HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Gormley piece: Carle v. Leino?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-31-2011, 06:47 AM
  #101
Larry44
FlyersTankNation
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sa cyred View Post
"He's solid in his own zone." I think that is offically the first time I ever read that. I dont think even DenverBone (his biggest fan) ever even stated this. Carle is one of our teams worse defense players.
Well, there were plenty of articles published this year in which Lavy, Homer, McCarthy and many of his teammates extolled Carle's solid, consistent play at both ends of the rink. He's much better defensively than he gets credit for, but you can't account for the lack of comprehension in the fanbase.

I'd look the articles up, but really, you only take the media's word for it when they are defending Richards', hic, captaincy, but not Carle, so why bother?

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 06:47 AM
  #102
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go david krejci 430 View Post
Well, you were using +/- to explain how great Carle was, which makes it all too convenient for me to point out that his -8 continues to stand out as the worst in the playoffs. So yes, the team was very bad against Boston. By your standards, Carle is the worst. When Pronger went out, he couldn't pick it up. We're paying defensemen all this money to do exactly that.
I wasn't using +/- at all to explain how great Carle was. I never once said he was great. I've said repeatedly, that +/- is one indicator. I don't think you have a honest read on what my standards are, and how I apply them.

Like I said in a previous post. Carle was on the ice in the playoffs for 12 goals against at Even Strength. Out of the 12 goals, Carle made a coverage mistake or a turnover that led to 2 out of the 12 goals. On the other 10 goals, there was a breakdown somewhere else leading to the goal being scored. I'd be happy to discuss each goal. The replays can be found on the Flyers website.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoDu View Post
Carle
-does not have a good point shot
-does not shoot
-not physical at all
-tends to be a spectator while defending front of the net
Carle does not have a big point shot, that's true, Carle does shoot, he was third on the Flyers defense with 117 shots. In terms of hitting, Carle is not physical. A defenseman doesn't have to be a big hitter to be good defensivly. He uses leverage and body position to play the puck.He's never a spectator while defending the net.
Carle is like any other player, he has strengths and weakneses.

Let's hear what you think his strneghts are?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
List of defenseman on the Flyers who are superior to Carle in their own zone:

Pronger
Timonen
Mez
Coburn
OD

Hm. Pretty much all of them.

As for +/- being a reliable indicator of defensive prowess, well, it isn't. Lidstrom is a -2. If +/- was any indicator of defensive ability you would be forced to assume that Carle is much better than Lidstrom...yet Carle is nowhere close to him when it comes to defensive ability.
First of all, how can you quantify that all of those players are better than Carle in their own zone? We can all give an opinion.Secondly, if they all are better, how does that show that Carle isn't good in his own end?
You wouldn't be forced to assume that Carle is much better than Lidstrom. +/- is just one indicator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
I think there are plenty of seats on the Carle phanwagon. Mine's an aisle.

Seriously, though, Carle is a superior trade-away option because he can be replaced on this team for a cheaper defenseman who should be available as a FA. Plus, the #1 priority should soften the blow to any downgrade on defense. However, Carle has value; it's not Paul Holmgren putting the proverbial lipstick on a pig and trying to palm him off for crap.

Win-win.

I'd look at Steve Montador, who made $1.55 mil last year with Buffalo. He put up 26 points last year and was a useless +16 in 73 games. He's a right-hand shot, to boot.
I'd like to see who could replace the play and production of Carle cheaper.

Montador is an average at best 3rd pair defenseman who was also at times a healthy scratch in the playoffs. Montador couldn't come close to replacing Carle

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyerSithLord View Post
Carle is a nice player, but he's the one guy on the defense I'd like to see moved. We'd be fine with a top four of Pronger,Timonen,Mez and Coburn if they had a solid 5th and 6th. You could probably fill the 5th/6th spots for less than Carle makes.


