But he quite clearly is underrated, as I think your post demonstrates. Again, it doesn't mean he's one of the best in the league, just that he's quietly alright.
- James_Tanner

He's not quietly alright though... I hardly watch the dallas stars... but when I have watched, or when I've flipped to a stars game it seems like he's always getting a move put on him, he's always out of position, he's always getting scored on. That's why eye tests are still vital when analyzing a player. You could be getting a lot of breaks from your goalie, and shot attempts occurring in the opponents zone while you're on the ice, but if you're out of position all the time, you're bound to get a load of goals going into your net at some point.

Look at dallas' last games. (3/7,3/5,3/3, 3/1,2/27). There's one goal in at least 3 of those games where it was just about directly jordie benn's fault... that's not something I'd call underrated... That's not a defenseman I want on my team..

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

I think the very fact that Shea Weber is the answer to the question no matter what stats you show people proves my point about reputation. Shea Weber is a beast and he's really, really good. But he also plays on a team with one of the best goalies, best commitments to team D and a Dunit consisting of himself, Jones, Jonsi, Franson, Ellis and Ekholm.

That is just the maybe the most insane 6 D ever assembled in a salary cap system.

No doubt he's awesome and no doubt he probably does win the Norris. I want to say also that I am not like saying he sucks or that he isn't fantastic. Just that maybe there are five or six guys in the league who've had better seasons this year.

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

I'd actually argue the opposite in some cases - Phil Kessel is shat upon because he plays in a large market and is under intense scrutiny. He would not be subject to 1/100th of the criticism he is in a smaller market team.

In a similar vein all of Subbans mistakes are blown up because he is under a microscope in Montreal. Every giveaway is shown 50 times on sportscentre to support their claim that he is poor in his own end whereas a guy like OEL who plays in a smaller market deos not experience this at nearly that level.

These are only two examples of the inverse of what you are arguing - i'm sure there are examples of both situations but i dont think that you can apply the logic that crappy teams means crappy players. Hall (until this year) was alwasy considered one of the best and most dangerous wingers in the game on a terrible edmonton team. Same goes for Nash on a poor Columbus, Giroux/Voracek on a weaker flyers team this year.

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.
- Antilles

But it's MATH, you know the stuff that explains the fabric of existence. You think defense is too complicated for MATH?

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.
- DirtyDozen

Two examples given for low shooting % (Stralman and Boychuk) are shooting around their career highs. Probably sustainable, but expecting more is pretty unreasonable. I value stats a lot and agree with most of what you said James, I just don't agree with your conclusions based on both what I watch AND how I interpret the stats. While recognizing the problems with them, ignoring QualComp (+ quality of teammates and WOWY) seems strange, especially without showing your weighting of the stats in your conclusion. I'm also interested in why you didn't look at score effects, especially when looking at possession and PDO.

Considering their are 2 D pairings in you're top 5/6 (Brodie-Giordano and Muzzin-Doughty) suggests that maybe their are flaws in the process. It's statistically unlikely that the top 5 D play on 3 teams.

He's not quietly alright though... I hardly watch the dallas stars... but when I have watched, or when I've flipped to a stars game it seems like he's always getting a move put on him, he's always out of position, he's always getting scored on. That's why eye tests are still vital when analyzing a player. You could be getting a lot of breaks from your goalie, and shot attempts occurring in the opponents zone while you're on the ice, but if you're out of position all the time, you're bound to get a load of goals going into your net at some point.

Look at dallas' last games. (3/7,3/5,3/3, 3/1,2/27). There's one goal in at least 3 of those games where it was just about directly jordie benn's fault... that's not something I'd call underrated... That's not a defenseman I want on my team..
- benjichronic

So your idea to convince me about the value of the eye test is to take a player "known" to suck and blame him for goals in games you admittedly "just flipped to" ?

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.
- James_Tanner

Gotta disagree - if something quacks looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck once ok maybe its not a duck (but it probably is)

If its quacking like a duck for 5 years...its a duck.

So if a guy shoots at 2-5% over his career - he's a poor shooter.

Your opinion < Statistical Evidence.
- James_Tanner

what stats?

2 goals

or his -22

486 in goals 217th in assists 319th in points 824th in +/-

yummy stats

Continue not watching games and looking over those graphs

Two examples given for low shooting % (Stralman and Boychuk) are shooting around their career highs. Probably sustainable, but expecting more is pretty unreasonable. I value stats a lot and agree with most of what you said James, I just don't agree with your conclusions based on both what I watch AND how I interpret the stats. While recognizing the problems with them, ignoring QualComp (+ quality of teammates and WOWY) seems strange, especially without showing your weighting of the stats in your conclusion. I'm also interested in why you didn't look at score effects, especially when looking at possession and PDO.

