Hahah. Obama has a black eye and bandaged fingers. What a time to be alive. Unless you’re a chef but man it’s incredible
- drexel

Naw man, if it was Obama the guy would have died in a Hellfire missile accident at a wedding in the middle east.

Think we should put Willy on the penalty kill to get a complete comparison.

Marner paid too much for sure.

Maybe Willy deserves Aho money, but not with Trawna.

I really want a calabrese and havarti sandwich.

A 5'11 forward with 1 goal in 29 NCAA games. Lovely. I call dibs on his Allsvenskan jersey!

Think we should put Willy on the penalty kill to get a complete comparison.

Marner paid too much for sure.

Maybe Willy deserves Aho money, but not with Trawna.

I really want a calabrese and havarti sandwich.
- sokosteve

I am pretty sure Willie's +/- went up playing with Matthews then back down when he played with JT. Marner's went down playing with JT. Bunting was second on the team amongst forwards.

Matthews +31
Bunting +21
Mitch +18
Willie +10
JT -7

+/- is a pretty much useless stat in itself, but it can show you some things. In this case it shows that playing with Matthews is a big plus for you +/- and playing with JT is not. Matthews is the most important forward defensively on this team. They were using him on the penalty kill a couple of years ago in preseason. He blocked a shot, got hurt and I haven't seen him back since. As as has been said before, you can get cheap effective penalty killers so why waste Matthews minutes there. He is far more engaged physically than Mitch or Willie so his minutes are tougher.

Comparing Mitch's defensive game to Datsyuk or Bergeron is laughable and insulting to them.

I am pretty sure Willie's +/- went up playing with Matthews then back down when he played with JT. Marner's went down playing with JT. Bunting was second on the team amongst forwards.

Matthews +31
Bunting +21
Mitch +18
Willie +10
JT -7

+/- is a pretty much useless stat in itself, but it can show you some things. In this case it shows that playing with Matthews is a big plus for you +/- and playing with JT is not. Matthews is the most important forward defensively on this team. They were using him on the penalty kill a couple of years ago in preseason. He blocked a shot, got hurt and I haven't seen him back since. As as has been said before, you can get cheap effective penalty killers so why waste Matthews minutes there. He is far more engaged physically than Mitch or Willie so his minutes are tougher.

Comparing Mitch's defensive game to Datsyuk or Bergeron is laughable and insulting to them.
- jribout

I think the comparison is that he is an elite playmaker and defensive player in the league. Seems pretty fair to me.

I am pretty sure Willie's +/- went up playing with Matthews then back down when he played with JT. Marner's went down playing with JT. Bunting was second on the team amongst forwards.

Matthews +31
Bunting +21
Mitch +18
Willie +10
JT -7

+/- is a pretty much useless stat in itself, but it can show you some things. In this case it shows that playing with Matthews is a big plus for you +/- and playing with JT is not. Matthews is the most important forward defensively on this team. They were using him on the penalty kill a couple of years ago in preseason. He blocked a shot, got hurt and I haven't seen him back since. As as has been said before, you can get cheap effective penalty killers so why waste Matthews minutes there. He is far more engaged physically than Mitch or Willie so his minutes are tougher.

Comparing Mitch's defensive game to Datsyuk or Bergeron is laughable and insulting to them.
- jribout

+ - is a good internal tool. Coaching staff knows who those players are playing with and against most nights - it shows them how they fair against that competition and allows them to make better decisions. As a league stat, it is pretty useless.