Two of that top 4 are 37, showing signs of physical breakdown. And Pronger is coming off of major back surgery, and may not be ready to start the Season. If Carle is moved, then your back to overplaying Pronger and Timonen, and wearing them down. Not a good idea. And if one of the remaining top 4 get a substantial injury, then where are you?
With the Flyers likely to have spend a high figure on a Goalie, there isn't going to much Cap space to spend on a 5th and 6th. They need to keep Carle. He's part of the core as far as I'm concerned. A very strong young, puck moving defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
..."more holes ins those stats then [sic] swiss cheese"?

Do enlighten, cuz I suspect you aren't capable of providing a rational follow up to that statement.
Sure I am. The first is using stats based on 60 minutes. While a game is 60 minutes, and player doesn't play 60 minutes a game. Secondly, a player plays against different players and different situations game to game.

Those stats are not hockey analysis. They are made up math formulas invented by a math geek.

Here's something that makes no sense whatsoever, from the FAQ on +/-

"One of the weaknesses of traditional +/- is that it tends to favor players on good teams - Bruins Ryder, Blake Wheeler, David Krejci, Phil Kessel and Marc Savard were all in the top ten in the league, which is not surprising given that Boston was the highest-scoring team at 5-on-5 in the NHL. At the same time, it penalizes players on bad teams - six New York Islanders were in the bottom 10."

No kidding it favors players on good teams. They're good teams becuase those players play well at both ends of the ice, and deserve the +/- rating they get. Those on bad teams, the opposite. For any statistical analysis, there are anomolies. Such as a bad defensvie player on a good offensive team, can get a good +/- and the opposite. A good defensive player can be on a poor offensive or defensive team and get a poor +/-. That's well known about the stat. But overall, it is a solid indicator. His own explanations in the FAQ explain the holes in his methodology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
he was the weak link on the Flyers when it came to doing what his position requires. to play defense. I dont give a rats ass if he was a +30. he ****ing sucks. end of story.


You can say it's the end of story, and he was the weak, and he sucks, and your cerainly entitled to that opinion. But all of the info available points to the opposite of your opinion. If were talking about being able to back somethng up, certainly you can't back up that he was the weak link and that he sucks.


As far as you telling me that I couldn't back up the statement I made about Carle being the most consistent plus player in the NHL last Season. I can if need be back that up with irrefutable evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa cyred View Post
"He's solid in his own zone." I think that is offically the first time I ever read that. I dont think even DenverBone (his biggest fan) ever even stated this. Carle is one of our teams worse defense players.
Have you read what Bill Meltzer, who is a very credible Flyers analyst says about Carle in his own end?
He states that Carle is reliable in his own end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Well, there were plenty of articles published this year in which Lavy, Homer, McCarthy and many of his teammates extolled Carle's solid, consistent play at both ends of the rink. He's much better defensively than he gets credit for, but you can't account for the lack of comprehension in the fanbase.

I'd look the articles up, but really, you only take the media's word for it when they are defending Richards', hic, captaincy, but not Carle, so why bother?
Carle just happens to be this year's scapegoat for the playoff failure. There's one every year.


Last edited by GKJ: 05-31-2011 at 09:59 AM.
VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 08:21 AM
  #103
JLHockeyKnight
IMA Real American
 
JLHockeyKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Central Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
+/- indicates that you're on for more goals for than you are for goals against... that's it. That, in itself, tells you nothing about a player's defensive abilities. In fact, terrible defensive players can put up extremely high +/- numbers. How? By playing on really good teams and/or being really good offensively.

Carle's +/- stems from the fact that he's been on a good team here in Philly (he was even for his career before he got here), has had an excellent partner in Pronger for a solid chunk of that time, and he creates a good bit of offense at even strength.

