No, he's FAR from an "awesome player"
This isn't ONE bad series
He gets exposed consistently in the playoffs...
not just this year
If he was "awesome" StL would've wanted to sign him

15-16, he's a -14 for the Blues
*Pietrangelo +10, Bouwmeester -4, Parayko +28, Gunnarson +7, Edmunson 0, Bortuzzo +2
*in the playoffs, -8 with the next closest Edmundson at -4

16-17, he's a -11 for StL
*Pietrangelo +3, Bouwmeester +6, Parayko +7, Gunnarson -5, Edmunson +11, Bortuzzo +11
*Having a pretty bad playoffs again

For his career...
-18 in the playoffs, only 1 season where he was a +


Now I know +/- isn't a great stat, but when you're consistently the worst on your team...
that's not just bad luck

If u think Shattenkirk is good defensively,
Then you're nuts sir

And I don't mean he's not good at getting the puck outta the zone...
maybe he is, idk

What I mean is that when u actually WATCH the games,
He makes mistakes in his own end
More than the other guys on his team

He's good offensively, particularly the PP
But we already have the #1 PP

no reason to sign him to the huge deal he'll command
Would be a brutal mistake for us
- jdfitz77

He's not good offensively, he's great. And he also isn't as bad defensively, at all as you are making him out to be.

He's been dreadful this year, no doubt, but again, I'll take the 400 plus game sample over a few playoff series. Because more than likely it's an outlier rather than the norm.

We were **the** worst possession team in the NHL. Shattenkirk is one of the best in the NHL. I have a hard time believing that somehow isn't a good fit here

Our defense as a whole had 17 goals this year
Kevin Shattenkirk on his own had 13

You can't say he wouldn't be worth trying to get

Mood: just dropped the whole roll of toilet paper into the toilet
- chilliard77

I did that once, thankfully it was 90% gone. Ever since I never hold the roll anywhere near the toilet.

I did that once, thankfully it was 90% gone. Ever since I never hold the roll anywhere near the toilet.
- Wetbandit1

Mr. "I don't drop the toilet paper in the toilet because I'm too smart for that"

Mr. "I don't drop the toilet paper in the toilet because I'm too smart for that"
- chilliard77

How many time in the past 3 months have you dropped floss into the toilet?

How many time in the past 3 months have you dropped floss into the toilet?
- Wetbandit1

Twice

Our defense as a whole had 17 goals this year
Kevin Shattenkirk on his own had 13

You can't say he wouldn't be worth trying to get
- sbroads24

What would be the max term and $$ that you would give him?

What would be the max term and $$ that you would give him?
- SabreWest

I'd imagine he gets close to Yandle's 6.3

Maybe a tad less with how brutal of a playoffs he's had

I'd do 6 for 6 easily, but doubt that's enough

Our defense as a whole had 17 goals this year
Kevin Shattenkirk on his own had 13

You can't say he wouldn't be worth trying to get
- sbroads24

How much was that because of the fool coaching them this year?

I'd imagine he gets close to Yandle's 6.3

Maybe a tad less with how brutal of a playoffs he's had

I'd do 6 for 6 easily, but doubt that's enough
- sbroads24

the mass told me yandle was too old

How much was that because of the fool coaching them this year?
- gordong

team was not constructed to get goals from d men

"Hey Jack, describe your first 2 years in the nhl with Disco Dan"

He's not good offensively, he's great. And he also isn't as bad defensively, at all as you are making him out to be.

He's been dreadful this year, no doubt, but again, I'll take the 400 plus game sample over a few playoff series. Because more than likely it's an outlier rather than the norm.

We were **the** worst possession team in the NHL. Shattenkirk is one of the best in the NHL. I have a hard time believing that somehow isn't a good fit here
- sbroads24

Good grief...

Awesome>great>good>average>mediocre>poor

Hopefully we can just agree on that

Now you're saying Shattenkirk is an "awesome player"

I'd like to know how u get there,
When (in your words) he's "great" offensively

If you think he's better than "average" defensively,
then u need to ACTUALLY WATCH the games...
instead of just looking at the numbers

But even if u could convince anyone that he's "good" defensively
Along with "great" offensively (which is also a reach)

In no way does that equal "awesome"


You're advanced stats aren't garbage, but again...
they don't tell the whole story

So it's great that he gets the puck outta the zone,
but it's also clear that too many goals are going in the net

And u can't just pass it off as "bad luck" when it happens consistently that he's got the worst +/- among his fellow defensemen
This has happened 2 playoffs in a row
And 2 regular seasons in a row
Not just this series like u claim

You gotta watch the games man

I'd imagine he gets close to Yandle's 6.3

Maybe a tad less with how brutal of a playoffs he's had

I'd do 6 for 6 easily, but doubt that's enough
- sbroads24

So you'd pay MORE than 6mil for a 2nd pair defenseman?
He's only a 3rd pair defenseman on the Caps
And he was #4 on StL and they were more than willing to let him go

So you'd pay MORE than 6mil for a 2nd pair defenseman?
He's only a 3rd pair defenseman on the Caps
And he was #4 on StL and they were more than willing to let him go
- jdfitz77

http://www.espn.com/nhl/t.../_/name/wsh/cat/plusMinus

http://www.espn.com/nhl/team/stats/_/name/wsh/cat/plusMinus
- homiedclown

???
It just led me to the Caps stats leaders

Not sure what you were trying to say?