Marner is much much better than your opinion of him. He was a finalist in the Selke last season and deservedly so. Nylander is worth whatever some team is willing to pay him. Sounds like the Leafs aren't willing to pay him $10M, maybe another team is. How much another player makes is not really relevant when talking about UFA's. It only makes a difference for RFA's especially those in arbitration.
- winsix

https://www.pensionplanpu...ch-marner-selke-finalist/

The Coles Notes version, is no he didn't.
And it's from a writer I have a lot more respect for than most media, pro or amateur.

https://www.pensionplanpu...ch-marner-selke-finalist/

The Coles Notes version, is no he didn't.
And it's from a writer I have a lot more respect for than most media, pro or amateur.
- oldstyle

Excellent article. Thanks for that. Although Kerfoot is now an afterthought, he was a noticeable contributor when I watched him play, save the faceoff dot. I realize the Leafs had tough calls to make but for 3.5M the Coyotes will get their money's worth. Especially with the increased TOI

https://www.pensionplanpu...ch-marner-selke-finalist/

The Coles Notes version, is no he didn't.
And it's from a writer I have a lot more respect for than most media, pro or amateur.
- oldstyle

I did like the article you submitted, but here is my problem with the author. One of the stats that she poops on (many do, with some justification) is +/- . She also mentions that giving the Norris to Karlsson is a joke. I didn't think it was a joke. The Norris trophy goes to the player that is the best all around at the position. His offensive skills playing on the fifth worst team in the NHL were a remarkable 25 points higher than the 2nd highest scorer. Just to put a little more perspective on it, Karlsson's 101 points in a season is the 15th highest all time by a defenseman. Scoring 100 points by a d-man was done 6 times by Orr, 5 times by Paul Coffey, and once each by MacInnis, Leetch and Potvin. The fact that every one of the previous 14 times it was acheived, the d-man had a stacked team makes Karlsson's 101 points even more remarkable. Even if you call Karlsson's defensive skill sub par, his offensive season just can't be ignored. Now back to Marner. Mitch plays on the first PP, first PK unit and takes a regular shift. Stone played half a season and could not rightfully be a consideration, the other player mentioned was Foligno I believe. Foligno scored a whopping 21 points last season, was a -6 and had zero SHG, compared to Mitch's 4 SHG. I'm sorry but Mitch's fart stains are worth more than Foligno - no matter what fancy stats are produced. Bergeron ran away with the award and rightfully so. I respectfully and totally disagree with the article.

Check out how many times a d-man scored 100 points in NHL history and did'nt win the Norris trophy.

I am pretty sure Willie's +/- went up playing with Matthews then back down when he played with JT. Marner's went down playing with JT. Bunting was second on the team amongst forwards.

Matthews +31
Bunting +21
Mitch +18
Willie +10
JT -7

+/- is a pretty much useless stat in itself, but it can show you some things. In this case it shows that playing with Matthews is a big plus for you +/- and playing with JT is not. Matthews is the most important forward defensively on this team. They were using him on the penalty kill a couple of years ago in preseason. He blocked a shot, got hurt and I haven't seen him back since. As as has been said before, you can get cheap effective penalty killers so why waste Matthews minutes there. He is far more engaged physically than Mitch or Willie so his minutes are tougher.

Comparing Mitch's defensive game to Datsyuk or Bergeron is laughable and insulting to them.
- jribout

Datsyuk and Gainey were defensive stars in a different era, where interference and hacking an opponent was part of the game. They would be heavily penalized in today's NHL. So I disagree about the insult on that point. Mitch Marner, is not perfect at all, but takes the puck away from opponents regularly. He's a really solid top six player and no player should be insulted by comparisons. Besides all of this, Marner was only nominated for consideration, he hasn't won a single Selke award ....................yet.

I did like the article you submitted, but here is my problem with the author. One of the stats that she poops on (many do, with some justification) is +/- . She also mentions that giving the Norris to Karlsson is a joke. I didn't think it was a joke. The Norris trophy goes to the player that is the best all around at the position. His offensive skills playing on the fifth worst team in the NHL were a remarkable 25 points higher than the 2nd highest scorer. Just to put a little more perspective on it, Karlsson's 101 points in a season is the 15th highest all time by a defenseman. Scoring 100 points by a d-man was done 6 times by Orr, 5 times by Paul Coffey, and once each by MacInnis, Leetch and Potvin. The fact that every one of the previous 14 times it was acheived, the d-man had a stacked team makes Karlsson's 101 points even more remarkable. Even if you call Karlsson's defensive skill sub par, his offensive season just can't be ignored. Now back to Marner. Mitch plays on the first PP, first PK unit and takes a regular shift. Stone played half a season and could not rightfully be a consideration, the other player mentioned was Foligno I believe. Foligno scored a whopping 21 points last season, was a -6 and had zero SHG, compared to Mitch's 4 SHG. I'm sorry but Mitch's fart stains are worth more than Foligno - no matter what fancy stats are produced. Bergeron ran away with the award and rightfully so. I respectfully and totally disagree with the article.

