CantHaveTkachev
Legends
Some of us need more than one season from somebody is anoit them a top 20 d-man
The Top 31 Defensemen in the National Hockey League - #21
- Thread starter Machinehead
- Start date
Zhamnov5GoalGame
Former Director of GDT Operations
I agree with this principal.
For me Trouba is top 20.
But with only a partial season of top line minutes and production under his belt you need to see him (them) repeat or improve on the feat.
So many of these players are on the cusp of being in that top 20-15-10 range but need a year or 2 more to prove their consistency.
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
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.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
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.
Last edited:
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
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.
Last edited:
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
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.
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.
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
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.
Yeah, probably time to add Chara. He isn't CHARA anymore, but he is still a good top pairing d-man that just needs to play with a puck mover.
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 plays more minutes than Hamilton, Vlasic, and Parayko as well as several of the guys up for vote here.
Krug plays 50 odd seconds less than Fowler at 5 on 5. I think that dinging players who don't play on both special teams groups is a discussion worth having. But, these arguments didn't seem to hurt the guys above.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Maybe people think that because Fowler is now paid like a #1 defenseman that he will somehow become one?
There are A LOT of defenseman that I would take before Fowler.
CantHaveTkachev
Legends
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
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.
Voight
#winning
Krug, a 21 minute defenseman, is a low end 1D? Not buying it. Yeah, yeah, I know. Analytics.
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.
Broader response...
I totally agree with your issues with "advanced" states. NO hockey stats, whether the old ones or the new ones, do a good job of controlling for external factors, in which hockey there are many.
We are also getting to this part of the list (and have been there) where names we are throwing up are all flawed in some way. Fowler is an amazing elite transition guy. And that is a big part of todays game. But, he is only OK defensively, and his peewee shot limits him offensively. Trouba and Slavin look to be making stride on being more "complete" d-men, but still have some improvements in their transition and offensive games to be made. A guy like Krug is pretty dominant and outplays Fowler, Trouba, Slavin, etc, but is not playing against the #1D matchups that Chara still gets in Boston. Its really hard to splice out which of these imperfections pushes the guy down more. Honestly, at this point is really depends on what team you are putting the guy on. If Karlsson is your #1D, Krug or Fowler is going to have a lot less value to you than if Weber is your #1D. And when we are nitpicking like this, I think that stats have to be part of the discussion...but they can't be the be all end all. In a messaging platform like a board though, its really hard to make arguments that don't fall under (1) here are some numbers or (2) I think he is better because I watch the games (oh, and 95% of the time its a guy on my team) with no objective proof. People arguing with #1 are not automatically right, but it sure is hard to argue successfully with #2 unless you want to present a 30 minute long video scouting report or something.
So were the Vlasic, Hamilton and Paraynko votes jokes, too? How about the Hjarlmasson votes?
Slavin has played his same dominant, suffocating game for all his 145 NHL GP.
The problem with the "do-it on a consistent basis" argument is that it is essentially you are just saying "I want to wait to hear more people tell me he is good", because most fans aren't actually going to watch Canes games to convince themselves.
The quoted post is exhibit A - A person who either:
1) Didn't even realize that Slavin has almost 2 full seasons under his belt
2) Thinks that Slavin improved dramatically from one year to the next
IMHO, yes. If you're playing 2nd pairing minutes, you're not a top line defender.
What makes Krug better than Ellis (who I didn't even vote for)? Krug is powerplay specialist, not a top defender.
Last edited:
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
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.
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?
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Except that Hjalmarsson and Vlasic play almost their entire 5on5 minutes defensively, and is rarely given offensive roles. You can't expect a player to shut down players 25 minutes a game. Players that play the most play both offensive and defensive minutes. Ekholm and Giordano for example plays more defensive minutes, but is given both. Hjalmarsson and Vlasic are almost purely used for shutdown, similar to Larsson last season with the Devils. Ellis, Josi, and especially Karlsson and Burns are given more offensive minutes.
Another thing is that Hjalmarsson and Vlasic at getting the puck out of their zone, but they aren't useful in the Ozone, so most of the times when their job is complete (In a very short span), they are changed to other players more suited for offense. Ekholm, Giordano, Doughty, Keith, etc. when done with defensive jobs are still used for more.
Krug and Hamilton aren't used like that, but their offense is just too impressive to ignore especially given their hard minutes and low time overall.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
Around the League Thread | Stop f***ing crying, bro, this isn’t Junior.- Latest: theguardianII
