• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Top 50 NHL Players

DonKay said:
I listed 10 dmen in a post above that I would take ahead if him and I stand by it

The guy is just horrible defensively and is soft as butter...nice to rack up points but if your getting 60 points and finishing -16 there's a problem there
Click to expand...

Credibility killer.

Seriously, +/-?
 
GGpX said:
Again, who cares if he sucks defensively if he never has to play defense because he's always getting into the offensive zone?

Name me one defenseman in the league who's harder to forecheck against.

Forechecking with a single forward is impossible against Karlsson, he'll outskate all but maybe 1-2 players on the planet.
Click to expand...

Common man....the guy was -16

I watched enough Sens games to see this guy get exploited on a nightly basis defensively.

He's still a high minute dman that will be on the ice with third and fourth liners...those minutes are nit spent in the iffensive zone
 
DonKay said:
In two years you'll be taking Eckman Larsson and Shatenkirk ahead of him 100%...i just take them now ahead if him
Click to expand...

Based on what?

Shattenkirk's a #3 behind Pietrangelo & Jay Bouwmester. He'd get eaten alive & exposed defensively in a New York minute if he had to take minutes from either of them.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson's in the next wave of d-men. Bordering on elite, but not at the top echelon.
 
GGpX said:
Credibility killer.

Seriously, +/-?
Click to expand...

People make it sound like the stat has no validity....it may not be a 100% reflection of a players performance but it still is a certain measure of what happens when a player is on the ice.

They get scored on a lot
 
DonKay said:
Common man....the guy was -16

I watched enough Sens games to see this guy get exploited on a nightly basis defensively.

He's still a high minute dman that will be on the ice with third and fourth liners...those minutes are nit spent in the iffensive zone
Click to expand...

So the goalie has nothing to do with that? Nothing at all, it's all his fault?

Please.
 
DonKay said:
People make it sound like the stat has no validity....it may not be a 100% reflection of a players performance but it still is a certain measure of what happens when a player is on the ice.

They get scored on a lot
Click to expand...

It's almost as useless as GAA.

The stat tells me nothing.
 
GGpX said:
Based on what?

Shattenkirk's a #3 behind Pietrangelo & Jay Bouwmester. He'd get eaten alive & exposed defensively in a New York minute if he had to take minutes from either of them.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson's in the next wave of d-men. Bordering on elite, but not at the top echelon.
Click to expand...

Ekman Larsson is 22 and the guy is going to be a stud...i may agree with you on shatenkirk but personally i just prefer an all around dman capable of playing well in all three zones out of my #1 dman

Karlsson is a one dimensional offensive beast for sure...but don't try and convince me he's solid in his own end
 
GGpX said:
Based on what?

Shattenkirk's a #3 behind Pietrangelo & Jay Bouwmester. He'd get eaten alive & exposed defensively in a New York minute if he had to take minutes from either of them.

Oliver Ekman-Larsson's in the next wave of d-men. Bordering on elite, but not at the top echelon.
Click to expand...

Larsson and Trouba are the next wave , even ahead of Jones IMO , Trouba might best up and coming elite who maybe top 5 in a few years .
 
DonKay said:
People make it sound like the stat has no validity....it may not be a 100% reflection of a players performance but it still is a certain measure of what happens when a player is on the ice.

They get scored on a lot
Click to expand...

its an overated stat , PK was -4 and Markov was +12 , no comparison on who is worth more
 
GGpX said:
So the goalie has nothing to do with that? Nothing at all, it's all his fault?

Please.
Click to expand...

I can flip it and say that a goalies poor GAA has nothing to do with the bad defnseman in front of him?

It goes both ways man....forgetting stats for a second I've watched enough Sens games to see a pure offensive talent that is Karlsson.

But other than that it's really not pretty to watch when it comes time to defending and afterall the guy is considered a #1 dman

And yes i know you'll argue that he spends alot of time attacking and moving the puck...but not last year, he was doing a lot more defending than you think
 
I think you can probably make a solid argument that Karlsson isn't very strong defensively but it definitely, definitely shouldn't be using plus/minus, IMO.

Our top 3 +/- players in 2012 were Mark Fraser (+18) and Nazem Kadri (+15). :shrug
 
DonKay said:
I agree, it's not 100% accurate but it still has validity to a certain extent
Click to expand...

No, it has no validity. Just like GAA, it tells me absolutely nothing about a single player. Because a player could be playing the play perfectly, and still get a minus because someone else on the ice left his man wide open. Or the goalie wiffed on the puck.

It's one of the worst stats in the league to evaluate a player because it tells me absolutely NOTHING about a player. It might tell me a lot about his team if, like Ottawa and every other bottom feeder, if the whole team is in the minus, but besides that?
 
It comes down to a matter of preference as to what you want out of a #1 dman

Personally i want a big minute all around stud that can play exceptionally well in all zones as opposed to the super offensive stud with very average defense.

That's just me

Gimme Weber or Sutter with 40-45 points vs Karlssons 60-65 points but that's just me
 
DonKay said:
Ekman Larsson is 22 and the guy is going to be a stud...i may agree with you on shatenkirk but personally i just prefer an all around dman capable of playing well in all three zones out of my #1 dman

Karlsson is a one dimensional offensive beast for sure...but don't try and convince me he's solid in his own end
Click to expand...

Ekman-Larsson's 23 and Karlsson's 24. There's a 13 month age difference between the two.

And where did I say he's good defensively? He isn't, I've already admitted that. If he plays 25-27 minutes per night, he'll inevitably play in his own end, it can't be helped. But the majority of the time, he isn't in his own end.
 
GGpX said:
No, it has no validity. Just like GAA, it tells me absolutely nothing about a single player. Because a player could be playing the play perfectly, and still get a minus because someone else on the ice left his man wide open. Or the goalie wiffed on the puck.

It's one of the worst stats in the league to evaluate a player because it tells me absolutely NOTHING about a player. It might tell me a lot about his team if, like Ottawa and every other bottom feeder, if the whole team is in the minus, but besides that?
Click to expand...

Ok, good point

But it still is a stat that has a small percentage of validity

At -16 with 60 points there's a problem when you're on the ice more often than not.
We're not talking -4 or something.

We're talking -16 with 60 points....far too big a discrepancy to say this player doesn't have defensive issues

But simply on evaluation have you watched Karlsson play? The guy is average at best defensively
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top