Guy isn't very good defensively. Now, he's a lot better than some of the guys we've had back there (Randy Jones), and he's certainly an effective offensive contributor at even strength. He is, however, very weak on puck carriers physically, and makes some baffling decisions at times.
You pretty much summed up why I want Carle to stay. When Pronger is healthy and playing with Carle he backs up Carle's dumb decisions (much like Kimmo does for Coburn) and makes them a dominant pair, and his offensive side is welcomed on the team. If they can work in the off season to bulk him up and work during training camp a bit I think he'll come out a strong defender, for once. A lot of it simply comes down to not pinching when not needed, which he can often do. Might be one of the reasons he has so many assists, but it can bite you defensively.

JLHockeyKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 08:26 AM
  #104
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,291
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Carle just happens to be this year's scapegoat for the playoff failure. There's one every year.
No, he's been getting ragged on for quite a while (well before the playoffs) and he's currently the easiest cap hit to drop. Replacing his 1 goal per 117 shots and weak defensive performances shouldn't be too hard.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 08:38 AM
  #105
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
I don't buy the argument that moving Carle will result in us having a 3rd pairing like we had 2 years ago.

Pronger - Carle
Kimmo - Coburn
Kraijcek - Parent

That was our 3rd pair, which was utterly horrendous. Moving Carle means that we would have something like:

Pronger - Meszaros
Kimmo - Coburn
OD (or equivalent) - Gustaffson

People seem to jump to the conclusion that because OD is a UFA we will be rolling out a 3rd pairing of 2 young guys like Bart and Gus. That doesn't need to be the case. You can sign OD or some other cheap defensive minded vet that can either anchor a 3rd pairing, or be the 2nd cog on Pronger's pairing allowing Mesz to hold down the 3rd pair.

So move Carle, promote Gus, and take the OD money and a small portion of the Carle savings (if necessary) to find a a reasonably priced defenseman that fits our needs.

Will it be as good as Mesz and OD at their best? No. Will it be as bad as Kraijcek and Parent? Not even close. The 3rd pairing can be something other than very good (this past year) or terrible (2 years ago). There is a middle ground.

It's the price you pay for redistributing salary (Carle) in order to sign a goaltender. That's the juggling act that is the NHL salary cap world. It's constantly a matter of re-allocating salary from a strength to a weakness to make your team better.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 08:42 AM
  #106
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,291
vCash: 156
Exactly. Plus, one would assume that with a reliable goaltender a weaker 3rd pairing isn't as big of an issue.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 08:50 AM
  #107
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
I guess I didn't really share my general thoughts on Carle...

I want to move him because I'm just kind of meh on him. As people have pointed out, he has his strengths and weaknesses. I just, flat out, don't think he is worth his money when we have glaring needs to fill (goaltender) and no money to do so. I think the defense would be better off with a more defensive minded player. Pronger and Kimmo we all know can play the offensive game, and Meszaros has shown he can play that role too.

IMO, we have 3 players that make substantial money and I don't consider to be part of the core: Hartnell, Versteeg, and Carle. So it only makes sense that at least one of those players go. Versteeg (who I'd like to move) I don't think will go because his value is pretty low right now and I don't think Homer wants to essentially admit a mistake. Hartnell has a NMC and his value is probably fairly low as well. Carle, on the other hand, probably has pretty good value; and, as I stated above, I think our defense would actually be better suited with a defensive minded D-man after seeing what Meszaros brings to the table.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 09:30 AM
  #108
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Sure I am. The first is using stats based on 60 minutes. While a game is 60 minutes, and player doesn't play 60 minutes a game. Secondly, a player plays against different players and different situations game to game.

Those stats are not hockey analysis. They are made up math formulas invented by a math geek.
1) Stats are not analysis. You do analysis with stats, which is what you are attempting to do with +/-. Of course, doing solid statistical analysis requires actually understanding the nuances of stats, which you do not appreciate at all in your attachment to +/-.

2) 60 minutes is simply a rate. You could, with simple math, convert that to 20 minutes if you want. Those are purely empirical numbers, which cannot be debated.

