The Top 31 Defensemen in the National Hockey League - #21

[VoluntaryDom]

Slavin is better than Carlson. That's what is going on here.

By a lot, too. Carlson is a #2, Slavin is a top-20 dman.

 

[Machinehead]

People love big shots from defensemen. Carlson can absolutely rip the puck and I think that gets attention, but he's average at most other things.

 

[Sojourn]

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.

You have that backwards. Fowler is paid like a #1(debatable, given current prices) as a direct result of the season he just had, where he was a #1 for Anaheim.

 

[Sojourn]

I thought Dan Girardi, Josh Gorges, and Andrew MacDonald killed the idea that there's a good, logical reason behind your usage with fire.

Not to mention Krug has a left-handed Hall of ****ing Famer on his team, so there goes the TOI argument.

Not really. Unless Chara's whopping 2 minutes more is somehow eating into Krug's ice time. That seems like a pretty weak argument.

As for the first sentence, who are those players playing with? You love to bring up Girardi as an example for this argument. In fact, that was pretty much your go-to response when people bring up Fowler for a long time. Yet, you were (un)surprisingly quiet when Anaheim fans pointed out that Girardi played second fiddle to McDonagh, while Fowler was the go-to guy on his pairing.

For whatever reason, you don't seem to acknowledge that it makes a difference when you're paired with a defenseman playing a healthy amount of minutes vs. when you're the reason a pairing is playing a healthy amount of minutes. All players seem to fall into the same category for you, for purposes of these types of arguments, and you selectively use players like Girardi as your defense that stats are right, but coaches are wrong.

 

[Sojourn]

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.

You're a little out of date there. Fowler worked hard on his shot during the last off-season, and it paid off huge. It was a legitimate weapon last season, and he scored 11 goals, and helped contribute to other goals with rebounds and tips.

 

[Machinehead]

Not really. Unless Chara's whopping 2 minutes more is somehow eating into Krug's ice time. That seems like a pretty weak argument.

As for the first sentence, who are those players playing with? You love to bring up Girardi as an example for this argument. In fact, that was pretty much your go-to response when people bring up Fowler for a long time. Yet, you were (un)surprisingly quiet when Anaheim fans pointed out that Girardi played second fiddle to McDonagh, while Fowler was the go-to guy on his pairing.

For whatever reason, you don't seem to acknowledge that it makes a difference when you're paired with a defenseman playing a healthy amount of minutes vs. when you're the reason a pairing is playing a healthy amount of minutes. All players seem to fall into the same category for you, for purposes of these types of arguments, and you selectively use players like Girardi as your defense that stats are right, but coaches are wrong.

It doesn't necessarily "eat into his ice time" but it makes him #3 on his team.

You might not think Krug is a #1, but he's closer to being a ****ing jellyfish than he is to being a #3.

There's no reason for Girardi to be playing second fiddle to anyone -or playing, period- anywhere above the AHL. Same for Gorges, MacDonald, Glass, Megna, Sbisa, Sustr, Jimmy Hayes, MacKenzie.

Coaches are wrong all the god damn time. Look, it's a hard job, so I'm not trying to say they're all worthless, but using their opinions as evidence is completely insane.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

It doesn't necessarily "eat into his ice time" but it makes him #3 on his team.

You might not think Krug is a #1, but he's closer to being a ****ing jellyfish than he is to being a #3.

There's no reason for Girardi to be playing second fiddle to anyone -or playing, period- anywhere above the AHL. Same for Gorges, MacDonald, Glass, Megna, Sbisa, Sustr, Jimmy Hayes, MacKenzie.

Coaches are wrong all the god damn time. Look, it's a hard job, so I'm not trying to say they're all worthless, but using their opinions as evidence is completely insane.

gorges: eh he's an ok #7
macdonald: see gorges
glass: ahl
megna: borderline/13th F
sbisa: ahl
sustr: see gorges
hayes: see megna
Mackenzie: cool 4th liner I guess

 

[Machinehead]

gorges: eh he's an ok #7
macdonald: see gorges
glass: ahl
megna: borderline/13th F
sbisa: ahl
sustr: see gorges
hayes: see megna
Mackenzie: cool 4th liner I guess

So backups/barely NHL players (and I think you're being kind) who are all regulars, one of whom captains their team.

Cool.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

So backups/barely NHL players who are all regulars, one of whom captains their team.

Cool.

I want disagreeing with you in premise, just on the specifics.

and girardi is AHL caliber.

 

[VoluntaryDom]

wtf? on the polls page it says the last post was machinehead at 9:25 as if I never posted at 9:29, yet here my post exists...

 

[tarheelhockey]

wtf? on the polls page it says the last post was machinehead at 9:25 as if I never posted at 9:29, yet here my post exists...

Something funky going on with the site tonight. Probably nothing to worry about.

