What's your assessment of Cam Fowler?

[Icebreakers]

Hell, Kevin Bieksa has had a better career than McIlrath will ever have.

Thats not saying much considering Kevin Bieksa was a #3 dman in his prime who had 3 40 plus point seasons. He had a good career.

 

[Seanaconda]

Likely only the first two. The Ducks should be very happy with getting a guy actually worthy of his ranking in or around the top 10.

My top 10:

1. Tarasenko
2. Seguin
3. Hall
4. Faulk
5. Johansen
6. Kuznetsov
7. Schwartz
8. Nino
9. Fowler
10. Skinner

I still think Fowler was drafted around the right spot in retrospect. You can't just consider guys ahead of him who fell while ignoring guys behind him who rose. Sure, the Ducks don't lose much having him is the "#1" while Lindholm underperforms.

Skinner is too low Kuznetsovs one good season doesn't make him jump past skinner.

 

[Machinehead]

There are worse players than Fowler who have had and probably will have better careers than McIlrath

I mean, you're not wrong.

Girardi, Staal, Scuderi, Gorges, MacDonald, Bouwmeester, Strait, Polak, Sustr. And that's just defensemen.

This league is just filled with relative trash which is why it always makes me laugh when people backup their arguments with "oh coaches and GM's think this..."

 

[CanadienShark]

Skinner is too low Kuznetsovs one good season doesn't make him jump past skinner.

I didn't like having Skinner that low either. I was kind of iffy. My rankings aren't perfect, I just don't know how I'd re-order it. The main thing to take away is that I think Fowler is roughly in the right spot, in retrospect.

 

[Elvs]

This league is just filled with relative trash which is why it always makes me laugh when people backup their arguments with "oh coaches and GM's think this..."

Now, this is the part I really don't get with "fany stats folks".

Somehow, you seem to have the same expectations for every player in the league. You can try to improve the league as much as you'd like, but you will FOREVER be stuck with half the players below 50 FC%. And on every team half the players will be below average relative to their teammates.

It would make a hell lot more sense to expect every single player to score 100 points in a season. At least there's no mathematic limit to that.

 

[Machinehead]

Now, this is the part I really don't get with "fany stats folks".

Somehow, you seem to have the same expectations for every player in the league. You can try to improve the league as much as you'd like, but you will FOREVER be stuck with half the players below 50 FC%. And on every team half the players will be below average relative to their teammates.

It would make a hell lot more sense to expect every single player to score 100 points in a season. At least there's no mathematic limit to that.

I understand that half the players are below 50%. [well not really, but that's another discussion - I understand the proposition]

I'm not talking about below 50. There's some guys who are below 50 who are solid hockey players. Holden has been really solid for the Rangers and is hovering around 49 if you adjust for teammates. I still think Shea Weber is a very good player despite poor advanced stats. Maybe a tad overrated, but very good. Braydon Coburn is a player who isn't a statistical darling that the "fancy stats guys" tend to really like. Yandle, Vatanen, and Burns are all ****** shot suppressors but I like them all as players.

But it's so much more than above or below 50. That's nothing. That's just a number.

What's really important is the type of player you are. There's a wealth of players in the NHL -the majority of the league, in fact- who are passengers. Good teammates - 53% possession player. Bad teammates - 46% possession player. There's nothing they can do about it. Examples wouldn't be worth much, because name a player and he probably is one. These are fine players who, as you propose, half of whom will have sub-average possession numbers. There's drivers and passengers: that's just how this league works. There's nothing wrong with being a passenger, particularly if you're good at other aspects of the game. Hell, Patrick Kane is complete passenger when it comes to corsi but when you sit shotgun and score 100 points it tend to not be a problem.

The guys I'm taking issue with; everyone on that list, is an anchor. They hurt just about every single teammate they play with. You talk about expectations. Yes , I expect every player in the league to not actively hurt their teammates.

If everyone you play with suddenly becomes a 48% possession player when they're with you, like Bouwmeester, Josi, Staal, Polak; you probably need your role changed.