Quote:
Here's something that makes no sense whatsoever, from the FAQ on +/-

"One of the weaknesses of traditional +/- is that it tends to favor players on good teams - Bruins Ryder, Blake Wheeler, David Krejci, Phil Kessel and Marc Savard were all in the top ten in the league, which is not surprising given that Boston was the highest-scoring team at 5-on-5 in the NHL. At the same time, it penalizes players on bad teams - six New York Islanders were in the bottom 10."

No kidding it favors players on good teams. They're good teams becuase those players play well at both ends of the ice, and deserve the +/- rating they get. Those on bad teams, the opposite. For any statistical analysis, there are anomolies. Such as a bad defensvie player on a good offensive team, can get a good +/- and the opposite. A good defensive player can be on a poor offensive or defensive team and get a poor +/-. That's well known about the stat. But overall, it is a solid indicator. His own explanations in the FAQ explain the holes in his methodology.
These two paragraphs are mesmerizing. You observe and admit the major flaws in +/-, but then turn around and blow them off. There is nothing anomalous about a bad defensive player having a strong +/- on a good offensive team... it happens ALL THE TIME, and EVERY YEAR.

The stat strongly favors team play over individual play, making it extremely problematic to use as an analytical tool for an individual. The only telling thing in +/- is looking at an individual's +/- relative to the rest of his team. A good defensive player on a ****ty team usually doesn't get slaughtered like some of his teammates.

But strong +/- on good teams... I mean, hell, Briere had a great +/- this year, and he's absolutely atrocious defensively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnight View Post
You pretty much summed up why I want Carle to stay. When Pronger is healthy and playing with Carle he backs up Carle's dumb decisions (much like Kimmo does for Coburn) and makes them a dominant pair, and his offensive side is welcomed on the team. If they can work in the off season to bulk him up and work during training camp a bit I think he'll come out a strong defender, for once. A lot of it simply comes down to not pinching when not needed, which he can often do. Might be one of the reasons he has so many assists, but it can bite you defensively.
I'm ambivalent about Carle... I think he's fine for what he does, but I think he's overpaid a bit, and if we need cap space he's easily the first limb to get hacked off this summer.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 09:31 AM
  #109
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I guess I didn't really share my general thoughts on Carle...

I want to move him because I'm just kind of meh on him. As people have pointed out, he has his strengths and weaknesses. I just, flat out, don't think he is worth his money when we have glaring needs to fill (goaltender) and no money to do so. I think the defense would be better off with a more defensive minded player. Pronger and Kimmo we all know can play the offensive game, and Meszaros has shown he can play that role too.

IMO, we have 3 players that make substantial money and I don't consider to be part of the core: Hartnell, Versteeg, and Carle. So it only makes sense that at least one of those players go. Versteeg (who I'd like to move) I don't think will go because his value is pretty low right now and I don't think Homer wants to essentially admit a mistake. Hartnell has a NMC and his value is probably fairly low as well. Carle, on the other hand, probably has pretty good value; and, as I stated above, I think our defense would actually be better suited with a defensive minded D-man after seeing what Meszaros brings to the table.
The major problem with Carle is that he's terrible at running the PP... given his skill set and "role" on this team, that's an expected part of his game and he brings us nothing there.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 09:47 AM
  #110
thedjpd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
The major problem with Carle is that he's terrible at running the PP... given his skill set and "role" on this team, that's an expected part of his game and he brings us nothing there.
Who on this team was great at it last year?

thedjpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 09:52 AM
  #111
Terence Peterman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedjpd View Post
Who on this team was great at it last year?
Carle has always sucked at it.

