He said underrated, not great. He is rated very low that it could be said it's not that hard to be better than that.

Subban, Weber, Keith all don't make the top 5, but I think we've all seen them completely take control in big games. I like advanced stats to a point, but when they're saying a player like Brodie is better than Weber, I think there's something wrong there. Nothing against Brodie, but you can't discount the eye test...
- SolidGoldBricks

See, I think you can pretty much totally write-off the eye test because - as I discussed yesterday - it's far more problematic than even poor use of statistics.

Also, the list of various players performing well in various situations is so fluid and so large that there's no shame in not being a top five. Keith is a great example, as clearly he is a great player, but none of the stats consider him as good as his general reputation.

I think it's far more likely that reputations play too large of a role in evaluations and while I wouldn't completely discount them, there is simply no evidence to say that Weber or Keith have been among the top five most effective D this season.

It's an absolute pleasure to watch Giordano and Brodie playing together. While saying that, I'd live to see how they would do playing on a different team, in a different system, and vice versa for some of the other pairings in the league.
- ScotsonFire

that's one of the things that makes these kind of evaluations so problematic. Playing on LA both would certainly have better possession numbers.

he's certainly not underrated.
- Garnie

Your opinion < Statistical Evidence.

Yes he does, because when he's on the ice, his team generally doesn't need to play defense. I would rank Karlsson easy in the top ten of guys I'd want on the ice to protect a one goal lead.

You can make an argument that Subban and Weber are both elite defensemen, but I think Suter as a top ten NHL D is impossible to defend.
- James_Tanner

Yes, because we all know that when there's a minute left in the game, the other doesn't put more pressure with that extra forward out there. So it becomes a powerplay in which Karlsson becomes useless.

For you to include advance stat in that scenario thinking Karlsson is top 10 defensively when game is in final minutes shows how much you totally are a slave to advanced stats and know (frank) all about what you mean.

Basically, what you are saying is the LA kings should go 82-0 every season since they lead in possession stats. Yet they are not even in a playoff race.

When evaluation single players, using this stat is about as useless as ___Insert Leafs Joke___.

You should probably look at giveaways and takeaways as well. Good defensmen are supposed to help get the puck out and get the puck back. I like PK but his stats for that are awful!

This sounds like a stock answer from a TSN panel. However, you will find that no one on the TSN panel wants to learn about advanced stats or what they might mean and that people who are into them consider Jake Gardiner criminally underrated.
- James_Tanner

that's because people who are that into advanced stats refuse to acknowledge that there is a limitation to what these numbers tell us. hockey is not baseball. individual stats are skewed by numerous variable factors: team composition, team strategy, teammates and, yes, QOC.

Montreal is a good example. put Doughty in Montreal and his possession metrics aren't world beating. put Subban in LA and his numbers would be up there with Doughty. Montreal plays a grinding game because they don't have the offensive talent to open it up. they don't have the talent and size to play keep away the way teams like LA and Chicago and even NYR do. yes, they would like their possession numbers to be better but it's not who they are.

Yes, because we all know that when there's a minute left in the game, the other doesn't put more pressure with that extra forward out there. So it becomes a powerplay in which Karlsson becomes useless.

For you to include advance stat in that scenario thinking Karlsson is top 10 defensively when game is in final minutes shows how much you totally are a slave to advanced stats and know (frank) all about what you mean.

Basically, what you are saying is the LA kings should go 82-0 every season since they lead in possession stats. Yet they are not even in a playoff race.

When evaluation single players, using this stat is about as useless as ___Insert Leafs Joke___.
- l3ig_l2ecl

It shows nothing of the sort. It really just says that I think one of the best skating players in the NHL is probably way better defensively than people give him credit for.

We have been conditioned to think only big hitting D can play well in their own zone, but it's highly likely that like ideas about faceoffs, plus/minus and defensive defenseman, we've been mislead.

You should probably look at giveaways and takeaways as well. Good defensmen are supposed to help get the puck out and get the puck back. I like PK but his stats for that are awful!
- mcgoo14

Thought about it, but decided that it's a bad stat. If you play a lot, or have the puck a lot, you're likely to turn the puck over a lot.

that's one of the things that makes these kind of evaluations so problematic. Playing on LA both would certainly have better possession numbers.
- James_Tanner

I always felt the award would stand to be used better if it was an award for the best pairing. Too much emphasis gets put on what one defenseman does better than the others while being weak elsewhere. Dynamic pairings work off eachother's strengths and weaknesses, or more so to a strength. The best pairings cover eachother's asses. Saying one defenseman is the best without going into detail on how his shortcomings are made up for by his partner doesnt sound right in my opinion.

that's because people who are that into advanced stats refuse to acknowledge that there is a limitation to what these numbers tell us. hockey is not baseball. individual stats are skewed by numerous variable factors: team composition, team strategy, teammates and, yes, QOC.

