Kris Letang vs Eric Desjardins

[spcastlemagic]

Letang by a French Canadian mile.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Letang was routinely matched against the other team's best since Gonchar left.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'd argue that he was a more significant piece to those Flyers' teams than LeClair.

unquestionably desjardins was the second best flyer of that era

there’s a reason he was made captain when clarke was feuding with the other eric

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

unquestionably desjardins was the second best flyer of that era

there’s a reason he was made captain when clarke was feuding with the other eric

2nd best skater anyway

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

2nd best skater anyway

which goalie? cechmanek?

 

[FissionFire]

If I had to pick one to take into a Game 7, I’d go with Desjardins. He had a very quiet and efficient game and could play with any partner well and adapt. Letang is more boom-or-bust, he could win you the game but he can just as easily lose it for you. I also feel he’s less adaptable and needs the right partners to really excel.

 

[Michael Farkas]

which goalie? cechmanek?

Absolutely not.

 

[Gurglesons]

does he though?

desjardins has more playoff games, almost as many points while being an excellent defender, and had one of the most iconic playoff games a dman has had in my lifetime, a game that shifted the momentum of a stanley cup finals. what a clutch clutch performance.



in the end, both guys were the number one dman on one cup winner.

i will concede, though, that letang should have won the conn smythe, although that was a weak crop. still, desjardins never had a run that good, though their overall bodies of work in the playoffs are pretty even i’d say.

Letang had the game winning goal for the cup in 2016 where he deked out three Sharks.

Letang also would have a Norris in 2013 if it wasn’t for injury. He probably should have gotten it anyway if Subban qualified given the amount of games he missed.

 

[ponder719]

There's no way I can possibly be unbiased here, but this should be a lot closer to 50-50 than it is.

 

[Crosby2010]

I picked Letang. Probably because he has been good for longer. Peaked higher and I think if you were building a team you pick him first. Plus, how many defensemen do you pick for a shootout? Letang has been picked his entire career for the shootout and no one complains because he has that raw skill that is evident.

I agree with others that Desjardins had that more quiet and efficient style that you appreciate. Played on Team Canada in 1991, 1996 and 1998. Not sure anyone complained either. He was the type of defenseman you wanted on your team. Did everything well, nothing really elite, but did everything well.

Letang would be the type to cough up the puck in his own end more than Desjardins. Not that he is a liability defensively, but I think if you obviously take Letang offensively in this situation you just might figure Desjardins is more solid on the back end. With Letang though you had more of a difference maker. When the Penguins won, he was part of it. In 2017 sure he was injured, but that Pens team was gassed and tired on defense. They needed that 30 minute a night man who played in all situations. The fact that the Penguins still won is not a knock on Letang, because if you remember they were running on fumes by the time each series ended. You could tell just how much they missed him being there.

I don't know if Letang ever gets into the Hall, but he does have a better case than Desjardins. And as a side note, does the trade of Desjardins/Leclair for Recchi just make you wince at how bad those moves were for the Habs in the 1990s? Ouch.

 

[MXD]

I like Desjardins too, but are 16 plus/minus points even statistically significant over a large sample?

I think the more relevant question to their respective plus/minuses (which are fairly close) is: Did Letang face the other teams' best forwards as consistently as Desjardins did? I'm not sure what the answer is. Obviously, Letang was a top player with big minutes, but was his deployment specifically to match the other teams' top guys? I don't honestly remember.

I think the Penguins plan would mostly be to have Letang on the ice as much as possible, regardless of whom is on the ice for the opponent.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Desjardins was a bit overlooked even at the time so I'm not surprised that the flashier Letang is doing well in the poll. But if I wanted to win hockey games I think Desjardins is the guy you'd want. Just a steady all arounder. I think Letang is better offensively and Desjardins better defensively. It's close for sure.

EDIT - Also think the Pietrangelo comparison is pretty good but I think Pietrangelo is better than both.

 

[Crosby2010]

Desjardins was a bit overlooked even at the time so I'm not surprised that the flashier Letang is doing well in the poll. But if I wanted to win hockey games I think Desjardins is the guy you'd want. Just a steady all arounder. I think Letang is better offensively and Desjardins better defensively. It's close for sure.

EDIT - Also think the Pietrangelo comparison is pretty good but I think Pietrangelo is better than both.

Very criminally underrated is Pietrangelo, I think.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think Petro gets enough discredit for his defensive play sometimes...it seems to be pretty well hidden that he's not that hard to play against...at least for me. He bails on a lot of dirty work.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't think Petro gets enough discredit for his defensive play sometimes...it seems to be pretty well hidden that he's not that hard to play against...at least for me. He bails on a lot of dirty work.

