Doughty and Muzzin.

Martinez has been part of the meh group this year. Nevertheless that group can very much hold their own. Compared to the Hawks group I would actually take the Kings.

I mean, Svedberg, TVR, Rozsival, or McNabb, Schenn, McBain? It's pretty much a toss up, but I think McNabb/Schenn nudge it over the Kings way.
- Jason_Lewis

Muzzin has been riding his partner for most of his career. This season is easily his worst because he has not played with Doughty as much. To no ones surprise he started picking it up as his time with Doughty increased a little. I put Martinez as the #2 because of his timeliness. He shows up for big games and is a clutch player. In the playoffs, I would take him over Muzzin 100% of the time. That bottom 3 is bad. Its the obvious weakness for LA and an easy area to improve. McBain is an AHLer and Luke Schenn is the wrong Schenn.

But like I said before, the willingness of Chicago to upgrade its defense is the difference. It has more to do with attitude than ability. If the kings are passing on an opportunity to get a player like Hamuis, Russell, Streit or Grossman, they are making a mistake by not considering it. I mean, you're right about passing on a player like Yandle or Edler or Shattenkirk and even Trouba. That would cost too much. However, Justin Schultz would upgrade the bottom 3, so would have Mike Weber. What about getting Hickey back? They have the mid-level prospects to do it.

Kings bottom 3 > Chicago bottom 3
- KINGS67

Chicago literally can shelter their bottom 3 with Keith and Seabrook every single shift, like they did in the playoffs last year. They were double shifted in every game with rotating partners. Unless LA is going to play Doughty 60 minutes, they cant do the same with their bottom guys.

So you've seen Muzzin, Amart, and McNabb in different systems sufficient enough that you can make a comparison? If the system makes the player, how come Christian Ehrhoff was waived because of his poor play? I have trouble figuring out why someone like yourself who is such an evidence-based critic would forward an argument like this one.
- Only_A_Ladd

Have you seen enough of those three in other systems to say that I'm wrong?

As for Ehrhoff, the player must fit the system in order to thrive in it (or be "made" by it, in your wording), and I think that Jason had a good analysis last week about why Ehrhoff was a poor fit.

Have you seen enough of those three in other systems to say that I'm wrong?

As for Ehrhoff, the player must fit the system in order to thrive in it (or be "made" by it, in your wording), and I think that Jason had a good analysis last week about why Ehrhoff was a poor fit.
- Osprey

Ridiculous. You made the baseless statement (i.e., the system makes the players). I don't have to prove you wrong because the underlying statement has no validity. And I gave you the perfect example of why your statement was flawed (Ehrhoff), and you cite an article written by Jason that, essentially, proves what I just said.

Funny you would cite to Jason as a source when you think he's biased and unreliable.

I'd rather have better top 3 if i had to pick
- SimpleJack

I'd rather have the better all around dmen 1-6

Ridiculous. You made the baseless statement (i.e., the system makes the players). I don't have to prove you wrong because the underlying statement has no validity. And I gave you the perfect example of why your statement was flawed (Ehrhoff), and you cite an article written by Jason that, essentially, proves what I just said.
- Only_A_Ladd

What's "ridiculous" is that you're mis-portraying my argument so that you can call it ridiculous. I respectfully re-explained it and your reaction was to ignore it and continue beating on your original strawman. You prefer to believe that my argument is that the system makes every player better so that you can easily dismiss it as flawed by pointing to Ehrhoff. If you insist on that, despite me correcting you, then you're just plugging your ears and trying to tune out arguments that you don't want to even consider.

Funny you would cite to Jason as a source when you think he's biased and unreliable.
- Only_A_Ladd

The only thing that's funny is that you're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth in order to try to spin every comment of mine against me. On a point that I agree with him, I referenced him (did not cite him as a "source") because of the respect and admiration that you have for him. That should've been obvious enough, I think.

What's "ridiculous" is that you're mis-portraying my argument so that you can call it ridiculous. I respectfully re-explained it and your reaction was to ignore it and continue beating on your original strawman. You prefer to believe that my argument is that the system makes every player better so that you can easily dismiss it as flawed by pointing to Ehrhoff. If you insist on that, despite me correcting you, then you're just plugging your ears and trying to tune out arguments that you don't want to even consider.



I didn't cite him as a "source." On a point that I agree with him, I referenced him because of the respect and admiration that you have for him. The only thing that's funny is that you're taking a simple thing like that and trying to spin it against me.
- Osprey

"The reason for LA's prowess in defensive measurements (GAA, Corsi, chances, etc.) is the system that they play. Their defensive personnel is not anything special, to be honest. After Doughty, there's a big drop-off to a bunch of interchangeable support players. The reason that they get away with it (besides Doughty being a workhorse) is the system. It makes nearly everyone look a lot better at defense than they really are or would look in most other systems."