Terence Peterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 10:31 AM
  #112
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,225
vCash: 5775
This was also one of the pieces that convinced me on advanced numbers. About a guy who some of us here begged and pleaded for us to sign, while beat writers yapped about "well, if he's so good, how come no one signed him yet," a few weeks before we signed Blair Betts.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 10:43 AM
  #113
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go david krejci 430 View Post
This was also one of the pieces that convinced me on advanced numbers. About a guy who some of us here begged and pleaded for us to sign, while beat writers yapped about "well, if he's so good, how come no one signed him yet," a few weeks before we signed Blair Betts.
Very good article. I recall wanting us to sign Malhotra. I can't say my logic was based in any of those advanced stats (as I still don't really look to them) however. I just knew he was known as a good defensive center, and more importantly, was a very good faceoff man.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 11:32 AM
  #114
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
I guess I didn't really share my general thoughts on Carle...

I want to move him because I'm just kind of meh on him. As people have pointed out, he has his strengths and weaknesses. I just, flat out, don't think he is worth his money when we have glaring needs to fill (goaltender) and no money to do so. I think the defense would be better off with a more defensive minded player. Pronger and Kimmo we all know can play the offensive game, and Meszaros has shown he can play that role too.

IMO, we have 3 players that make substantial money and I don't consider to be part of the core: Hartnell, Versteeg, and Carle. So it only makes sense that at least one of those players go. Versteeg (who I'd like to move) I don't think will go because his value is pretty low right now and I don't think Homer wants to essentially admit a mistake. Hartnell has a NMC and his value is probably fairly low as well. Carle, on the other hand, probably has pretty good value; and, as I stated above, I think our defense would actually be better suited with a defensive minded D-man after seeing what Meszaros brings to the table.
If Holmgren feels that trading for a player is a mistake, he has had no problem rectifying that mistake in the past. Examples were with Jim Vndermeer and Steve Eminger.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 11:36 AM
  #115
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
If Holmgren feels that trading for a player is a mistake, he has had no problem rectifying that mistake in the past. Examples were with Jim Vndermeer and Steve Eminger.
Those were significantly smaller moves though. Versteeg is too big of a move for him to quit on IMO. We'll see though.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 11:40 AM
  #116
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver
I'd like to see who could replace the play and production of Carle cheaper.

Montador is an average at best 3rd pair defenseman who was also at times a healthy scratch in the playoffs. Montador couldn't come close to replacing Carle
Fair enough from your perspective. Mine, however, is that Holmgren doesn't have to replace Carle, but can look for a solid, reasonably priced defenseman for the third pairing, possibly to line up with Gustaffson/Bartulis. Resigning O'Donnell for $1 mil is another option, though I'm lukewarm about his play last season and his ability to keep up with the pace of games as the season progresses. My point is that a significant upgrade in goal can be made at the expense of the defensive position.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 11:43 AM
  #117
sa cyred
Yea....the Flyers...
 
sa cyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Traveling...
Country: Cuba
Posts: 15,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
Well, there were plenty of articles published this year in which Lavy, Homer, McCarthy and many of his teammates extolled Carle's solid, consistent play at both ends of the rink. He's much better defensively than he gets credit for, but you can't account for the lack of comprehension in the fanbase.

I'd look the articles up, but really, you only take the media's word for it when they are defending Richards', hic, captaincy, but not Carle, so why bother?
You mean the same articles that were questioning his captaincy also? Im not even a Carle hater, but anyone can see the guy is pretty bad on defense. He makes up for it with his above average sense in the offensive zone, but a defender needs to be able to play defense. I can care less what the media/management says. These are the same guys who, thought Leighton-Boucher was a good combo, Leighton could be our starter this past season, and tons of other mishaps. We have seen how all of these went. Unless you agree with them and believe that Leighton is a starter and Randy Jones is a great defender.

sa cyred is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 11:45 AM
  #118
sa cyred
Yea....the Flyers...
 