Check out how many times a d-man scored 100 points in NHL history and did'nt win the Norris trophy.
- winsix

You're 100% right about Karlsson's accomplishment this past season. The Norris isn't for the best defensive defenseman - it's for the best defenseman. How that is interpreted is up to the voters. The only defenseman to be snubbed on a 100 point season was Paul Coffey, if I'm not mistaken - and I always loved Coffey. Hockey writers were so busy gushing over Bourque that they ignored Coffey's brilliance too often.

In 83-84, Coffey put up 126 points (30 more than the next closest) and placed 2nd in voting to Rod Langway and his 30 points - because that year it was about defense - even though you could argue that Langway wasn't as good as Bourque defensively.

In 88-89 he was nearly 40 points ahead of the next best scoring defenseman and they gave it to Chelios - at least you could argue he was the actual best defensive defenseman that year.

In 89-90 they ignored Coffey's 100 point season again, but he was only 13 points ahead of the second place defender - but he placed 4th in Norris voting to Bourque (best defender), MacInnis and Doug Wilson.

Similar to Karlsson, Coffey's game was entirely play driving from the back end and not actual defensive play (the ol' if you've got the puck you don't need to get the puck mentality).

I wouldn't actually argue with his 89-90 snub, but really do feel he deserved it the other two years.

As for the Selke? I will say that honestly a player's deployment shouldn't dictate their reward - the performance should and this year in particular Marner's defensive performance was worse than in previous years where he was not considered at all. I feel this year he was given consideration because last year he deserved it and they ignored him. But his overall defensive metrics are not top-20 among forwards in pretty much any capacity.

I would also argue vehemently that Kerfoot was not our best defensive forward. His PK metrics were mediocre and he played against either the second unit or the tiring first unit in his deployment. He lost most battles and was definitely on the wrong side of physical play. He was exactly what we saw: good skater, decent passer.

You're 100% right about Karlsson's accomplishment this past season. The Norris isn't for the best defensive defenseman - it's for the best defenseman. How that is interpreted is up to the voters. The only defenseman to be snubbed on a 100 point season was Paul Coffey, if I'm not mistaken - and I always loved Coffey. Hockey writers were so busy gushing over Bourque that they ignored Coffey's brilliance too often.

In 83-84, Coffey put up 126 points (30 more than the next closest) and placed 2nd in voting to Rod Langway and his 30 points - because that year it was about defense - even though you could argue that Langway wasn't as good as Bourque defensively.

In 88-89 he was nearly 40 points ahead of the next best scoring defenseman and they gave it to Chelios - at least you could argue he was the actual best defensive defenseman that year.

In 89-90 they ignored Coffey's 100 point season again, but he was only 13 points ahead of the second place defender - but he placed 4th in Norris voting to Bourque (best defender), MacInnis and Doug Wilson.

Similar to Karlsson, Coffey's game was entirely play driving from the back end and not actual defensive play (the ol' if you've got the puck you don't need to get the puck mentality).

I wouldn't actually argue with his 89-90 snub, but really do feel he deserved it the other two years.

As for the Selke? I will say that honestly a player's deployment shouldn't dictate their reward - the performance should and this year in particular Marner's defensive performance was worse than in previous years where he was not considered at all. I feel this year he was given consideration because last year he deserved it and they ignored him. But his overall defensive metrics are not top-20 among forwards in pretty much any capacity.