You are onto something there. There`s a ton to like about his resume - he`s been a top-half #1 defenseman for like 13 years, and took 2 teams to the cup, and IIRC his PK stats with StL were simply outstanding. I know when I was ranking top defensemen in the league over the years, he always got the benefit of the doubt over guys like Burns, Carlson, Subban and Letang because I believed in his two-way ability so much.

But a couple of seasons ago, jfresh released a list of worst WAR% for defensemen, and he was on it. Most of the names on it made perfect sense - Rielly was one. I think Risto was another. I don't know where you are on the acceptance of analytics, but remember this is the same model that spits out Bergeron is 100% and Ovechkin 0% defensively.

Looking at his career chart, it looks like jfresh caught him at his absolute low point and he wouldn't typically make a bottom-10. But he hasn't been great at ES chance prevention for a long time - and that's taking competition, partner and zone starts into consideration.

 

[VanIslander]

Both sucked defensively.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But a couple of seasons ago, jfresh released a list of worst WAR% for defensemen, and he was on it. Most of the names on it made perfect sense - Rielly was one. I think Risto was another. I don't know where you are on the acceptance of analytics, but remember this is the same model that spits out Bergeron is 100% and Ovechkin 0% defensively.

That's interesting. That's probably a little too strong for my tastes (re: Petro/WAR). But it's nice (?) to see that captured statistically in some way. I'm a believer in information, so it's a piece of the puzzle. But like anything else, if it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. "Defense", as a concept, is made up of a lot of things. So, for me, Petro is usually well positioned but he doesn't do much with it. He's a looser gap player than his skill level would indicate, so that explains the entry prevention stuff. He also opens his hips outside early/often. I don't think he plays on his toes enough, not enough urgency. Letang plays on his toes, he's tough to play against, and urgent.

He's better than John Carlson, but they have some of the same tendencies.

 

[MS]

JFresh charts are an abomination.

As for Letang vs. Desjardins, Letang's offensive edge is too big not to rate him ahead. Letang also would have easily won the 2013 Norris if he didn't get hurt ... Desjardins never quite hit that level.

And I'm a big Desjardins fan who would have taken him ahead of Rob Blake at basically any point between 1993 and 2003.

 

[DRW895]

Both sucked defensively.

It`s true about Letang, but what`s your real beef to Desjardins?

 

[MXD]

It`s true about Letang, but what`s your real beef to Desjardins?

He's just looking for attention.

 

[BraveCanadian]

JFresh charts are an abomination..

Agreed.. players go from hero to zero (or vice versa) on the regular in various metrics and that shows that there are deep deep flaws in either the data or their interpretation. Or both.

 

[MS]

Agreed.. players go from hero to zero (or vice versa) on the regular in various metrics and that shows that there are deep deep flaws in either the data or their interpretation. Or both.

It's no different than +/- in terms of the nature of the data and it's absolutely worthless without context.

If you took the same middling defender and put him playing 25 minutes/game on Chicago's high-leverage pairing vs. 17 minutes/game on Vegas' 3rd pairing he'll come up as a 10% WAR player in one scenario and a 90% WAR player in the other.

It's worthless junk for people who don't watch hockey games and still want to have opinions, and it's horrible how stuff like this is infiltrating intelligent hockey discussion.

Also the concept of 'WAR %' doesn't even make sense.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The issue I have with JFresh is, as far as I'm aware, he's never released full details on how his method works. We're essentially supposed to accept the results as a matter of faith.

I've been critical of Point Shares (from hockey-reference.com) - but at least they're transparent enough to explain their methodology. That way, when there are nonsensical results (Phil Housley > Doug Harvey), we can talk specifically about why the formula doesn't work.

I've seen dozens of examples on HFBoards where people post a JFresh card not even to support an argument, but as the argument in its entirety. I know his cards haven nice looking graphics, but it's the opposite of intelligence to quote an opaque, indecipherable system, and pretend that it's authoritative.

Generally, people who create all-in-one stats systems (such HR.com, Iain Fyffe, Alan Ryder, Bill James for baseball, etc) tend to be transparent about limitations in their model, and highlight any key assumptions. JFresh has done very little of that. I can only speculate that he doesn't want to be too self-critical of his own work, as he's actively trying to sell monthly subscriptions. Ryder and Fyffe showed their work because they wanted to convince others that they were the best. JFresh doesn't want to challenge the authoritativeness of the product he's selling.

And make no mistake - it's a good business model. JFresh releases slickly-produced cards, and writes articles designed to engender controversy (ie why Draisaitl shouldn't have been a Hart finalist in 2020). Then he sells data and articles in exchange for a monthly subscription. I can't fault JFresh. He seems to have found a way to monetize hockey analytics in a way that few others have. But I've never taken his cards seriously due to the lack of transparency, and the obvious conflict of interest.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

This is all said in good humor...