sa cyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Traveling...
Country: Cuba
Posts: 15,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
Fair enough from your perspective. Mine, however, is that Holmgren doesn't have to replace Carle, but can look for a solid, reasonably priced defenseman for the third pairing, possibly to line up with Gustaffson/Bartulis. Resigning O'Donnell for $1 mil is another option, though I'm lukewarm about his play last season and his ability to keep up with the pace of games as the season progresses. My point is that a significant upgrade in goal can be made at the expense of the defensive position.
Agreed. You DO NOT need a stacked defense when you have a legit goalie in net. You can role with a real 3rd line defensive pairing. No need to have 5-6 top 4 guys.

sa cyred is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 11:45 AM
  #119
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
1) Stats are not analysis. You do analysis with stats, which is what you are attempting to do with +/-. Of course, doing solid statistical analysis requires actually understanding the nuances of stats, which you do not appreciate at all in your attachment to +/-.

2) 60 minutes is simply a rate. You could, with simple math, convert that to 20 minutes if you want. Those are purely empirical numbers, which cannot be debated.
When your doing statistical analysis, stats are analysis. I understand completly the nuances of the stat. It's your opinion that I have an attachment to +/-. That doesn't mean that's the case.
You could do that, or you could more accurately look at it on a game by game basis. Which is what should be done.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
These two paragraphs are mesmerizing. You observe and admit the major flaws in +/-, but then turn around and blow them off. There is nothing anomalous about a bad defensive player having a strong +/- on a good offensive team... it happens ALL THE TIME, and EVERY YEAR.
I didn't blow anything off. I also didn't state or admit that there is major flaws. I simply stated some situations with +/-. And that does happen every year. When your looking at hundreds of players in the League, what is the case with a few is an anomaly in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
The stat strongly favors team play over individual play, making it extremely problematic to use as an analytical tool for an individual. The only telling thing in +/- is looking at an individual's +/- relative to the rest of his team. A good defensive player on a ****ty team usually doesn't get slaughtered like some of his teammates.
In my opinion it all evens out for the most part over an 82 game Season. Team play is certainly a factor in +/-. It always has been. And I'll again reiterate what I've said in previous posts. +/- is jut one indicator of many of a players play.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
But strong +/- on good teams... I mean, hell, Briere had a great +/- this year, and he's absolutely atrocious defensively.
I would not label Briere atrocious defensively. He has some physical limitations especially at the Center spot that hurt him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I'm ambivalent about Carle... I think he's fine for what he does, but I think he's overpaid a bit, and if we need cap space he's easily the first limb to get hacked off this summer.
I'm not ambivalent about Carle. He may need to be traded, he may not. But I wouldn't move him. The aspects he brings to the ice are very important for the Flyers and he is a key player on the team.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 11:47 AM
  #120
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
Fair enough from your perspective. Mine, however, is that Holmgren doesn't have to replace Carle, but can look for a solid, reasonably priced defenseman for the third pairing, possibly to line up with Gustaffson/Bartulis. Resigning O'Donnell for $1 mil is another option, though I'm lukewarm about his play last season and his ability to keep up with the pace of games as the season progresses. My point is that a significant upgrade in goal can be made at the expense of the defensive position.
This.

No one should be expecting to "replace Carle" (should he be moved). You will not find a player that can replace Carle at significant savings. You can, however, find a player with different strengths than Carle, that may better suit the direction the team is headed. AKA a "reasonably priced defenseman for the third pairing".

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 12:00 PM
  #121
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,291
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver
First of all, how can you quantify that all of those players are better than Carle in their own zone? We can all give an opinion.Secondly, if they all are better, how does that show that Carle isn't good in his own end?
You wouldn't be forced to assume that Carle is much better than Lidstrom. +/- is just one indicator.
We can tell that those players are better than Carle in their own end simply by watching them all play, and comparing them to see which were most effective on defense. The point of a defenseman is to minimize the other team's ability to get into scoring position, and therefore prevent goals. A good defender will use his size or positioning to prevent an opposing player from placing good shots on net. This is often accomplished by keeping the opposing player to the outside along the boards, and by blocking shots.