I saw the tweet earlier, but here's a writeup on Antipin voiding his contract so he can sign here

https://www.hockeyfeed.co...to-join-sabres?ref=trevor

I was kinda nervous that it might not happen...
glad to see these reports coming out

So you'd pay MORE than 6mil for a 2nd pair defenseman?
He's only a 3rd pair defenseman on the Caps
And he was #4 on StL and they were more than willing to let him go
- jdfitz77

too general of a statement, hes in general closer to being among the best 2nd pair guys than the worst.

There's some risk involved like there is with any free agent signing but when you put into context what it normally costs to add that kind of 2nd pair guy (see anaheim asking for a top 10 pick for fowler) this by comparison is somewhat of a bargain.

i never really looked into this but for the nerds in here like myself corsica's similarity calculator does a pretty cool enhanced comparison of players seasons.

Take it fwiw as context is often more important as you'll see below here but here are some notable comparisons

Edit: deleted the last one, this is a little misleading given what the default settings are gotta play around with it a bit before you can really get accurate (or close to it) numbers.

Alright here are the comparables on the default settings with input maxed at 1 (i dunno what the (frank) that actually means or does but seems to give out the "closest" comparisons)

closest one for this year in particular (instead of just overall cause that gave me some weird ass results)

**adjusted ice time individually to try and find players in similar roles and position

This is all 5v5


Risto---Fowler

Eichel--Seguin (would be higher if eichel had played more games i think)

Reinhart--Jagr/Danault

McCabe--Rielly

ROR--Backes/down year kopitar

Kane-Pacioretty

Bogosian--Hainsey

Okposo--Lucic

Girgs--Soderberg

Kulikov--McQuaid

Gorges--Vatanen

Foligno--Perron


First thing that jumped out to me, stay the hell away from fowler and vatanen. And no the fact that Fowler compares to risto isnt an endorsement for him. If you play for a stacked blueline and have the same numbers as a guy who is constantly berated by adv stats folks and plays for one of the worst bluelines assembled in the modern nhl then you (frank)ing suck


Edit: little harsh on fowler but point is, not the answer.

Alright here are the comparables on the default settings with input maxed at 1 (i dunno what the (frank) that actually means or does but seems to give out the "closest" comparisons)

closest one for this year in particular (instead of just overall cause that gave me some weird ass results)

**adjusted ice time individually to try and find players in similar roles and position

This is all 5v5


Risto---Fowler

Eichel--Seguin (would be higher if eichel had played more games i think)

Reinhart--Jagr/Danault

McCabe--Rielly

ROR--Backes/down year kopitar

Kane-Pacioretty

Bogosian--Hainsey

Okposo--Lucic

Girgs--Soderberg

Kulikov--McQuaid

Gorges--Vatanen

Foligno--Perron


First thing that jumped out to me, stay the hell away from fowler and vatanen. And no the fact that Fowler compares to risto isnt an endorsement for him. If you play for a stacked blueline and have the same numbers as a guy who is constantly berated by adv stats folks and plays for one of the worst bluelines assembled in the modern nhl then you (frank)ing suck


Edit: little harsh on fowler but point is, not the answer.
- Sabresfan-365

Classic advanced stats. Introduce or modify unknown variables to achieve desired results in a way that seems objective and data driven.

Classic advanced stats. Introduce or modify unknown variables to achieve desired results in a way that seems objective and data driven.
- Der Kaiser

what about any of those comparisons seems desirable? lol changing it gave more reasonable comparable's by eye test then just leaving it at 0. And as pointed out, you have to account for the situation those players are in, the positions they play etc.

Edit: i didnt adjust the input so that it would fit my narrative or whatever otherwise i would have changed the settings for each player, try to make ristolainen look like karlsson and bogosian look like weber.

I just turned the input setting of all default stats to "1" because the results it produced gave out more fitting names then it did in its original setting. It was all over the place and at first glance i think it was placing more weight on certain stats then others though without looking into it further its hard to say.

???
It just led me to the Caps stats leaders

Not sure what you were trying to say?
- jdfitz77

shat leads team in worst +/- this playoffs

-7

what about any of those comparisons seems desirable? lol changing it gave more reasonable comparable's by eye test then just leaving it at 0. And as pointed out, you have to account for the situation those players are in, the positions they play etc.

Edit: i didnt adjust the input so that it would fit my narrative or whatever otherwise i would have changed the settings for each player, try to make ristolainen look like karlsson and bogosian look like weber.

I just turned the input setting of all default stats to "1" because the results it produced gave out more fitting names then it did in its original setting. It was all over the place and at first glance i think it was placing more weight on certain stats then others though without looking into it further its hard to say.
- Sabresfan-365

For a second time you say "I goofed around w a variable I didn't understand to produce results I deemed sensible." If it were really data driven, you would understand the variable and accept the results whether you deemed them sensible or not.

It's kinda like saying "I'm going to focus on shots and possession as a predictor of victory, rather than scoring."

For a second time you say "I goofed around w a variable I didn't understand to produce results I deemed sensible." If it were really data driven, you would understand the variable and accept the results whether you deemed them sensible or not.

It's kinda like saying "I'm going to focus on shots and possession as a predictor of victory, rather than scoring."
- Der Kaiser

I looked for results that matched with the eye test and context/situation because raw data on its own would give me results that dont make sense in general, not just to me.


For example, leaving the input sliders in its default spot gave me Bowmeester as McCabes best comparable and yet comparing their stats they had maybe 3 categories where they were "close" the others were substantially different. Thats what led me to believe the input sliders were weighting certain categories differently. Pushing all sliders to "1" for all players gave names that matched both the eye test and the stats on comparison were much closer.