries to play him as little as possible in the d-zone, no pk,etc

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that's the case. I don't mean that figuratively either, or as a hyperbole: there is literally no metric, anywhere, that suggests that Gardiner is horrible defensively. He's elite at suppressing shots, limiting second opportunities, preventing goals, and precluding (high-danger or otherwise) scoring chances. His defensive zone success rates (based on motion tracked data) were above team average (strictly in the defensive zone, although he was above average in the other zones as well) last season, and his passing suppression is the best on the Leafs by a country ****ing mile.

I know you're going to cite zone-starts (because you have no idea what you're actually talking about, and don't recognize that many shift changes are OTF), but it's time to recognize that zone-starts are not a reflection of how well a player performs in the zone they start in.

Your irrelevant narrative is tired- give it a rest.

 

[champs*]

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that's the case. I don't mean that figuratively either, or as a hyperbole: there is literally no metric, anywhere, that suggests that Gardiner is horrible defensively. He's elite at suppressing shots, limiting second opportunities, preventing goals, and precluding (high-danger or otherwise) scoring chances. His defensive zone success rates (based on motion tracked data) were above team average (strictly in the defensive zone, although he was above average in the other zones as well) last season, and his passing suppression is the best on the Leafs by a country ****ing mile.

I know you're going to cite zone-starts (because you have no idea what you're actually talking about, and don't recognize that many shift changes are OTF), but it's time to recognize that zone-starts are not a reflection of how well a player performs in the zone they start in.

Your irrelevant narrative is tired- give it a rest.

right lol... those are only numbers from a game ago lol feel free to tell me again how babcock doesn't know how to manage the players lol

please next game get a pen and paper out and track Gardner, tell how many times he put on the ice when the face off is in our zone or he is the pk or he plays against the other team #1 line, prove me wrong? lol

 

[WillNytheSwedishGuy]

right lol... those are only numbers from a game ago lol feel free to tell me again how babcock doesn't know how to manage the players lol

please next game get a pen and paper out and track Gardner, tell how many times he put on the ice when the face off is in our zone or he is the pk or he plays against the other team #1 line, prove me wrong? lol

Even if he did this, how would that show that Gardiner is terrible defensively? 91Kadri91 already mentioned this, but using zone starts to indicate how good someone is defensively makes little sense. That you cherry pick it out of the laundry list of stats that refute your point suggests that you have already made your mind up about Gardiner, and go looking for affirmation.

 

[champs*]

Even if he did this, how would that show that Gardiner is terrible defensively? 91Kadri91 already mentioned this, but using zone starts to indicate how good someone is defensively makes little sense. That you cherry pick it out of the laundry list of stats that refute your point suggests that you have already made your mind up about Gardiner, and go looking for affirmation.

I look at numbers and "how" the coach uses the player and come to an opinion, I keep it real... These same stats and "how" the coach uses the player tells that babcock does not like to play Polak in a offensive role on the team.

We all know he has sheltered Dion, Gardner, Jvr, we hear about it on tv,radio all the time? example: "Dion no longer plays against other teams #1 line" etc

"First-year players also tend to have high offensive zone starts; rather than place a rookie in a high-pressure defensive zone role." ... get it yet?


Guy like Hunwck tend to play harder/defensive minutes which lowers their Corsi numbers. Corsi needs to be used with common sense. 91kadri01 needs to understand this, he keeps throwing these corsi around but doesn't get it.

 

[mikebel111*]

Gardiner is our best defender defensively IMO

 

[champs*]

Gardiner is our best defender defensively IMO

good possession player

 

[91Kadri91*]

I look at numbers and "how" the coach uses the player and come to an opinion, I keep it real... These same stats and "how" the coach uses the player tells that babcock does not like to play Polak in a offensive role on the team.

No, you don't look at the numbers; you look at a singular metric and misinterpret its meaning and scope, and subsequently use it to reach erroneous conclusions. You're trying to tell me the colour red is blue by painting it green.

You 'keep it real'? ***** please.

We all know he has sheltered Dion, Gardner, Jvr, here about it on tv,radio all the time? example: "Dion no longer plays against other teams #1 line" etc

And Gardiner plays against the third most difficult QoC, and plays 'the best competition' (significantly) better than Hunwick (who you claim to be a great defenseman).

But I'll get to that.

"First-year players also tend to have high offensive zone starts; rather than place a rookie in a high-pressure defensive zone role." ... get it yet?

Gardiner's fifth (from 'most difficult' to 'easiest') among Leafs' defensemen (with 200+ MP) in ZSO%Rel, Doughty is fourth among L.A. defensemen, Karlsson has the easiest zone starts (the player with the second easiest zone starts has an ZSO%Rel of 6.41, while Karlsson's is 12.53) among Ottawa defensemen, Hedman has the second easiest zone starts among Tampa Bay defensemen (ahead of only Nesterov, who's played 20 games), and Subban has the easiest zone stars among Montreal defensemen.

In case you were unable to deduce this logical conclusion by yourself, I'll go ahead and spell it out for you: zone-starts are not an indicator of ability in any way.

Guy like Hunwck tend to play harder/defensive minutes which lowers their Corsi numbers. Corsi needs to be used with common sense. 91kadri01 needs to understand this, he keeps throwing these corsi around but doesn't get it.