I would also argue vehemently that Kerfoot was not our best defensive forward. His PK metrics were mediocre and he played against either the second unit or the tiring first unit in his deployment. He lost most battles and was definitely on the wrong side of physical play. He was exactly what we saw: good skater, decent passer.
- Monkeypunk

Rod Langway winning is one of the dark poop stains on the history of the NHL awards. Jim Carey winning over Hasek was probably the most egregious.

https://www.pensionplanpu...ch-marner-selke-finalist/

The Coles Notes version, is no he didn't.
And it's from a writer I have a lot more respect for than most media, pro or amateur.
- oldstyle

pffft🤦‍♂️

it’s written by a chick🤦🏿‍♂️

dafuq does she know?🤦‍♂️

traditionally sick snipez n dirty danglez =selke/stanley cup 👊🏿

You're 100% right about Karlsson's accomplishment this past season. The Norris isn't for the best defensive defenseman - it's for the best defenseman. How that is interpreted is up to the voters. The only defenseman to be snubbed on a 100 point season was Paul Coffey, if I'm not mistaken - and I always loved Coffey. Hockey writers were so busy gushing over Bourque that they ignored Coffey's brilliance too often.

In 83-84, Coffey put up 126 points (30 more than the next closest) and placed 2nd in voting to Rod Langway and his 30 points - because that year it was about defense - even though you could argue that Langway wasn't as good as Bourque defensively.

In 88-89 he was nearly 40 points ahead of the next best scoring defenseman and they gave it to Chelios - at least you could argue he was the actual best defensive defenseman that year.

In 89-90 they ignored Coffey's 100 point season again, but he was only 13 points ahead of the second place defender - but he placed 4th in Norris voting to Bourque (best defender), MacInnis and Doug Wilson.

Similar to Karlsson, Coffey's game was entirely play driving from the back end and not actual defensive play (the ol' if you've got the puck you don't need to get the puck mentality).

I wouldn't actually argue with his 89-90 snub, but really do feel he deserved it the other two years.

As for the Selke? I will say that honestly a player's deployment shouldn't dictate their reward - the performance should and this year in particular Marner's defensive performance was worse than in previous years where he was not considered at all. I feel this year he was given consideration because last year he deserved it and they ignored him. But his overall defensive metrics are not top-20 among forwards in pretty much any capacity.

I would also argue vehemently that Kerfoot was not our best defensive forward. His PK metrics were mediocre and he played against either the second unit or the tiring first unit in his deployment. He lost most battles and was definitely on the wrong side of physical play. He was exactly what we saw: good skater, decent passer.
- Monkeypunk

I will agree with most of this, but would add it is hard to consider a player for the Selke that doesn't play on the PK with regularity. The Selke, much like the Vezina is to an extent a team award. The quality of a goaltender can seriously affect the defensive stats of a player. While Ullmark had a career year and ran away with the Vezina, Mitch's defensive stats suffered with periods of mediocre goaltending during injuries and lousy streaks. Boston had none of that.

Rod Langway winning is one of the dark poop stains on the history of the NHL awards. Jim Carey winning over Hasek was probably the most egregious.
- AdamFrench

Agree 100%
Would add that Langway in the HHOF is questionable at best.

No player who is Top 6 or 7 amongst forwards (and is a winger for god sakes) should win anything having to do with defensive capabilities. A good defensive forward makes responsible choices with the puck as well - it’s part of being a defensively responsible player. Puck management.

PK time doesn’t at all mean you are good defensively. It means you are gifted at structure and anticipation. Both those allow for a player to be a good defensive player but doesn’t make them that. Regular ‘natural’ hockey is 5v5 and is a completely different game than special teams. Special teams for a reason.

The scholastics also pick the dman who gets most pts and give him a Norris…Karlsson most likely this season and he is absolutely awful at defence.
The only awards with meaning/impact are stats related (goals, pts, etc) and the Teddy trophy. Friedman, Seravelli and those dorks who never played puck beyond house league or select can pick whoever they want man. They never played the game they are journalists.
Players, coaches, GMs should vote only.

