Why was Barret Jackman constantly ranked with stay at home possession black holes?
- Thread starter Bjornar Moxnes
- Start date
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
I understand. But the thing is Jackman in his prime and even in his declining years had the toughness of the first group and the non-physical defensive ability of the next.
thedustman
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2013
- 4,200
- 1,246
played for blues and then preds, but I think you could find more of these types of players who played before the rise of advanced stats, but were cherished by their teams. This touches on the idea that some of the most important aspects of a good hockey player are, in fact, unheralded.
Solid thread, op
What are you talking about? Barrett Jackman in his prime was very highly regarded, certainly miles ahead of Engelland.
In his prime, he was making Hampus Lindholm money (in relation to the salary cap, obviously).
Edit: Maybe Jackman was a pending UFA when he signed that contract, while Lindholm was a RFA. But still, a prime Jackman in today's market would have gotten something like a 6 year deal/$5.5 mil AAV.
In his prime, he was making Hampus Lindholm money (in relation to the salary cap, obviously).
Edit: Maybe Jackman was a pending UFA when he signed that contract, while Lindholm was a RFA. But still, a prime Jackman in today's market would have gotten something like a 6 year deal/$5.5 mil AAV.
Last edited:
I wouldn't go so far as to call Jackman and "elite" defensive d-man, and I was a big fan of his. I would call him reliable and steady in his own zone...but he didn't have the puck-skills to be considered elite. He could get hemmed in his own end and was prone to turning the puck over when forechecked heavily. His offense never really developed as was hoped, and for a large portion of the Blues' fan-base he was a whipping boy due to lack of points and being leaned on to play a lot of minutes when the Blues had no better alternatives.
Captain Creampuff
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2012
- 10,969
- 1,816
Jackman wasn't an elite defensive d-man but he was sure given a lot more **** than he deserved. Jax was one of the guys left from the old school era of hockey. He played with heart and was a warrior every time he set foot on the ice. He did whatever it would take to win the game.
Quid Pro Clowe
Registered User
Exactly. Rookie of the year and had a very decent first 10 or so years. He just crashed fast and hard because of his playing style.
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
The thing is Jackman even in the post-peak years had a beneficial possession metrics for his team.
Gene Parmesan
Dedicated to babies who came feet first
Jackman's icetime saw a steady decrease during his last six years in the league. During the last three seasons he was playing bottom pairing minutes. Sure, he was leading Preds defensemen in CF% before retirement, but that was while playing only 13.51 minutes per game.
I never understood why analytics don't care about icetime, and I've never recieved an answer to this question. Being a good player and playing big minutes on a poor team can have a negative impact on corsi, just like it often has with +/-. Or, if a player is being given minutes he can't handle, that's also going to leave a mark. I mean, if you'd increase Jackman's icetime from 13.51 to 23.51 in his last season, his CF% would likely drop from best to close to worst on his team.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
Jackman's analytics say he's one type of player.
Because of baseless reputation, people think he's another type of player.
People don't know what they're talking about; more at 11.
The issue is that it's not analytics or the eye-test. In reality, most of player evaluation is done on reputation and repeating what one hears on tv. The ear-test if you will. But everyone says it's their "eye-test" because everyone thinks they're an expert.
Where did Jackman get this reputation? I guess his physical play. And it just snowballs from there. Hitting in general is a huge part of this, especially for defenseman. People notice hits, even if you do nothing else right, or in this case, offer much more.
Because of baseless reputation, people think he's another type of player.
People don't know what they're talking about; more at 11.
The issue is that it's not analytics or the eye-test. In reality, most of player evaluation is done on reputation and repeating what one hears on tv. The ear-test if you will. But everyone says it's their "eye-test" because everyone thinks they're an expert.
Where did Jackman get this reputation? I guess his physical play. And it just snowballs from there. Hitting in general is a huge part of this, especially for defenseman. People notice hits, even if you do nothing else right, or in this case, offer much more.
