HFBoards

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

Does anybody want Matt Carle back?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-20-2012, 09:40 PM
  #201
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Here is an article that argues the earth is flat:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Well, hell. If it's in an article how could it EVER be wrong?


If opinion articles are now somehow fact, here. I'll write one real quick.

PHILADELPHIA- It's been a long offseason so far for the Philadelphia Flyers. With Kimmo Timonen aging and Chris Pronger unlikely to play this coming season, Paul Holmgren has a tough situation to address on defense. There are few options available via free agency who could fill either's spot; Ryan Suter is the most likely to meet those lofty standards, but Detroit has 20 million dollars of cap room and just lost hall of fame defenseman Nik Lidstrom to retirement. It is looking increasingly unlikely that the Flyers can land Suter.

So what options remain? Besides Suter, the best option under 35 is Matt Carle. He played 23 minutes a game last season out of necessity to fill in for an injured Timonen and absent Pronger, and put up 38 points in the process. With the limited options available on the market, Carle could potentially command 5 million dollars or more on a team that feels they could use his services.

So, is Carle the answer to the Flyers defensive doldrums? The answer is no. Despite his production, Carle is overrated. He is known to commit unforced turnovers, many of which have ended up in the back of the net. In fact, he led his team in turnovers last season and was 25th among NHL defensemen in that category. He routinely yields before rushing forwards, allowing them a clear drive at the net. His lack of physicality commonly allows attackers to sneak past him along the boards or camp out in front of the crease. His positional play is often suspect, allowing opponents easy access to inside lanes. On top of that, he has shown in the past that he is easily overwhelmed while facing top competition, a decidedly undesirable trait in a supposedly elite defenseman. Additionally, his wrist shot is woefully weak and his slap shot is all but nonexistent.

What does this all mean? It means that Carle is being overrated by those with such fervent faith in his abilities, and is not an adequate solution for the team from Broad Street. While it is easy to overvalue such a lacking player when the market is so thin, fans should hope that the Flyers don't fall into that trap so easily. Overpaying an overrated player is a move the Flyers must avoid to help them long-term. Let's hope they choose wisely.

2012 Beefsociated Press

Well, look at that. I wrote an opinion article. This means my opinion is now fact, and cannot be considered wrong.
You screwed up the copyright

MsWoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:48 PM
  #202
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
I've given you stats; last offseason I threw stats at you left and right, several people did. When we did that you ignored them, so I've long since given up on that as a waste of time. I've given you real life examples. Real life is pretty factual, right? Almost as factual as an article? You've ignored them in favor of stats and opinions that mesh with your own. You're hopeless. Arguing this with you is an utter waste of time, because you refuse to see anything that's inconvenient to your divine vision of Carle. You're too closed minded to consider that anybody else could POSSIBLY have a valid obserervation...unless it's in an article, because that somehow makes opinions official and valid. You argue through attrition; you repeat the same thing repeatedly, ignoring or dismissing any stats, examples or facts that go against what you believe, until everyone else has left the discussion.

Well, I'm not falling into that trap anymore. Im done. You're wrong, you overrate Carle, he's really not that great. Godpseed to the next brave soul that dares level the slightest criticism of Carle's flaws without a tome of articles to back it up.
I haven't ignored any stats. None whatsoever. My entire premise is based on the facts. And all the stats concerning Carle is all part of the case I have made. None of the factual evidence has been ignored.

You haven't given anything from real life. Everything you've offered is complete fantasy. Fabricated and innacurate statements of Carle as a player.

I don't argue through attrition. I argue the facts! And they support my opinion. There are no facts concerning Carle that go against my opinion.

I'm not wrong about Carle. I'm right. And I'm in the same camp as Holmgren, and any other credible source that covers the League. Which puts me on solid ground.

You've been done on this for a long time. The jury has long come back on this one.

You make posts like this, and make up an opinion article with zero substance behind it, because you can't argue the facts. You have to move away from them. You have no choice. Because the facts say without a shadow of a doubt. That you are wrong. And there is nothing you can do about it.

So I'm glad you're done. But rest assured, I will be there to refute any innacurate opinions made on Carle as a player. And I'll use the facts to do it.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 09:53 PM
  #203
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post


Disproves nothing he claimed. You seem to think opinion articles written on websites with clear biases to certain players are magical or something, but that doesn't mean they're actually correct.

See, this is what I mean. He just used stats to prove a point. All you have is an article written by someone else? That's pretty weak.
Are you telling me that there aren't any stats given in that article? There is nothing but opinion there? Maybe you should read it again. Do you need glasses?

This get's more hysterical by the minute. LOL

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-20-2012, 10:45 PM
  #204
Go For It
Registered User
 
Go For It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,014
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Are you telling me that there aren't any stats given in that article? There is nothing but opinion there? Maybe you should read it again. Do you need glasses?

This get's more hysterical by the minute. LOL
You're right about that at least!

Go For It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 06:40 AM
  #205
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
It's really difficult to compare some of those numbers with players on different teams. They are much better when compared to players on the same team.

EDIT:Also that article did nothing to disprove anything I showed. Those are his stats compared to his D partner. There's no opinion, or meddling with them. I think they support the observations I've made of Carle all along. A #4 defenseman, who can be a real good complimentary player on a pairing, nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, those players are a weird comparison. Luke Schenn, and Hedman? They make similar money because of bonuses on their ELC's, like the Flyers' Schenn, if I'm not mistaken. They're very young players, and Carle really isn't. Maybe they should compare Carle's first couple seasons to their's instead of his seasons while he's in his prime.


Last edited by Protest: 06-21-2012 at 07:17 AM.
Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 08:10 AM
  #206
turkinaa
Registered User
 
turkinaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
Carle performs better under two conditions: (1) he is on an offensive team and (2) he plays with a very solid if not elite partner to help defensively. The problem occurs when you don't have the talent to play with him and rely on him to be a corner stone player.