Montreal is a good example. put Doughty in Montreal and his possession metrics aren't world beating. put Subban in LA and his numbers would be up there with Doughty. Montreal plays a grinding game because they don't have the offensive talent to open it up. they don't have the talent and size to play keep away the way teams like LA and Chicago and even NYR do. yes, they would like their possession numbers to be better but it's not who they are.
- DoubleDown

I think you are simplifying people who use advanced stats. I tried for a hybrid analysis here. There is a limitation, sure, but it's still far better than the limits imposed by watching and basing your analysis of players you rarely see on reputation.

I always felt the award would stand to be used better if it was an award for the best pairing. Too much emphasis gets put on what one defenseman does better than the others while being weak elsewhere. Dynamic pairings work off eachother's strengths and weaknesses, or more so to a strength. The best pairings cover eachother's asses. Saying one defenseman is the best without going into detail on how his shortcomings are made up for by his partner doesnt sound right in my opinion.
- ScotsonFire

Definitely makes a difference. Look at Phaneuf in Toronto. If he was used properly as a #2 and played with a player like Doughty, I bet we'd all have a higher opinion of him.

As it is, he's been forced to play top lines and do too much with little to no support. His only job should be to score points because he's not really that good at anything else.

Yes he does, because when he's on the ice, his team generally doesn't need to play defense. I would rank Karlsson easy in the top ten of guys I'd want on the ice to protect a one goal lead.

You can make an argument that Subban and Weber are both elite defensemen, but I think Suter as a top ten NHL D is impossible to defend.
- James_Tanner

Karlsson is great but he just isn't the all-purpose all-zone dynamo that those other players are. (Sort of like your recent ex Yandle vs. your OEL).

Suter is perennially a league leader in ice time while playing for playoff-caliber teams. That simple stat trumps any fancy-stat arcana, IMO.

Your opinion < Statistical Evidence.
- James_Tanner

James where you lose me with this list is that while based on statistics its still completely biased towards your opinion as you are using judgement calls on weighting different aspects of being a defenseman.

For example Subban has a much higher corsi for than Giordano and Brodie...he also has a higher corsi rel than Giordano and Brodie. Yet you use Gio as an example that if he played on a better team he'd have a better corsi - the same should then be applied to Subban who also plays on a weak possession team.

Saying a player is unlucky because of a low shooting percentage is a cop out in my eyes (unless its a one year abberation) - to me it means maybe that player is not as good at picking their shot, or have a great release versus them being unlucky. Muzzin is a good example of this as he's only shot greater than 5% once in his 4 years.

I think without you telling us exactly how you came up with that list and what you rated as more or less important it kind of makes this exercise futile.

James where you lose me with this list is that while based on statistics its still completely biased towards your opinion as you are using judgement calls on weighting different aspects of being a defenseman.

For example Subban has a much higher corsi for than Giordano and Brodie...he also has a higher corsi rel than Giordano and Brodie.

Saying a player is unlucky because of a low shooting percentage is a cop out in my eyes - to me it means maybe that player is not as good at picking their shot, or have a great release versus them being unlucky. Muzzin is a good example of this as he's only shot greater than 5% once in his 4 years.

I think without you telling us exactly how you came up with that list and what you rated as more or less important it kind of makes this exercise futile.
- DirtyDozen

Well, all lists like this are futile. That's kind of the point. There's no real answer as no one dominates in a Bobby Orr type way. There are literally ten good choices for the Norris Trophy this year.

However, shooting percentage isn't really a cop out. To some degree, I hear what you're saying, as OV is always going to shoot higher than Muzzin. However, when a guy shoots under 2% or even under 5% for a long time, that's still bad luck, because the worst team shooting percentage over a full season in history is something like 7%.

And yeah, you could totally rank Subban higher than Gio based on Corsi, but the reason I don't is because Gio plays tougher minutes, has worse zone starts and a higher Dcorsi impact, while putting up roughly the same points and both playing in systems that aren't exactly designed to win. (I.E I think both MTL and CGY could use new coaches.)

It's still Shea Weber. Trade him for any Duck defenseman and Anaheim wins the Cup.

Definitely makes a difference. Look at Phaneuf in Toronto. If he was used properly as a #2 and played with a player like Doughty, I bet we'd all have a higher opinion of him.

As it is, he's been forced to play top lines and do too much with little to no support. His only job should be to score points because he's not really that good at anything else.
- James_Tanner

I don't think anyone is saying Phaneuf is a crap player. From what people have been saying is, he's not worth 8million annually and is not captain material.

Put Phaneuf with Doughty in LA as a Captain, people still will say he's way over paid and not Captain material even though his advanced stats will be much better.

Your opinion < Statistical Evidence.
- James_Tanner

Statistical evidence has no more value than opinion when you pick and choose which stats to use and then suggest they are measuring something they are not. You can't start your analysis based on opinion (this Stat matters, this Stat doesn't, the correlation between this Stat and something it doesn't measure makes it an acceptable substitute) and end up with anything trustworthy as better than opinion.