So everyone on the current roster (aside from Doughty) is an interchangeable support player. "Not anything to special" thanks to the system. Seems pretty clear to me. This isn't a strawman argument. You just degrade the current unit (especially Muzzin) pointing to their success as a product of the system. Then, you tell me to prove that you're wrong? What on earth have you proven with your assertion? It is a completely baseless argument and now you're backtracking. Weak.

So Y'all picking up Scuderi??

Chicago literally can shelter their bottom 3 with Keith and Seabrook every single shift, like they did in the playoffs last year. They were double shifted in every game with rotating partners. Unless LA is going to play Doughty 60 minutes, they cant do the same with their bottom guys.
- sniper11

Spot on!

Kieth and Rosival have been together this year as well when the game's on the line. Expect to see something similar to last years playoffs with Chicago D.

#5/6 for the hawks are major upgrades this year over last year but losing #4 could be rough. Be interesting to see how it pans out for the hawks if they stand pat on D

So Y'all picking up Scuderi??
- TheCore

Looks that way, for Erhoff

Its not a terrible trade.

Y'all goin nutz gettin Scud back?
Is it a hit or miss proposition?

Looks that way, for Erhoff

Its not a terrible trade.
- KINGS67

IMO press box insurance n prolly a bigger deal or two yet to come.
Stay tuned n don't change that dial........

Looks that way, for Erhoff

Its not a terrible trade.
- KINGS67

I'm convinced LA made this deal with zero attempt to scout Scuds. His skating is tragic. I realize you had no use for Hoff, but Scuderi has the mobility of a glacier. Strange deal for you guys.

So everyone on the current roster (aside from Doughty) is an interchangeable support players. "Not anything to special" thanks to the system. Seems pretty clear to me. This isn't a strawman argument.
- Only_A_Ladd

That's what I said and what I stand behind, but that's not how you portrayed it earlier. The strawman was characterizing my argument as the system "making" all players who play in it, which you then set ablaze by pointing out Ehrhoff. I never argued that, though, and was pretty clear that the system really helps only those players who fit it. You're seemingly confusing "all defensemen in the current corps (now that Ehrhoff is gone)" for "all defensemen who have been in or might join the corps."

Then, you tell me to prove that you're wrong? What on earth have you proven with your assertion? It is a completely baseless argument and now you're backtracking. Weak.
- Only_A_Ladd

You seem to be forgetting that you're the one who asked for proof first. I simply turned your own question around, in rhetorical fashion, and now you're acting like I'm the one who had the audacity to ask it. Why ask in the first place if you're going to act indignant when the question is turned around on you?

As for proving anything, I haven't tried to or pretended to and don't expect you to. I realize that it's hard to prove how much a system helps a player (whether it's a lot or none at all). The reason why I turned the question around on you is to help you realize that it's just as unproven and "baseless" to have faith that your players are every bit as good as they appear, regardless of the system. We're both entitled to our opinions, but you're not entitled to demand that those who make critical assessments prove them while those (including yourself) who make much more favorable assessments needn't prove anything.

That's what I said and what I stand behind, but that's not how you portrayed it earlier. The strawman was characterizing my argument as the system "making" all players who play in it, which you then set ablaze by pointing out Ehrhoff. I never argued that, though, and was pretty clear that the system really helps only those players who fit it. You're seemingly confusing "all defensemen in the current corps (now that Ehrhoff is gone)" for "all defensemen who have been in or might join the corps."



You seem to be forgetting that you're the one who asked for proof first. I simply turned your own question around, in rhetorical fashion, and now you're acting like I'm the one who had the audacity to ask it. Why ask in the first place if you're going to act indignant when the question is turned around on you?

As for proving anything, I haven't tried to or pretended to and don't expect you to. I realize that it's hard to prove how much a system helps a player (whether it's a lot or none at all). The reason why I turned the question around on you is to help you realize that it's just as unproven and "baseless" to have faith that your players are every bit as good as they appear, regardless of the system. We're both entitled to our opinions, but you're not entitled to demand that those who make critical assessments prove them while those (including yourself) who make much more favorable assessments needn't prove anything.
- Osprey

So you're an nihilist? Do you take pleasure in watching hockey?

Looks that way, for Erhoff

Its not a terrible trade.
- KINGS67

Yeah I think Erhoff might be able to play, Scuderi really can't but better in the room. Cap hits are basically a wash

What do you think of Erhoff?