Coburn, Pronger, Timonen, OD, and Mez are all better at doing this than Carle is. For instance, I don't know how many times I've watched Carle skate backwards towards his own goalie, and just keep skating backwards without making any attempt to take the puck from the opposing player, impede his progress, or force him to the outside. More than one goal was scored this season because Carle essentially got out of the way and watched as the forward was able to rush the net...our goalies had to make a few good saves on similar plays by Carle.

He doesn't really clear the front of the net, he rarely takes a hit to make a play, and he rarely makes a play by dishing out a hit. Carle is decent overall, but at 3.4 mil he's definitely the most expendable among our defenseman for just being decent.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 12:00 PM
  #122
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
The major problem with Carle is that he's terrible at running the PP... given his skill set and "role" on this team, that's an expected part of his game and he brings us nothing there.
Carle did not have a good year on the PP this past Season. And the PP as a whole wasn't good this past Season, which Carle was certainly a part of.
Carle has shown in the past that he's not terrible on the PP and that he is indeed capable of producing on the PP.

In 09/10 Carle produced 14 PP points compared to Timonen's 19 PP points. While playing over a minute less on average on the PP compared to Timonen.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 12:06 PM
  #123
FreshPerspective
We don't need one!
 
FreshPerspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Italy
Posts: 10,231
vCash: 500
When the game gets physical Carle can be pretty bad defensively as he showed in the playoffs. Not having Pronger didn't help him either. Having said this his game as a D man is on the transition. That is a defensive aspect in the sense that he does move the puck well defensively. It's not that easy to replace that so losing him wouldn't exactly be without it's perils.

I'm not a Carle fan by any stretch..he's kind of on par for me with Carter as far as his lack of intensity when it matters most. However, replacing him is not as easy as it sounds...

FreshPerspective is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 12:09 PM
  #124
thedjpd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Blaine View Post
Carle has always sucked at it.
Then why is everybody expecting him to be good at it now?

Either he was brought in to do that and failed - or should have never had that expectation to begin with.

He's a great outlet passer and solid offensive contributor at even strength who is average defensively. The guy *can* and *did* put up 40 points as a d-man, almost exclusively at even strength.

40 point defenseman can earn $4 million easy - *and* be terrible defensively.

The problem is here everybody expects Carle and Coburn to be Timonen and Pronger - and then lambast them for not being such.

Those two aren't Timonen and Pronger because finding those d-men who are good at everything are rare - and - twice the cost.

The argument can be made about a cheaper 3rd pairing defenseman with different strengths - no question. But do realize, it doesn't just "weaken" our D-corps, it *significantly* weakens our d-core. Personally, I thought O'Donnell was awful too the last half of the season - and we were all singing his praises in the first half. Is that due to age? Possibly, but he is also what he is - a 3rd pairing d-man. As the intensity goes up, they do get exposed more - we know this from experience. There are no "3rd pairing" defenseman that can play a significant role and not get burned - becaues if they could, they would be on the second pairing.

thedjpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 12:10 PM
  #125
sa cyred
Yea....the Flyers...
 
sa cyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Traveling...
Country: Cuba
Posts: 15,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
When the game gets physical Carle can be pretty bad defensively as he showed in the playoffs. Not having Pronger didn't help him either. Having said this his game as a D man is on the transition. That is a defensive aspect in the sense that he does move the puck well defensively. It's not that easy to replace that so losing him wouldn't exactly be without it's perils.

I'm not a Carle fan by any stretch..he's kind of on par for me with Carter as far as his lack of intensity when it matters most. However, replacing him is not as easy as it sounds...
That is what we are saying. You dont need to replace him. A top 4 of Pronger, Timonen, Coburn, and Meszaros is 100% fine. I think having a 3rd pairing of say a O'Donnell-Gustafsson could work out fine also. A vet stay at home guy with a young puck mover is fine. You dont really have to worry about the PP, cause IF Gustafsson made the team, I have a feeling he would be put on the 2nd unit.

sa cyred is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:29 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.