I think I am misunderstanding, but it looks like you said Vatanen would be the defenseman most likely traded by the Ducks, which I agree with completely. It looks like you then said said he was signed "to a pretty cost-effective value-laden contract at $3.75 for the next four years." Who are you talking about here? Vatanen is a RFA after this season. Seems like you might have been looking at a different players cap line?

I'm really not trying to annoy you this time, but I was just wondering. At first I was hoping that he signed an extension cuz that is a great deal for a player like Vatanen.
- sniper11

I probably just mixed him up with Despres.

Stone has been amazing for the Yotes this season. 4 less 5v5 points then the almighty OEL(BTW he was tied with OEL up until the final 2 games of the season) He is one year older, But lets trade one of the most under appreciated "D" men for the sake of making a trade. Also Cannuaton has been a good "D" man down the stretch.
- camfor

This is why I always say rating a player off of his points is foolish and makes for horrible evaluations. Sure, OEL had only 4 more ES points than Stone, but since he (OEL) created many more chances, had the team had any finishers, he would have had much more.

But ignore that, just look at the possession numbers. OEL is in Karlsson territory with a +5.54 CF% relative to his team. The Coyotes are among the worst teams at possessing the puck, and one of the worst culprits is Stone, who is a master at getting hemmed in his own zone and a good example of a player who should hit less, not more.

He is .33% CF Relative to his team, which is not good at all, he`s a BRUTAL 47% overall.

Also, when Stone plays with OEL, he`s 50.2% and 46% without him. In fact, if you eliminate the 500 minutes Stone played with OEL, Stone ends up with a negative Corsi rating relative to his team.

See, Stone actually kind of sucks. Like I said, he's a good second PP option and a decent #4. Although lets say Stone was on Anaheim, does he even play? At best, he's their worst defenseman.

So that's a problem. The other problem has to do with your tone. You can't be that aggressive and sarcastic while only providing one stat with no context, it's embarrassing.

OH and Connauton is a pile of garbage.

This is why I always say rating a player off of his points is foolish and makes for horrible evaluations. Sure, OEL had only 4 more ES points than Stone, but since he (OEL) created many more chances, had the team had any finishers, he would have had much more.

But ignore that, just look at the possession numbers. OEL is in Karlsson territory with a +5.54 CF% relative to his team.



The Coyotes are among the worst teams at possessing the puck, and one of the worst culprits is Stone, who is a master at getting hemmed in his own zone and a good example of a player who should hit less, not more.

Read this to yourself(slowly if that helps) and then pay attention to the fact that you then go on to point out Stone's .33cf%. Which is 2nd best on the Yote's(20 games or more)
He is .33% CF Relative to his team, which is not good at all, he`s a BRUTAL 47% overall.



Also, when Stone plays with OEL, he`s 50.2% and 46% without him. In fact, if you eliminate the 500 minutes Stone played with OEL, Stone ends up with a negative Corsi rating relative to his team.

See, Stone actually kind of sucks. Like I said, he's a good second PP option and a decent #4. Although lets say Stone was on Anaheim, does he even play? At best, he's their worst defenseman.

So that's a problem. The other problem has to do with your tone. You can't be that aggressive and sarcastic while only providing one stat with no context, it's embarrassing.
- James_Tanner

And here is the biggest issue with your assessment. Murphy is a keeper, Yet Stone sucks, And Cannuaton is garbage. Yet statistically they are all in the same ballpark. You are basing your analysis on age,Because Murphy is only 22 you see potential. While Stone and Cannauton are both 25, You assume their past their prime
Pointing out the Yote's terrible possession metrics and then listing the 2nd best "D" man for that stat is embarrassing.

I am a fiction writer and not a hockey expert
- James_Tanner

This disclaimer should be at the top of every Tanner blog.

This disclaimer should be at the top of every Tanner blog.
- Antilles

At a certain point, it's implied.

And here is the biggest issue with your assessment. Murphy is a keeper, Yet Stone sucks, And Cannuaton is garbage. Yet statistically they are all in the same ballpark. You are basing your analysis on age,Because Murphy is only 22 you see potential. While Stone and Cannauton are both 25, You assume their past their prime
Pointing out the Yote's terrible possession metrics and then listing the 2nd best "D" man for that stat is embarrassing.
- camfor

You've lost me here / gone off the deep-end. Where did I say stone sucks? I said he's a fine 4/5 dman. Then I showed you why. What's the problem?

I don't even understand what you're saying here to be honest.

I don't really know what's so advanced about looking at how has the puck the most, who makes other players better, who limits shots and gets a ton of their own.