If everyone you play with suddenly becomes a 42-43% possession player, Dan Girardi, Josh Gorges; you simply don't belong in this league.

I don't have the same expectations for every player and I don't expect every player to be good at corsi. I do expect every player to not be poison.

 

[Sojourn]

If everyone you play with suddenly drops in Corsi when they play with you, it might also be a sign that the role that you play is more difficult, and being on the ice with you also puts them in a similarly difficult situation.

I've said this before to you, but I flat out think you've missed the boat on the impact roles can have. This isn't like a team's Corsi, where those roles balance out. If a player is consistently in a tough situation, then being on the ice with them means you're in a tough situation too. That means your numbers are impacted by that situation, and it makes that player you're with look worse. That player isn't dragging you down in that scenario.

 

[Machinehead]

If everyone you play with suddenly drops in Corsi when they play with you, it might also be a sign that the role that you play is more difficult, and being on the ice with you also puts them in a similarly difficult situation.

I've said this before to you, but I flat out think you've missed the boat on the impact roles can have. This isn't like a team's Corsi, where those roles balance out. If a player is consistently in a tough situation, then being on the ice with them means you're in a tough situation too. That means your numbers are impacted by that situation, and it makes that player you're with look worse. That player isn't dragging you down in that scenario. Yet, that's the argument you make.

We've been through this already and there's nothing statistically that indicates Fowler has a difficult role.

His Quality of Teammates last year was ridiculously high and his Quality of Competition was cotton soft.

 

[Sojourn]

We've been through this already and there's nothing statistically that indicates Fowler has a difficult role.

His Quality of Teammates last year was ridiculously high and his Quality of Competition was cotton soft.

And what determines QoT and QoC again? Ice time and +/-? Putting together some statistics and labeling it to make it sound important doesn't actually make it important.

 

[Machinehead]

There's no point. We're just going to keep moving the goalposts.

 

[Sojourn]

There's no point. We're just going to keep moving the goalposts.

That sounds more like an attempt to sidestep the point, which is that those statistics aren't particularly good at telling you how difficult a player's role might be.

Like I said, you can slap some statistics together and call it whatever you want. It doesn't mean the statistics tell you what they say they do. You aren't actually measuring the quality of a player's teammates, or competition, in any way that is meaningful.

 

[SladeWilson23]

QoT and QoC is nothing more than smoke. There's no real validity to either, and should never be taken into account if we're trying to figure out how hard of a role a player has.

 

[Machinehead]

That sounds more like an attempt to sidestep the point, which is that those statistics aren't particularly good at telling you how difficult a player's role might be.

Like I said, you can slap some statistics together and call it whatever you want. It doesn't mean the statistics tell you what they say they do. You aren't actually measuring the quality of a player's teammates, or competition, in any way that is meaningful.

If I told you Cam Fowler had two eyes, you would say he might have three and I'm interpreting the numbers wrong and not measuring the number of eyes in a meaningful way. There's just no point in continuing this any further.

 

[Sojourn]

If I told you Cam Fowler had two eyes, you would say he might have three and I'm interpreting the numbers wrong and not measuring the number of eyes in a meaningful way. There's just no point in continuing this any further.

So because you can't defend your point intelligently, you're trying to discredit the person you're arguing with? Good call. Way to build up your credibility.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

By far the worst soul in the league

 

[Machinehead]

So because you can't defend your point intelligently, you're trying to discredit the person you're arguing with? Good call. Way to build up your credibility.

I've been through defending my point. I could make a book out of my Fowler posts.

I'm just sick of the topic.

 

[Sojourn]

QoT and QoC is nothing more than smoke. There's no real validity to either, and should never be taken into account if we're trying to figure out how hard of a role a player has.

Yes, well, that's the problem isn't it? Machinehead ***** all over the eye test, or the argument that you need to watch a player to really see how they are used. It's all statistics, all the time. See: McIlrath vs. Fowler.