Folks can say all they want and interpret the definition of these University Graduate votes awards but to a hockey person best defensive man means best dman at BOTH sides of the game. Impact as a dman with and without the puck. Players value peers assessment not media. If you would ask NHL players and coaches I would bet the farm that they don’t have Karlsson as the best most effective dman nor Mitch on a selke

pffft🤦‍♂️

it’s written by a chick🤦🏿‍♂️

dafuq does she know?🤦‍♂️

traditionally sick snipez n dirty danglez =selke/stanley cup 👊🏿
- Skalapy

Too serious in here today. Got rid of that dumb female genitalia. She hasn't even heard of Pulp Fiction FFS

[quote=Big23Questions]

Per previous posts only once in NHL history has a d-man that scored 100 points (only done 15 times - most recently in 91-92 by Brian Leetch) failed to win the Norris. Every single one of those d-men is in the HHOF. But your opinion must be correct, because you are so much more knowledgable than anyone that voted.

[quote=winsix]


Honestly man - if we are talking about media journalists I would be confident I do know more.

But the ‘must’ thing? You’re just being a butthead man. My opinion is just that. Relax yourself. Dmen that are capable of putting up 100+ pts are absolute gods on the backend…offensively. Doesn’t make them great defensive players. I don’t understand how that means I’m wrong in my assessment that there are:

- good offensive players
- good defensive players
- good all around players

Karlsson is a good offensive player. He’s not a good defender. If the dorks call the dman that puts up the most pts the Best Defenceman in the NHL then so be it. But I will never say he’s anything more than a 4th fired out there. That’s not defence.

The exception was Leetch and Orr and guys like that - responsible defenders who put up monster pts. Those are the best defence man.

It’s why there needs to be an intervention here with these awards. Define them different or let ONLY players coaches vote. Folks who actually understand what happens out there and how detailed it is. Not just guys that write about it.

Best Offensive Dman
Best Defender Dman
Best All Around Dman

If you look at any year in the NHL without those HHOF guys like Orr Leetch there would typically be 3 different winners for all these awards. To me that’s proof that the definitions are flawed but also impossible to select one dman that does all this. ..again outside Orr like players

Karlsson-Karlsson
Karlsson-Karlsson
Karlsson-Karlsson

That dcore gets murdered in zone especially in a physical game and in playoffs. Super soft in every area of the defensive zone. They set NHL records for pts by dcore but you better have Vassy as your tender or you may have the most goals allowed against

(Last novel of the day - swinging some clubs soon)

You hope 16 makes responsible plays with a puck all the time obviously, but you certainly don’t want him to play a safe game that is a detriment to his office because that’s his superpower as a player that’s what makes him a real good off as a player is his office of skill, not his defence of skill. If you take away his creativity and risk that comes with it he becomes a different player entirely.

That’s why Matthews is a generational talent. He came into the league as a kid, and was almost immediately a responsible centre at the National Hockey League level while also putting up the amount of goals that he can that’s why he’s a unicorn. He has so much scoring and offensive skill and yet is one of the premier two ways centres. Paces 50+ goals roughly each year and at the same time is unreal in all zones without the puck.

My point with 16 is that Leafs fans shouldn’t care how good or not good he is defensively. Obviously within reason you don’t want him being a liability but the point is that you want him to create with freedom especially as a winger. He has done that and then some for the Buds. Marner is a real good offensive player and the Leafs fans are lucky to watch him with the puck he’s fun.

(Last novel of the day - swinging some clubs soon)

You hope 16 makes responsible plays with a puck all the time obviously, but you certainly don’t want him to play a safe game that is a detriment to his office because that’s his superpower as a player that’s what makes him a real good off as a player is his office of skill, not his defence of skill. If you take away his creativity and risk that comes with it he becomes a different player entirely.