 

[Legend123]

how is Trouba/Werenski/ Slavin/ Risto not in the top 20 instead of players like hamilton, and TJ Brodie?

 

[Sojourn]

It doesn't necessarily "eat into his ice time" but it makes him #3 on his team.

You might not think Krug is a #1, but he's closer to being a ****ing jellyfish than he is to being a #3.

There's no reason for Girardi to be playing second fiddle to anyone -or playing, period- anywhere above the AHL. Same for Gorges, MacDonald, Glass, Megna, Sbisa, Sustr, Jimmy Hayes, MacKenzie.

Coaches are wrong all the god damn time. Look, it's a hard job, so I'm not trying to say they're all worthless, but using their opinions as evidence is completely insane.

As insane as believing some of these stats showed that McIlrath is, and would continue to be, a better player than, say, Cam Fowler? You don't see the irony of using someone's fallibility as an argument? Seems odd to outright dismiss informed opinions while you pass off some of your own as absolute.

Whether someone like Girardi should play second fiddle is beside the point. The point is that it matters why a player is getting those minutes. A line, or a pairing, is built around the best player on it, and if someone is playing with that player they are going to take on some of the minutes and responsibilities. There is a difference between being the guy who is put with said player, and actually being the player.

 

[Machinehead]

As insane as believing some of these stats showed that McIlrath is, and would continue to be, a better player than, say, Cam Fowler? You don't see the irony of using someone's fallibility as an argument? Seems odd to outright dismiss informed opinions while you pass off some of your own as absolute.

Whether someone like Girardi should play second fiddle is beside the point. The point is that it matters why a player is getting those minutes. A line, or a pairing, is built around the best player on it, and if someone is playing with that player they are going to take on some of the minutes and responsibilities. There is a difference between being the guy who is put with said player, and actually being the player.

No it doesn't.

It only matters why to you because all of Fowler's excuses have been exhausted at this point.

 

[Sojourn]

No it doesn't.

It only matters why to you because all of Fowler's excuses have been exhausted at this point.

See, this is why you've become a symbol of what is wrong with these statistics, Machinehead. When you start dismissing logical arguments, because your statistics don't account for them, you're proving the point of everyone who says the problem is the way these statistics are used.

You need to start asking why more, and actually consider the possibility that your statistics don't account for everything. This is just getting embarrassing. Scientific method would be ashamed of you. Common sense is probably not too pleased, as well. I'm not sure when you jumped the shark on statistics, but suggesting that it doesn't matter if you're the reason a pairing(or line) has the responsibilities, or a complement to that reason is ridiculous. I think every coach in the game would disagree with you on that. Every GM too. You build lineups around the former players.

 

[Machinehead]

Scientific Method might not be too happy with me sometimes, but you and Appeal to Authority are best buds.

 

[Sojourn]

Scientific Method might not be too happy with me sometimes, but you and Appeal to Authority are best buds.

Hey, I'm fine with that, because I'm willing to accept that an informed opinion should be considered. I don't pretend that I know better than people who do it professionally, and I can acknowledge that I don't always understand why they make some decisions.

"Any fool can know. The point is to understand."

You're not trying to understand. You're too busy assuming you know.

 

[Machinehead]

Hey, I'm fine with that, because I'm willing to accept that an informed opinion should be considered. I don't pretend that I know better than people who do it professionally, and I can acknowledge that I don't always understand why they make some decisions.

"Any fool can know. The point is to understand."

You're not trying to understand. You're too busy assuming you know.

I do know better than people who do it professionally when they're full-blown morons or certifiably mentally ill (AV) which some of the coaches in the league are.

 

[Sojourn]

I rest my case.

 

[Machinehead]

That's probably good since the entire premise of it was a logically fallacy.

 

[triggrman]

I do know better than people who do it professionally when they're full-blown morons or certifiably mentally ill (AV) which some of the coaches in the league are.

Wow....

 

[Sojourn]

That's probably good since the entire premise of it was a logically fallacy.

Again, ironic after your statement that McIlrath > Fowler, and the statistics that lead you to that conclusion.

Maybe you aren't in the best position to be making that claim.

Wow....

aYup.

 

[Machinehead]

Wow....

Yeah wow.

The Calgary Flames just invited Tanner Glass for a tryout. 98% of this forum thinks that's ****ing demented (and for good reason) but the genius professionals did it anyway.

Wow.

John Locke denounced Appeal to Authority in 1690, and people are still using on the internet in 2017.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Yeah wow.

The Calgary Flames just invited Tanner Glass for a tryout. 98% of this forum thinks that's ****ing demented (and for good reason) but the genius professionals did it anyway.

Wow.

John Locke denounced Appeal to Authority in 1690, and people are still using on the internet in 2017.

Are you using John Locke as an appeal to authority?

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I always enjoy a good fowler thread