Exactly. When you're as dominant as Malkin and Stamkos offensively you're not likely to have to defend that much. You'll spend most of the time in the offensive zone anyway.
Datsyuk's ****.
Toob claims that 75% of Stamkos' offensive production comes at even strength. That means that his line scores a lot at even strength, which is impressive. His +/- rating, however, tells us is that they are scored on a lot at even strength, which is not impressive.
Can't believe Datsyuk is getting 40% of the votes. Intangibles and defensive play are so overrated. People are way underrating the importance of goal scoring in winning hockey games.
Toob claims that 75% of Stamkos' offensive production comes at even strength. That means that his line scores a lot at even strength, which is impressive. His +/- rating, however, tells us is that they are scored on a lot at even strength, which is not impressive.
Yeah, but both you and I know that Tampa's defense and goalkeeper is pretty much horrible. Hedman's the best Tampa got...
If you told me I could have only one in a playoff run this season, I'd take Datsyuk in a heartbeat. Defense, playmaking, and clutch goals are where it matters. Referencing the SJ series last season, no one can take over a series like #13 can.
Toob claims that 75% of Stamkos' offensive production comes at even strength. That means that his line scores a lot at even strength, which is impressive. His +/- rating, however, tells us is that they are scored on a lot at even strength, which is not impressive.
Im not pulling these numbers out of my ass i got them from NHL.com... there was a thread on the Tampa forum on how much more Stamkos would score if the PP was half decent and i then looked up Datsyuk's to compare.
For the +/- Tampa Bay has a goal differential of -40 and Stamkos is still a + player... Since the PP has sucked Tampa doesnt even have a lot of PP goals (on the other hand the PK has also sucked so a lot of the goals against are PP). You have to point to just how awful goaltending was until Garon recently started putting it together and how awful D has been throughout the year first for why the team is scored on a ton when Stamkos is on the ice and when hes off.
Its incredible how HF goes for the knee-jerk reaction. Oh what a difference two weeks can make in the ignorant minds of internet posters.
Two weeks ago Datsyuk was in the Hart discussion, was top 6 in points, the Wings were top of the league, and he was having a dominant season both offensively and defensively.
Then he gets hurt for a brief stretch and suddenly he's past his prime, the Wings are done even though they're 3 points out of first with a game in hand, and people think Stamkos is a better player?
Its incredible how HF goes for the knee-jerk reaction. Oh what a difference two weeks can make in the ignorant minds of internet posters.
Two weeks ago Datsyuk was in the Hart discussion, was top 6 in points, the Wings were top of the league, and he was having a dominant season both offensively and defensively.
Then he gets hurt for a brief stretch and suddenly he's past his prime, the Wings are done even though they're 3 points out of first with a game in hand, and people think Stamkos is a better player?
It can depending on the context of the goals and the defense played. I honestly wish ppl would stop just looking just at the stats for a change for their arguments (and i guess i can see why some arguing against Stamkos think that the pro Stamkos case is all stats). Stats are misleading a lot and they cant be directly compared when they have different contexts. Datsyuk is a player who is well established as more than his stats. Stamkos this ssn has become one too.
Sure it can, setting up 30 more assists will get you better results every time. Also the even strength goals against says otherwise. This season. Stamkos has been scored on 76 times while on the ice at even strength vs 41 with Datsyuk. Correct me if i'm wrong but the diffference is greater then 25. I know this stats has so much more to it then a single player, afterall its a team game, but this is just to show that offense or goals is given too much credit when its only half the game and there are so many other variables in a players value then just goals... Great you scored 70 but had 50 less assists plus got scored on twice as much.
Sure it can, setting up 30 more assists will get you better results every time. Also the even strength goals against says otherwise. This season. Stamkos has been scored on 76 times while on the ice at even strength vs 41 with Datsyuk. Correct me if i'm wrong but the diffference is greater then 25. I know this stats has so much more to it then a single player, afterall its a team game, but this is just to show that offense or goals is given too much credit when its only half the game and there are so many other variables in a players value then just goals... Great you scored 70 but had 50 less assists plus got scored on twice as much.
I don't really know what your made up-numbers bring to this discussion.
Sure it can, setting up 30 more assists will get you better results every time. Also the even strength goals against says otherwise. This season. Stamkos has been scored on 76 times while on the ice at even strength vs 41 with Datsyuk. Correct me if i'm wrong but the diffference is greater then 25. I know this stats has so much more to it then a single player, afterall its a team game, but this is just to show that offense or goals is given too much credit when its only half the game and there are so many other variables in a players value then just goals... Great you scored 70 but had 50 less assists plus got scored on twice as much.
Playing on the worst team defensively in the league, and playing 8 more games accounts for most of the even strength goals against.
Playing on the worst team defensively in the league, and playing 8 more games accounts for most of the even strength goals against.
No it doesn't.
When Stamkos is on the ice his team gives up 3.26 goals per 60 minutes.
When Datsyuk is on the ice his team gives up 1.86 goals per 60 minutes.
Now, I know what you're thinking. That's because Datsyuk is on a much better defensive team. That's true to some extent, however..
Stamkos, among centers on the team (40+ GP) has the worst GA/60 when on the ice. Datsyuk, among centers on the team (40+ GP) has the 4th worst GA/60 when on the ice. The only "centers" (per behindthenet.com) better than Datsyuk on the team in this stat are two 4th line guys (Abdelkader and Emmerton) who play against significantly weaker competition than Datsyuk does.
Now, let's take a look at the Corsi Relative QOC to compare the quality of the players each of these guys play against on a daily basis.
Stamkos has a 0.429 Corsi Rel QOC.
Datsyuk has a 1.216 Corsi Rel QOC.
The difference in defensive ability of each of the teams does not account for the entire difference or even close to it.
Can't believe Datsyuk is getting 40% of the votes. Intangibles and defensive play are so overrated. People are way underrating the importance of goal scoring in winning hockey games.
Just looked at the standings. Your point holds water...
People actually think Datsyuk isn't one of the best offesnive players in this league?
I mean REALLY?
You guys never watch Datsyuk? Never see he who is a human highlight reel?
It's fine if you think Stamkos is better, but people are acting like Datsyuk is only a defensive specialist haha.
Wow. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
I know. There is a post somewhere in here that read "you can find a defensive specialist in the offseason for $1mil, I'll that the 50 goal scorer."
Like you said. if you pick Stamkos it's fine, but it's funny the comments you see here and then have Datsyuk being called the most overrated player. What can you do?