I have other quests to pursue in life and leisure time, but the "Letang lacks hockey sense" thing is one that maybe I'll take a crack at dispelling one day (but how can you?). I'm extremely sensitive to hockey sense concerns, especially for defensemen...in fact, my sensitivity to hockey sense concerns gets me in trouble with other scouts because I dismiss players that are technically and athletically gifted to an unsavory degree (in their opinion)...I don't know if I'm missing it, or if it's just a thing that's "common knowledge" out there, so everyone is in on it...but I don't think he's dumb. It's not 10/10 by any means. But I think he's at least above average in that department...at least.

I don't know if the fact that I've seen 98+% of his shifts in the NHL has over-scouted it out of me or what...but man...and it's a lot of Penguins fans too...I think it's just everyone but me at this point haha

It's always tough because no matter what, folks aren't really that interested in changing their mind about stuff...so if you do clips, people go "well, yeah, that's his good shifts"...then if you go shift by shift of entire games, people go, "well, those were his good games" - so you can't win for losin'...but the career arc for a dumb player is usually pretty straightforward because they don't have the ability adapt and as their athleticism falls away, so does their game...

Phaneuf's first three years, ages 20-22...3x top-8 in Norris voting...never ever again the rest of his career. Was a cap dump by 30, out of the league by 32 or whatever it was.

Seth Jones...early 20's Norris interest...a few years later, he's in cap dump territory.

Letang did get a sniff in his early mid 20's, but then also all through the rest of his career. With Karlsson in Pittsburgh, he was asked to be more of a shutdown guy and despite being near Ryan Graves way too much, that's what he's done. He still produces (though, buoying by getting six assists in 12 seconds the other night), but he wasn't top PP for the majority of this season even. And frankly, he doesn't really have the technicals of some of those other guys. He doesn't have a good shot, he struggles to hit moving pucks, he requires considerable speed differential to beat guys in one on one situations usually...which isn't to say he's untalented, he definitely is...but Seth Jones has these technical skills, in some cases, better skills...and he's a mess.

I don't know if this thread was going to go anywhere and I just messed it up, but uhhh...I don't know, send me a bill I guess...

It always shocked me that Seth Jones a prospect/young player was lauded by some for his hockey sense. His passiveness in his own end was mistaken for being "cerebral" but from just watching him a few times I really questioned what his purpose was in defending.

 

[Johnny Engine]

The issue I have with JFresh is, as far as I'm aware, he's never released full details on how his method works. We're essentially supposed to accept the results as a matter of faith.

I've been critical of Point Shares (from hockey-reference.com) - but at least they're transparent enough to explain their methodology. That way, when there are nonsensical results (Phil Housley > Doug Harvey), we can talk specifically about why the formula doesn't work.

I've seen dozens of examples on HFBoards where people post a JFresh card not even to support an argument, but as the argument in its entirety. I know his cards haven nice looking graphics, but it's the opposite of intelligence to quote an opaque, indecipherable system, and pretend that it's authoritative.

Generally, people who create all-in-one stats systems (such HR.com, Iain Fyffe, Alan Ryder, Bill James for baseball, etc) tend to be transparent about limitations in their model, and highlight any key assumptions. JFresh has done very little of that. I can only speculate that he doesn't want to be too self-critical of his own work, as he's actively trying to sell monthly subscriptions. Ryder and Fyffe showed their work because they wanted to convince others that they were the best. JFresh doesn't want to challenge the authoritativeness of the product he's selling.

And make no mistake - it's a good business model. JFresh releases slickly-produced cards, and writes articles designed to engender controversy (ie why Draisaitl shouldn't have been a Hart finalist in 2020). Then he sells data and articles in exchange for a monthly subscription. I can't fault JFresh. He seems to have found a way to monetize hockey analytics in a way that few others have. But I've never taken his cards seriously due to the lack of transparency, and the obvious conflict of interest.

You're mixing up two guys here.

Dom Luczyczyn has a proprietary formula he's developed, first for his own gambling and then writing for the Athletic. He does have cards, but probably not the one everyone is thinking of. He's the guy who writes the excessively hot takey articles, and I personally find that the more he talks in his own words, the less I like anything he has to say.

Jack Fraser, or JFresh, doesn't seem to do any advanced math at all that I can identify, and instead curates statistics work done by Patrick Bacon (whose formula is also black box as far as I can tell) and Corey Sznajder (who just watches and counts things, very easy to understand) and then does the graphic design work. He also does informal fan polls on Twitter to quantify public opinion. He appears to be moderately fluent in most areas of hockey discussion (stats, Xs and Os, fan trash talk) but not really an expert in any of them.

I think the think 70s was referring to with Bergeron at 100 and OV at zero was directly from SportLogiq and not one of these writer/creators.