That’s why Matthews is a generational talent. He came into the league as a kid, and was almost immediately a responsible centre at the National Hockey League level while also putting up the amount of goals that he can that’s why he’s a unicorn. He has so much scoring and offensive skill and yet is one of the premier two ways centres. Paces 50+ goals roughly each year and at the same time is unreal in all zones without the puck.

My point with 16 is that Leafs fans shouldn’t care how good or not good he is defensively. Obviously within reason you don’t want him being a liability but the point is that you want him to create with freedom especially as a winger. He has done that and then some for the Buds. Marner is a real good offensive player and the Leafs fans are lucky to watch him with the puck he’s fun.
- Big23Questions

I dunno but I’m kind of glad that Marner is really good offensively and defensively

I dunno but I’m kind of glad that Marner is really good offensively and defensively
- Canada Cup

Offensively - Elite

Defensively - Average

I would be pumped as a Leafs fan too if I were you.

Hahah. Obama has a black eye and bandaged fingers. What a time to be alive. Unless you’re a chef but man it’s incredible
- drexel

Such a stupid post

Offensively - Elite

Defensively - Average

I would be pumped as a Leafs fan too if I were you.
- Big23Questions

If you see this after golf, I think you do need to give your definition of defense, if this is what you think. Are takeaways good defense? Is puck possesion? Is anticipation and proper positional play? If we're talking about large men boxing other men out, cross-checking, pinning people to the boards, or smashing guys with big physical hits - that isn't really all there is to defense. The fact that you cited Leetch's defensive play in a previous post demonstrates that you're aware of this - but are somewhat subjectively applying it.

I don't think Marner was anywhere near as defensively sound this year as he was last year, and he certainly wasn't as effective on the PK as he has been. That is evidenced by both watching the games and looking at the advanced metrics - but he is definitely above average defensively.

Remember that (and I'm using your comment that - "No player who is Top 6 or 7 amongst forwards (and is a winger for god sakes) should win anything having to do with defensive capabilities") these top-6 forwards - including wingers - play against tougher competition typically than the bottom forwards. For them to maintain a degree of success they need to be good at both ends. I might hate Tkachuk, but when he is on the ice - whether it was in Calgary or Florida - his lines dominate puck control and zone control. Just like how good offense comes from good defense, the opposite can also be true - good defense comes from a good offense, because you spend less time defending - and in today's hockey with less clutch, grab, hook, etc. - and you can't even lift a stick for Christ's sake - that has to be the definition of defense half the time.

[quote=Monkeypunk]

So golf a no go. Lesson cancelled cause some rain up where I am.

I made a typo or left out the word giveaways - “No player…Top 6/7 in giveaways.”

I answered within one of the posts I made about defensive play as forward but:

- supporting the puck
- Being in between net/puck
- Position ally in all 3 zones
- Reading the play to cover a missed assignment to support system
- Forcing plays in neutral zone
- Takeaways (he’s above avg)
- Anticipation (he’s very much above avg)
- Forcing movement in defensive zone
- Puck management all 3 zones
- In game decisions depending on time of game and score
- Understanding when to take a gamble with puck to make/force play and when not too

- Smashing people doesn’t mean good defence. Eliminating an opposing player by taking the man is absolutely defence positive. That’s why it’s important to not do fly bys.
- Someone else mentioned Leetch so I responded.

Marner makes terrible decisions defensively 5v5. You can throw all the stats or metrics (I think you called them) but watching him play in person away from puck you see the flaws in his game…and it’s no big deal because that’s not his game. He forces plays/ passes when he shouldn’t, too much east west plus inside outside blue, management is brutal.

He is a VERY GOOD PK player but 5v5 d is different beast my man.

Anyways man it doesn’t matter. When you watch puck you see what you see and I see the game the way I do. That’s the fun of sports regardless of age and whether you never played or did - it’s fun and as Canadians we take it passionately. Even my old man from Ireland had learned to love the game and will argue that Brodie is the best dman in the game haha (he loves him$ The greatest game in the world.