Considering their are 2 D pairings in you're top 5/6 (Brodie-Giordano and Muzzin-Doughty) suggests that maybe their are flaws in the process. It's statistically unlikely that the top 5 D play on 3 teams.
- BleedingHabs

All good points. Again, I have taken pains to say this isn't meant to be factual or definitive. I agree that a more comprehensive study could be done, but I am also devoting a portion of my day to doing this that would work out to about 9 cents an hour, so time is a factor.

Ultimately, I figured that if you got a basic understanding of who's doing really well, that that would be enough.

Also, unlikely isn't impossible, but I think having two pairs there shows just how valuable a team-up can be. For example, while Josi gets a lot of points, there's some evidence that he maybe a Tyler Bozak and in fact be collecting Weber's points while simultaneously dragging him down.

If anything, what I've learned from doing this is that its a massively complicated process and that there is no one right number or right answer.

Let's just go back to Weber!!!

Two examples given for low shooting % (Stralman and Boychuk) are shooting around their career highs. Probably sustainable, but expecting more is pretty unreasonable. I value stats a lot and agree with most of what you said James, I just don't agree with your conclusions based on both what I watch AND how I interpret the stats. While recognizing the problems with them, ignoring QualComp (+ quality of teammates and WOWY) seems strange, especially without showing your weighting of the stats in your conclusion. I'm also interested in why you didn't look at score effects, especially when looking at possession and PDO.

Considering their are 2 D pairings in you're top 5/6 (Brodie-Giordano and Muzzin-Doughty) suggests that maybe their are flaws in the process. It's statistically unlikely that the top 5 D play on 3 teams.
- BleedingHabs

Well said.

what stats?

2 goals

or his -22

486 in goals 217th in assists 319th in points 824th in +/-

yummy stats

Continue not watching games and looking over those graphs


- Garnie

I guess you didn't see the part where I said I've watched virtually all of his games? Or the part where I called plus/minus a joke-stat?

Anyways, you obviously aren't swayed by new information, so it's cool think what you want and all hail President Palin.

This just goes to show that the stats do not reveal enough of the truth. You need better stats to get a better picture of a players effect on the game.

If a player is matching up against tougher compettion and playing over 25 minutes a game that has a ton of weight on statistical performance. You can try to ignore it or rationalize that it does not, but it does.

Also you have to weigh the team the player plays for to understand their impact and the potential it could have on a better team, or if the team is dealng with serious injuries to toher important dmen.

You also have to consider how good the goaltending is, as a great goaltender frees a defender in their play and a bad goaltender makes a risk/reward play less rewarding.

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.
- James_Tanner

Average shooting percentage for D is around 5%. Defenceman generally have lower shooting percentages than forwards, since they tend to shoot more from less dangerous areas of the ice.

It probably skews higher for bigger minute defenceman (and may be higher at even strength) but suggesting 7% is an expected number for every d-man doesn't make much sense.

All good points. Again, I have taken pains to say this isn't meant to be factual or definitive. I agree that a more comprehensive study could be done, but I am also devoting a portion of my day to doing this that would work out to about 9 cents an hour, so time is a factor.

Ultimately, I figured that if you got a basic understanding of who's doing really well, that that would be enough.

Also, unlikely isn't impossible, but I think having two pairs there shows just how valuable a team-up can be. For example, while Josi gets a lot of points, there's some evidence that he maybe a Tyler Bozak and in fact be collecting Weber's points while simultaneously dragging him down.

If anything, what I've learned from doing this is that its a massively complicated process and that there is no one right number or right answer.

Let's just go back to Weber!!!
- James_Tanner

If you thnk Tyler Bozak is just the benifiary of his linemates then you ignore the reality stats are supposed to represent.

Average shooting percentage for D is around 5%. Defenceman generally have lower shooting percentages than forwards, since they tend to shoot more from less dangerous areas of the ice.
- BleedingHabs

Not only that most dmen today shoot wide or for tips, not actual shots on goal so corsi is a flawed way to interpret their play.

- WaterBoy

Yah but everybody knows this is true...only divorced people like margarine

All good points. Again, I have taken pains to say this isn't meant to be factual or definitive. I agree that a more comprehensive study could be done, but I am also devoting a portion of my day to doing this that would work out to about 9 cents an hour, so time is a factor.

Ultimately, I figured that if you got a basic understanding of who's doing really well, that that would be enough.

Also, unlikely isn't impossible, but I think having two pairs there shows just how valuable a team-up can be. For example, while Josi gets a lot of points, there's some evidence that he maybe a Tyler Bozak and in fact be collecting Weber's points while simultaneously dragging him down.

If anything, what I've learned from doing this is that its a massively complicated process and that there is no one right number or right answer.


