Player Discussion Kevin Shattenkirk

[Machinehead]

Well considering shattenkirk finished the last 3 years in the minus side of goals.. we’re halfway there!

+/- isn't accurate

 

[lilphildub]

Sometimes I think to myself that people aren't shrugging off advanced stats as much as they used to. Then I see someone claim that Shattenkirk is bad at defense because of his +/-.

Keep in mind that Brady Skjei had the 6th worst +/- for d-men this year. Guess he sucks at defense.

Lol relax a bit of a hyperbole. Wasn't saying or claiming he's bad at defense because of plus/minus. But was refuting Machinehead's simple reply of give up fewer shots and goals and you're better at defense. When he had more goals allowed then his teammates.

But I'm assuming that's what those two have been fighting about so my fault for butting in on that

+/- isn't accurate

I'm with you. But even when you dig deeper on Even strength Shattenkirk wasn't all that impressive with St Louis getting favorable Ozone starts and was still giving up more than his counterparts

 

[silverfish]

Lol relax a bit of a hyperbole.

My bad. It is literally impossible to tell on HF these days.

 

[lilphildub]

My bad. It is literally impossible to tell on HF these days.

No worries. Looking back my post was out of place in context. I didnt help

 

[Machinehead]

Lol relax a bit of a hyperbole. Wasn't saying or claiming he's bad at defense because of plus/minus. But was refuting Machinehead's simple reply of give up fewer shots and goals and you're better at defense. When he had more goals allowed then his teammates.

But I'm assuming that's what those two have been fighting about so my fault for butting in on that



I'm with you. But even when you dig deeper on Even strength Shattenkirk wasn't all that impressive with St Louis getting favorable Ozone starts and was still giving up more than his counterparts

Since Shattenkirk came into the league, he has a negative rate of goals against relative to team.

So no, he gives up less than his peers.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

John Carlson or Kevin Shattenkirk. Asking for a friend.

 

[Synergy27]

Sometimes I think to myself that people aren't shrugging off advanced stats as much as they used to. Then I see someone claim that Shattenkirk is bad at defense because of his +/-.

Keep in mind that Brady Skjei had the 6th worst +/- for d-men this year. Guess he sucks at defense.

I personally never have and still don't shrug them off, but I also think many of the publicly available ones that people are heavily bought into aren't nearly as descriptive or predictive as many believe they are. I also think there is a general ignorance of the underlying mathematics among many here that leads them to definitively conclude things because numbers.

 

[NYR]

It's called Reproducibility folks!

While not all AS are complete nonsense, I still think you should just watch the game, use your brain and form your own damn evaluation

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

John Carlson or Kevin Shattenkirk. Asking for a friend.

Your avy is the face I made to this question.

 

[darko]

+/- isn't accurate

Worst stat ever.

 

[Thirty One]

It's called Reproducibility folks!

While not all AS are complete nonsense, I still think you should just watch the game, use your brain and form your own damn evaluation

Thanks! Maybe I'll try that sometime!

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Worst stat ever.

I think the way it's used is WOAT but the stat itself isn't awful, but it just is not meant to be used on its own

 

[Chimpradamus]

Sometimes I think to myself that people aren't shrugging off advanced stats as much as they used to. Then I see someone claim that Shattenkirk is bad at defense because of his +/-.

Keep in mind that Brady Skjei had the 6th worst +/- for d-men this year. Guess he sucks at defense.

Well, I'm not one of those people. Shattenkirk sucks at defense because he's constantly owned on the outside, doesn't impress with his stick, doesn't throw a body check much and is so bad at tying up his forward in front of the net, you'd almost think he's barely trying at times.

But if his line can keep the opposition outside of the defensive zone, his skating, puck skills and positioning are very good qualities at keeping them out of there, especially if he can hold the blueline, but also somewhat in the neutral zone. He might play sheltered minutes, but he's really good at giving quality to those sheltered minutes. I would say he's a world class complementary player, an elite second punch that you still can't rely on to be a franchise player. He's too specific in his role to the game.

His +/- says diddly squat. He played sheltered minutes, remember? Also, he played defense under Vigneault. It will be a mystery knowing how Shattenkirk will play under the next mr. X.

 

[Thirty One]

I think the way it's used is WOAT but the stat itself isn't awful, but it just is not meant to be used on its own

It's a poorly constructed stat. 5-on-5 goal differential is a lot more meaningful.

 

[NYR]

Thanks! Maybe I'll try that sometime!

If you were able to, you might actually sound important

 

[DanielBrassard]

In Shattenkirk's 8 NHL seasons, he's been positive relative to the team in 5v5 GF% 5 times, and negative 3 times. Including playing last season with a busted knee.

 

[NYR]

In Shattenkirk's 8 NHL seasons, he's been positive relative to the team in 5v5 GF% 5 times, and negative 3 times. Including playing last season with a busted knee.

If all that mumbo jumbo means he sucks defensively, you may be onto something lol

 

[DanielBrassard]

If all that mumbo jumbo means he sucks defensively, you may be onto something lol

Well, no. Unfortunately it would seem to paint the opposite picture.

 

[darko]

If all that mumbo jumbo means he sucks defensively, you may be onto something lol

No quite the opposite actually.

 

[NYR]

Well, no. Unfortunately it would seem to paint the opposite picture.

I'm just being a wiseass but c'mon man. How can you possibly call this guy a good defender?
He's horrible going backwards.

 

[darko]

I'm just being a wiseass but c'mon man. How can you possibly call this guy a good defender?
He's horrible going backwards.

Having the puck on your stick and skating it out of the d-zone is also called defending. If you have it then your opposition doesn't.

 

[NYR]

Having the puck on your stick and skating it out of the d-zone is also called defending. If you have it then your opposition doesn't.

No..Once you have possession and you're on the attack it's called offense and as far as his offense goes, it's great!
But you still have to be able to defend.
Just because you excel at one does not mean you dismiss the other.

That's like saying I'll let you punch me in the face 5 times if I can punch yours once lol

 

[Machinehead]

John Carlson or Kevin Shattenkirk. Asking for a friend.

Actually, I think Carlson is what HF thinks Shattenkirk is, and vice versa.

Carlson is a PP specialist, and a damn good one, but isn't an effective player in any other game state.

 

[darko]

That's like saying I'll let you punch me in the face 5 times if I can punch yours once lol

This makes no sense what so ever

 

[NYR]

This makes no sense what so ever

It makes a whole lot more sense than the way stat people view defense.
I get the whole concept and in theory all seems fine but in reality it's very far fetched.
You have to find that happy medium and that can't happen until you actually watch what's going on and use your big brain IMO