Prove Anything With Statistics

We probably should evaluate reputation as well. Teams that do well in big markets and have won the cup lately have players with highly regarded reputations. Teams that come from smaller markets or haven't won ofter have players with less regarded reputations.

See Gardiner. He's underated because the entire team stinks according to the large and powerful media. OEL is underated because the team stinks and very few cover him. Subban is good b/c his team is good and the media coverage is significant and positive. When they struggled, he was considered to be going through a bad season.

Most, non-stats people will tell you that the Subbans and Keiths of the league pass the eye test. But is it your eyes or the columnists? You can't know. There can't be an eye test b/c nobody watches every player for the same amount of games without outside influence.

Well, all lists like this are futile. That's kind of the point. There's no real answer as no one dominates in a Bobby Orr type way. There are literally ten good choices for the Norris Trophy this year.

However, shooting percentage isn't really a cop out. To some degree, I hear what you're saying, as OV is always going to shoot higher than Muzzin. However, when a guy shoots under 2% or even under 5% for a long time, that's still bad luck, because the worst team shooting percentage over a full season in history is something like 7%.

And yeah, you could totally rank Subban higher than Gio based on Corsi, but the reason I don't is because Gio plays tougher minutes, has worse zone starts and a higher Dcorsi impact, while putting up roughly the same points and both playing in systems that aren't exactly designed to win. (I.E I think both MTL and CGY could use new coaches.)
- James_Tanner

But if a guy continually shoots under 5% that is likely more indicative that he's a poor shooter or lacks the awareness of when to shoot versus he's unlucky.

In muzzins case he has shot poorly 3 out of 4 years - yes a small sample size but at this point i lean more towards him having an innacurate or poor shot or him taking a large quantity of poor shots that bring him down versus him just being unlucky. (muzzin is probably not a great example as he's relatively young with few seasons under his belt but you get the point.)

We probably should evaluate reputation as well. Teams that do well in big markets and have won the cup lately have players with highly regarded reputations. Teams that come from smaller markets or haven't won ofter have players with less regarded reputations.

See Gardiner. He's underated because the entire team stinks according to the large and powerful media. OEL is underated because the team stinks and very few cover him. Subban is good b/c his team is good and the media coverage is significant and positive. When they struggled, he was considered to be going through a bad season.

Most, non-stats people will tell you that the Subbans and Keiths of the league pass the eye test. But is it your eyes or the columnists? You can't know. There can't be an eye test b/c nobody watches every player for the same amount of games without outside influence.
- bluenoter

You've nailed it my good man.

But if a guy continually shoots under 5% that is likely more indicative that he's a poor shooter or lacks the awareness of when to shoot versus he's unlucky.

In muzzins case he has shot poorly 3 out of 4 years - yes a small sample size but at this point i lean more towards him having an innacurate or poor shot or him taking a large quantity of poor shots that bring him down versus him just being unlucky. (muzzin is probably not a great example as he's relatively young with few seasons under his belt but you get the point.)
- DirtyDozen

Yeah you have a point. BUT I would say that just by being in the NHL it's likely that as the worst shooter, you'd still pot 7 goals for every 100 shots you take. Don't know if this would stand up to scrutiny, but it's a theory based on the information I have at hand.

that's because people who are that into advanced stats refuse to acknowledge that there is a limitation to what these numbers tell us. hockey is not baseball. individual stats are skewed by numerous variable factors: team composition, team strategy, teammates and, yes, QOC.
- DoubleDown

No sport can be reduced to a single stat the way baseball can. There will be no bestseller and a Brad Pitt movie about Corsi.

Well, all lists like this are futile. That's kind of the point. There's no real answer as no one dominates in a Bobby Orr type way. There are literally ten good choices for the Norris Trophy this year.

However, shooting percentage isn't really a cop out. To some degree, I hear what you're saying, as OV is always going to shoot higher than Muzzin. However, when a guy shoots under 2% or even under 5% for a long time, that's still bad luck, because the worst team shooting percentage over a full season in history is something like 7%.

And yeah, you could totally rank Subban higher than Gio based on Corsi, but the reason I don't is because Gio plays tougher minutes, has worse zone starts and a higher Dcorsi impact, while putting up roughly the same points and both playing in systems that aren't exactly designed to win. (I.E I think both MTL and CGY could use new coaches.)
- James_Tanner

Yes!! #FireTherrien

First year back with Habs, finishes 1st in conference
2nd year back, finishes 3rd, but makes ECF
This year he's 1st in Conference with 16 games left.

(frank) he needs to be fired and replaced with a sack of potatoes because the Habs Corsi sucks

No sport can be reduced to a single stat the way baseball can. There will be no bestseller and a Brad Pitt movie about Corsi.
- Snowblind

There might be one day.. Hollywood is running out of ideas