Let's just go back to Weber!!!
- James_Tanner

Great analysis. Read it a second time.

Clearly partnerships have profound impact on performance. Reading it made me think of Karlsson's performance this year with and without Methot. Karlsson is an amazing talent, but without the support of a stable presence like Methot his actual performance can be problematic.

So your idea to convince me about the value of the eye test is to take a player "known" to suck and blame him for goals in games you admittedly "just flipped to" ?
- James_Tanner

"flipped to" being used loosely... intermission for one game --> flip to another and watch til main game back on

I'm not trying to convince/ persuade you of anything. My grand point is that just like you can't solely base a player off an "eye test", you can't solely judge a player off of statistics, because clearly, there are flaws to that if players like jordie benn are considered underrated according to metrics/statistics. jordie benn is barely adequate enough for a few nhl teams to employ him on their defensive unit. He's a #7 defender at best. I'm not an advanced stats hater, I just think there are clearly some flaws, that like I mentioned earlier, allow jordie benn and Jason demers to be considered underrated.

All good points. Again, I have taken pains to say this isn't meant to be factual or definitive. I agree that a more comprehensive study could be done, but I am also devoting a portion of my day to doing this that would work out to about 9 cents an hour, so time is a factor.

Ultimately, I figured that if you got a basic understanding of who's doing really well, that that would be enough.

Also, unlikely isn't impossible, but I think having two pairs there shows just how valuable a team-up can be. For example, while Josi gets a lot of points, there's some evidence that he maybe a Tyler Bozak and in fact be collecting Weber's points while simultaneously dragging him down.

If anything, what I've learned from doing this is that its a massively complicated process and that there is no one right number or right answer.

Let's just go back to Weber!!!
- James_Tanner

Hey, I was just being nitpicky, I enjoyed both articles a lot (probably the best I've read by you on this site) and think their are a lot of valuable takeaways.

My biggest takeaway is that it's pretty much impossible to definitively name the best defenceman or list the best defenceman. I prefer to group comparable players since bias (eye test and/or statistical) make it difficult to say one is better than the other. It's down to preference.

My new favourite blogger.

All good points. Again, I have taken pains to say this isn't meant to be factual or definitive. I agree that a more comprehensive study could be done, but I am also devoting a portion of my day to doing this that would work out to about 9 cents an hour, so time is a factor.

Ultimately, I figured that if you got a basic understanding of who's doing really well, that that would be enough.

Also, unlikely isn't impossible, but I think having two pairs there shows just how valuable a team-up can be. For example, while Josi gets a lot of points, there's some evidence that he maybe a Tyler Bozak and in fact be collecting Weber's points while simultaneously dragging him down.

If anything, what I've learned from doing this is that its a massively complicated process and that there is no one right number or right answer.

Let's just go back to Weber!!!
- James_Tanner

I thought this was a good exercise. Normally it pains me to read analytic articles because of their failure to use common-sense, acknowledgement of margin of error, and seeing the problem through to the end (I cant stand Yost's posts on TSN, always missing key stats that are critical to the conclusion). I thought you covered this all very well and made note of your decisions that impacted your conclusion. My takeaway from this is that mixing your eye test and stats is that you feel Karlsson and Doughty are the best in the league and I dont think you'll find many to argue that

Hey, I was just being nitpicky, I enjoyed both articles a lot (probably the best I've read by you on this site) and think their are a lot of valuable takeaways.

My biggest takeaway is that it's pretty much impossible to definitively name the best defenceman or list the best defenceman. I prefer to group comparable players since bias (eye test and/or statistical) make it difficult to say one is better than the other. It's down to preference.
- BleedingHabs

Average shooting percentage for D is around 5%. Defenceman generally have lower shooting percentages than forwards, since they tend to shoot more from less dangerous areas of the ice.

It probably skews higher for bigger minute defenceman (and may be higher at even strength) but suggesting 7% is an expected number for every d-man doesn't make much sense.
- BleedingHabs

Good points.

"flipped to" being used loosely... intermission for one game --> flip to another and watch til main game back on

I'm not trying to convince/ persuade you of anything. My grand point is that just like you can't solely base a player off an "eye test", you can't solely judge a player off of statistics, because clearly, there are flaws to that if players like jordie benn are considered underrated according to metrics/statistics. jordie benn is barely adequate enough for a few nhl teams to employ him on their defensive unit. He's a #7 defender at best. I'm not an advanced stats hater, I just think there are clearly some flaws, that like I mentioned earlier, allow jordie benn and Jason demers to be considered underrated.
- benjichronic

Good points, but if you don't respect a players abilities and there are stats that show that he is actually pretty effective under certain circumstances, isn't that the exact definition of underrated?