I'm going to write this one more time, so clean your glasses and try your best to comprehend this basic fact: zone starts do not (in most scenarios, including this one) adversely affect quantifiable output in any notable way. Here's a graph:

Let's assume that the difference between Hunwick's zone-starts and Gardiner's zone-starts can account for a variance of 1.8% (it doesn't, but I'll pretend it does so that you can see how ****ing stupid your baseless argument is); even if we remove 1.8 CF% from Gardiner's CFRel and add it to Hunwick's CFRel, Hunwick still doesn't come close to producing Gardiner's Corsi numbers: they're not even comparable.

Now let's consider QoC:

Unsurprisingly, players perform better against weaker competition, but here's the thing:

But here’s the key thing: While it matters if a player is facing Sidney Crosby instead of John Scott at any given moment, the range of competition that a player faces over the course of a season is EXTREMELY SMALL. The gap between the players facing the hardest competition and those facing the weakest competition is the same as facing an average player at most like 4 shot attempts per 60. In other words, the guy with the toughest competition in the league will face an average opponent who is +2 corsi/60, while the guy facing the weakest will face an average opponent who is -2 corsi/60. And nearly all players won’t be in these extremes – most will be within -1 corsi/60 and +1 corsi/60. And as you might expect the gap between opponents who are +1 shot attempts per 60 and those -1 is practically nothing.

The difference QoC makes on a player's statistical results is negligible in the most extreme circumstances, and virtually non-existent otherwise.

Hunwick spends less than half of his TOI playing against statistically 'good' opponents, and Gardiner spends the majority of his time playing against statistically 'average' opponents. Hunwick does spend more time playing against 'good' opposition than Gardiner does, but Hunwick performs significantly worse against said 'good' competition than Gardiner does:



Sorry kid, but Hunwick is getting buried:

 

[WillNytheSwedishGuy]

I look at numbers and "how" the coach uses the player and come to an opinion, I keep it real... These same stats and "how" the coach uses the player tells that babcock does not like to play Polak in a offensive role on the team.

We all know he has sheltered Dion, Gardner, Jvr, we hear about it on tv,radio all the time? example: "Dion no longer plays against other teams #1 line" etc

"First-year players also tend to have high offensive zone starts; rather than place a rookie in a high-pressure defensive zone role." ... get it yet?


Guy like Hunwck tend to play harder/defensive minutes which lowers their Corsi numbers. Corsi needs to be used with common sense. 91kadri01 needs to understand this, he keeps throwing these corsi around but doesn't get it.

91Kadri91 isn't just 'throwing Corsi around' at you, he's obliterating your argument using multiple different statistical measures that suggest the exact opposite interpretation of what you are saying. Its a dead giveaway that you don't understand advanced stats when you look at a post like his and just say he's talking 'corsi'.

While your argument may suggest that some of Gardiner's defensive stats are inflated due to a lack of defensive zone starts, acting like that means he's actually a 'terrible defensive player' is a bogus over-exaggeration.

To your other post: if you were to ask Babcock what the difference is between a D man who possesses the puck well and a D man who plays defense well, I would bet you would be surprised by his answer. Given his belief that the best defence is to possess the puck, he'd likely tell you there isn't much of one. Its not like theres a ton of evidence out there suggesting that Gards is terrible without the puck either, so your belief that he is a terrible defensive player isn't really rooted in statistical evidence at all.

 

[champs*]

Is the below average PK TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 3:13

Jake Gardiner 0:04


Is the below average PP TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 0:12

Jake Gardiner 1:51


Is the below average even strength TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 19:00 <<<< minutes against other teams #1 line (harder minutes that do not favour a good corsi)

Jake Gardiner 17:58

The better corsi here is easily in Jake Gardiner favour with just that offensive TOi against Hunwick tough minutes on the PK against #1 lines ... enough already.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Is the below average PK TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 3:13

Jake Gardiner 0:04


Is the below average PP TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 0:12

Jake Gardiner 1:51

Those are both correct, and neither are an indicator of how effective Gardiner (or Hunwick) is. Defensive effectiveness on the penalty kill (and offensive effectiveness on the power-play) require completely different skills than those required to be an effective even-strength hockey player (defensively or offensively).

You're trying to equate usage with effectiveness, which is, quite frankly, moronic.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Is the below average PK TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 3:13

Jake Gardiner 0:04


Is the below average PP TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 0:12

Jake Gardiner 1:51


Is the below average TOI per game correct? Y/N?

Matt Hunwick 19:00 <<<< minutes against other teams #1 line (harder minutes that do not favour a good corsi)

Jake Gardiner 17:58

The better corsi here is easily in Jake Gardiner favour with just that offensive TOi against Hunwick tough minutes on the PK ... enough already.

Would you care to offer your opinion on how much the PP vs PK minutes + 1:02 TOI impact their respective corsis? Or are you just throwing out stats that sound like they support the conclusion you already came to before you researched any of this?

 

[91Kadri91*]

The better corsi here is easily in Jake Gardiner favour with just that offensive TOi against Hunwick tough minutes on the PK ... enough already,

EVERYTHING IS IN GARDINER'S FAVOUR, NOT JUST CORSI.

GOAL METRICS, SHOT METRICS, POSSESSION PROXIES, SCORING CHANCE MEASURES, PASSING EFFECTIVENESS, EXPECTED GOAL STATISTICS, ZONE EFFECTIVENESS, WAR, dCORSI/FENWICK- LITERALLY EVERYTHING!

HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS!?