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Engelland, Russell, Schenn, McQuaid, etc. played low minutes yet still had terrible advanced stats. Girardi and Staal take a lot of hard matchups, but at the same time it's beyond terrible even with factoring it. Besides even with the Blues, Jackman had great possession stats especially CA60RelTM, and he took a lot of hard minutes. The fact that the Blues were the best defensive team in 2011-2012 with Carlo Colaiacovo on their top pairing speaks volume about their overall depth and especially elite defensive forward depth. Take away the Nashville season, Jackman's CF%RelTM is slightly worse than his team mates, but he still had a negative (In this scenario positive) CA60RelTM, meaning he would still be relied on shutdown situations and excel, and Jackman took a lot of very difficult competition among this time. Shattenkirk was the only Blues Dman in this time period that had a better CA60RelTM, and his CA60RelTM was among one of the best in the league, so no shame to Jackman for being worse than Shatty's.
Last edited:
Gene Parmesan
Dedicated to babies who came feet first
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Off topic, but you should be happy to get Shattenkirk. His CA60RelTM zone adjusted 5 on 5 stats from 2011-2016 put him 19th out of 140 Dman. Believe it or not, Shattenkirk's main strength is his chance suppression, not his offense, which he's already fantastic in. Still with more difficult competition, Shatty might not do as well, but much better than Girardi we can all agree.
Last edited:
Yeah well, I never implied that every low minute defenseman would have a good CF%. I'm just saying that Jackman's CF% would probably take a turn for the worse if he was given significantly more minutes of icetime.
Robert Bortuzzo has a better CF% than his teammate Alex Pietrangelo in each of the last two seasons. Chychrun was ahead of OEL the past season. McQuaid ahead of Chara. Stephen Johns ahead of Klingberg. Benning and Gryba ahead of Klefbom, Larsson and Sekera.
The list goes on and on. It doesn't mean that the coaches of these teams are incompetent for playing Klingberg, Klefbom and Pietrangelo more than Johns, Benning and Bortuzzo. Barrett Jackman, at the end of his career, was a 3rd pairing defenseman and nowhere close to a Hjalmarsson or Vlasic, whatever his advanced stats are saying.
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
I do agree time, matchups, zone starts, and quality affects CF%. I'm a big critic of those who don't see it that way. But at the same time one thing I agree is that it's not as significant if the gap is great. The corsi numbers I use are zone adjusted and Jackman is still great even if his time diminished.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
Yeah most of us are really excited. Sure, weaker competition could factor in, but it doesn't magically make you good. Shattenkirk's analytics are outstanding to the point where he has to get some credit.
Bjornar Moxnes
Stem Rødt og Felix Unger Sörum
Yeah I agree 100%. Keith took harder competition and more Dzone starts than Weber and Josi in 2015-2016 and his relative corsi dropped by like 0.3-0.5, aka barely significantly. Just like Weber and Josi's corsi barely improved despite easier starts and easier deployment compared to 2014-2015. Shatty at times took tough competition in 2014-2015, more so than other seasons and had his best offensive year and best eye test defensive year.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
I came to the same conclusion when I looked him over a year ago. Granted, I always did like him, but analytics were even more flattering.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
I have a good example of this.
In the pre-season, Babcock said that Zaitsev would start his career on the third pairing with Hunwick. But as exhibition games started, a talking head in the intermission started to talk about how it didn't even take one period for Zaitsev to work his way from playing with Hunwick to the top pairing. This is stupid because of two reasons:
a) It's exhibition games. Nobody who has been around an NHL pre-season should be unaware that the lineups can vary a lot from opening night plans.
b) Zaitsev apparently played so good with Hunwick that he was promoted, in a game where Hunwick wasn't even on the roster.
Despite that pre-match lineups showed Zaitsev on the top pairing, despite Hunwick not being in the game, despite it being pre-season and not opening night, people swallowed it whole. There were (a lot of) people repeating what the talking head said as though they were there to see it, we even had one guy claiming that Zaitsev and Hunwick "obviously had no chemistry."
This didn't stop until opening day come around and Zaitsev was in fact on the third pairing with Hunwick. That's the influence of the talking heads on display.