But if you admit that there are missing elements, and the statistics don't cover everything(which they don't), then you're forced to admit that viewing a player regularly and using the statistics is still a superior method for establishing how good a player is.

I've been through defending my point. I could make a book out of my Fowler posts.

I'm just sick of the topic.

So sick that every Fowler thread, or every Anaheim defenseman thread, finds you right in the middle bringing up your favorite pineapple?

 

[Machinehead]

So sick that every Fowler thread, or every Anaheim defenseman thread, finds you right in the middle bringing up your favorite pineapple?

1)Don't talk **** about pineapples

2)One of those, to be fair, was a Manson thread that got off the rails. Yes, I will continue to build shrines to Josh Manson. Since he's one of your guys and I really like him, maybe you'll find it in your heart to forgive me.

Overall, you're right. I've been in the middle of it. But there comes a time when guys get tired at the end of a good scrap and it's time for the linesmen to come in. We've debated it as much as it can be, and I've very much enjoyed it. But now we're repeating ourselves and have reached a point where opinions are no longer going to change. This is over.

It's been great.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

QoT and QoC is nothing more than smoke. There's no real validity to either, and should never be taken into account if we're trying to figure out how hard of a role a player has.

Well no, because QoT actually impacts production and QoC is a good indicator that you might need to go watch tape on a player to determine whether they're suffering from a coach with a poor approach to his shutdown unit.

For example, the Hawks got much better as a team after moving Keith from the top QoC pairing to the second. Most teams would benefit from playing their most talented defenseman in prime offensive situations and backfilling from there, but so many coaches are stuck in the old way of thinking where that player needs to be hard-matched against the other team's best players, and teams are worse for it.

 

[Creativero]

I've been told there is conclusive evidence that he sucks. Why is this even a question?

 

[SladeWilson23]

Well no, because QoT actually impacts production and QoC is a good indicator that you might need to go watch tape on a player to determine whether they're suffering from a coach with a poor approach to his shutdown unit.

For example, the Hawks got much better as a team after moving Keith from the top QoC pairing to the second. Most teams would benefit from playing their most talented defenseman in prime offensive situations and backfilling from there, but so many coaches are stuck in the old way of thinking where that player needs to be hard-matched against the other team's best players, and teams are worse for it.

I never disagreed with the concept of both stats.

It's just that the stats themselves don't tell us much. It is literally impossible to effectively quantify "quality" of anything.

 

[Sojourn]

1)Don't talk **** about pineapples

2)One of those, to be fair, was a Manson thread that got off the rails. Yes, I will continue to build shrines to Josh Manson. Since he's one of your guys and I really like him, maybe you'll find it in your heart to forgive me.

Overall, you're right. I've been in the middle of it. But there comes a time when guys get tired at the end of a good scrap and it's time for the linesmen to come in. We've debated it as much as it can be, and I've very much enjoyed it. But now we're repeating ourselves and have reached a point where opinions are no longer going to change. This is over.

It's been great.

Oh my god, you're breaking up with me.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Cam Fowler's career and past-few-seasons of advanced stats are inarguably bad.

He eye tests above that level to fans & coaches however, in part because as we begin to accumulate micro-stat data, he does some things extremely well, like transition plays.

The disconnect comes when trying to determine whether Fowler's role is forces him to leave meat on the bone vs optimal usage, and how much his weaknesses - which very much exist, especially vs set offense - limit his extreme strengths. He's a player with a super unbalanced skillset being asked to do some things that are outside of his comfort zone. Situations like that are super hard to evaluate.

Ducks fans are going to point to things like his mobility, continued role on good teams, certain excellent microstats, and some blips like being a 60% GF player on league-average shots against with the last player he didn't have to babysit. Statistically, he hasn't done enough to move past "prove it" territory.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Always been a big fan. You can't teach that dynamic skating and puck transition ability. He would fit in well with the penguins.

 

[Boud]

Fowler with Karlsson in Ottawa would be insane.

I would take hin anytime. Love his speed and will.