Rielly is an amazing talent, you seem to agree with me. Where's the argument? All I said is that defensively he has a negative impact on the team and that if you want a 22 minute Dman, that's a problem. I fully believe he'll improve though, as I said.
- James_Tanner

The way we judge "better" is the problem IMO. Basing a judgment solely off possession numbers will not tell you who the better player is all the time.

If you looked at Mark Pysyk and Rasmus Ristolainen possession numbers next to eachother, Pysyk looks like a Norris candidate, and Ristolainen looks like Dan Girardi in some categories.

No one in their right mind would ever want Pysyk on the ice over Risto if you watched them play.

The way we judge "better" is the problem IMO. Basing a judgment solely off possession numbers will not tell you who the better player is all the time.

If you looked at Mark Pysyk and Rasmus Ristolainen possession numbers next to eachother, Pysyk looks like a Norris candidate, and Ristolainen looks like Dan Girardi in some categories.

No one in their right mind would ever want Pysyk on the ice over Risto if you watched them play.
- sbroads24

exactly, way better as in 1 shot/gm better

The way we judge "better" is the problem IMO. Basing a judgment solely off possession numbers will not tell you who the better player is all the time.

If you looked at Mark Pysyk and Rasmus Ristolainen possession numbers next to eachother, Pysyk looks like a Norris candidate, and Ristolainen looks like Dan Girardi in some categories.

No one in their right mind would ever want Pysyk on the ice over Risto if you watched them play.
- sbroads24

That may be true, but even in the quote you quoted, I mention multiple ways in which I would look at stats to evaluate a player. That's not making a judgement solely off possession numbers at all. It's just one part of an analysis.

This is why I always say rating a player off of his points is foolish and makes for horrible evaluations. Sure, OEL had only 4 more ES points than Stone, but since he (OEL) created many more chances, had the team had any finishers, he would have had much more.

But ignore that, just look at the possession numbers. OEL is in Karlsson territory with a +5.54 CF% relative to his team. The Coyotes are among the worst teams at possessing the puck, and one of the worst culprits is Stone, who is a master at getting hemmed in his own zone and a good example of a player who should hit less, not more.

He is .33% CF Relative to his team, which is not good at all, he`s a BRUTAL 47% overall.

Also, when Stone plays with OEL, he`s 50.2% and 46% without him. In fact, if you eliminate the 500 minutes Stone played with OEL, Stone ends up with a negative Corsi rating relative to his team.

See, Stone actually kind of sucks. Like I said, he's a good second PP option and a decent #4. Although lets say Stone was on Anaheim, does he even play? At best, he's their worst defenseman.

So that's a problem. The other problem has to do with your tone. You can't be that aggressive and sarcastic while only providing one stat with no context, it's embarrassing.
- James_Tanner

Right here! You clearly state he sucks.
And you list his .33CF% as terrible right after you also stated the Yotes are a terrible possession team. When in fact Stone's CF% of .33 ranks him only behind OEL for Yotes "D" men(5v5 20 games or more)

Right here! You clearly state he sucks.
And you list his .33CF% as terrible right after you also stated the Yotes are a terrible possession team. When in fact Stone's CF% of .33 ranks him only behind OEL for Yotes "D" men(5v5 20 games or more)
- camfor

No you're wrong. Stone is .33 cf relative to his team, a 47% possesion player on a team that has about 47% which is close to league worst. Oel has a 5% relative rate to his team which is crazy good.

No you're wrong. Stone is .33 cf relative to his team, a 47% possesion player on a team that has about 47% which is close to league worst. Oel has a 5% relative rate to his team which is crazy good.
- James_Tanner

You are a master at deflections.
I show you where you clearly state Stone sucks and show you his .33CF% is second "BEST" on the Yotes "D"(5v5 20 games or more) How am i wrong?
So to put this into perspective Murphy Has a 46.91 possession rating(worse then Stone's) And a .28cf%(also worse then Stone's)
So did you? Or did you not state "Stone kinda sucks"?
And the stats are what they are. I did not make them up. So No! I am not wrong.

You are a master at deflections.
I show you where you clearly state Stone sucks and show you his .33CF% is second "BEST" on the Yotes "D"(5v5 20 games or more) How am i wrong?
So to put this into perspective Murphy Has a 46.91 possession rating(worse then Stone's) And a .28cf%(also worse then Stone's)
So did you? Or did you not state "Stone kinda sucks"?
And the stats are what they are. I did not make them up. So No! I am not wrong.
- camfor

What am I deflecting? The argument that he doesn't suck because he's second best on on a crap team doesn't really make any sense. Your whole argument has me confused.