The outcomes will be: (a) Flyers resign him to too much so he doesn't hit the market, making the market smaller and more expensive or (b) he hits the market and a team overpays for him because he is a good player and teams have money to spend.

In the end it will come down to money and how much Homer is willing to pay for him. I can only hope that Homer knows both his strengths and weaknesses and offers him a contract based on that (with a reasonable length) rather than just throw sacks of money at him until Carle nods and smiles so he doesn't hit the market.

turkinaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 08:48 AM
  #207
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
It's really difficult to compare some of those numbers with players on different teams. They are much better when compared to players on the same team.

EDIT:Also that article did nothing to disprove anything I showed. Those are his stats compared to his D partner. There's no opinion, or meddling with them. I think they support the observations I've made of Carle all along. A #4 defenseman, who can be a real good complimentary player on a pairing, nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, those players are a weird comparison. Luke Schenn, and Hedman? They make similar money because of bonuses on their ELC's, like the Flyers' Schenn, if I'm not mistaken. They're very young players, and Carle really isn't. Maybe they should compare Carle's first couple seasons to their's instead of his seasons while he's in his prime.
It's not difficult to compare. There are variables for both. For instance, how many minutes did Carle play, versus Bourdon a game? There's an overlap there.

I didn't offer the article to disprove anything you showed. The facts are the facts. The Article, actually both of them, showed that Carle can be a good player regardlress of who he is partnered with.

Carle is more then a #4 defenseman. He's a #2, who can be a strong compliment to a true #1 defenseman. That's proven.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 09:10 AM
  #208
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
It's not difficult to compare. There are variables for both. For instance, how many minutes did Carle play, versus Bourdon a game? There's an overlap there.

I didn't offer the article to disprove anything you showed. The facts are the facts. The Article, actually both of them, showed that Carle can be a good player regardlress of who he is partnered with.

Carle is more then a #4 defenseman. He's a #2, who can be a strong compliment to a true #1 defenseman. That's proven.
There are way more variables in comparing players across teams than there are when comparing players who were the same team, and on the ice together more often than not. For example, the goalies, the system, the forwards are all different on other teams. Some of these stats can be easily skewed by the those team factors.

Do you have anything to say about the random players they compared him to? Those comparisons really do not make any sense, asides from Yandle. Again though, it's two completely different teams, and styles of play.

It also states that he played better without Pronger than he did with him, but if you look at Carle's season this past year, and compare it to his full season with Pronger, we know that really isn't true.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 09:34 AM
  #209
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
There are way more variables in comparing players across teams than there are when comparing players who were the same team, and on the ice together more often than not. For example, the goalies, the system, the forwards are all different on other teams. Some of these stats can be easily skewed by the those team factors.

Do you have anything to say about the random players they compared him to? Those comparisons really do not make any sense, asides from Yandle. Again though, it's two completely different teams, and styles of play.

It also states that he played better without Pronger than he did with him, but if you look at Carle's season this past year, and compare it to his full season with Pronger, we know that really isn't true.
What it states is that Carle is a very good player regardless of who he plays with. One of the articles shows that Carle had better numbers playing with Meszaros then he did playing with Pronger.

Here's the biggest variable in comparing Carle and Bourdon as partners last year. Carle played 1.529:41 minutes at ES. Bourdon played 691:51 minutes of ES play last year. So Carle played a hell of a lot of Hockey without Bourdon as his partner.


And lastly, wouldn't you expect the numbers to be different from his full Season playing with Pronger then playing with Bourdon and various other partners? Big difference betwen playing with a Pronger versus a green Rookie for a significant amount of time. Any defenseman's numer would be affected by that change.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 10:04 AM
  #210
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
What it states is that Carle is a very good player regardless of who he plays with. One of the articles shows that Carle had better numbers playing with Meszaros then he did playing with Pronger.

Here's the biggest variable in comparing Carle and Bourdon as partners last year. Carle played 1.529:41 minutes at ES. Bourdon played 691:51 minutes of ES play last year. So Carle played a hell of a lot of Hockey without Bourdon as his partner.


And lastly, wouldn't you expect the numbers to be different from his full Season playing with Pronger then playing with Bourdon and various other partners? Big difference betwen playing with a Pronger versus a green Rookie for a significant amount of time. Any defenseman's numer would be affected by that change.
So no comment on the players they compared him to then?

Also there's a much bigger problem with comparing someone to players on other teams, than there is with comparing him to someone who he played with most of the time, regardless of how many minutes he played with other people. Also, I did compare him to the rest of the D on the team in the parentheses.

And yes I'd expect Carle's numbers to drop, but if he's the player you say he is I'd also expect him to have better numbers than Bourdon regardless of who he plays with. I'd expect him to be at the top of most of the defensemans' statistical categories since his only weaknesses are a bad shot and not being physical.

Carle's offensive numbers are attributed to assists. Some of it certainly has to do with him, and some of it has to do with being on one of the deeper offensive teams in hockey. The lowest they've been in scoring since the crap year was 8th. They've been top 5 more often than not.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 12:17 PM
  #211
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
So no comment on the players they compared him to then?

Also there's a much bigger problem with comparing someone to players on other teams, than there is with comparing him to someone who he played with most of the time, regardless of how many minutes he played with other people. Also, I did compare him to the rest of the D on the team in the parentheses.

And yes I'd expect Carle's numbers to drop, but if he's the player you say he is I'd also expect him to have better numbers than Bourdon regardless of who he plays with. I'd expect him to be at the top of most of the defensemans' statistical categories since his only weaknesses are a bad shot and not being physical.

Carle's offensive numbers are attributed to assists. Some of it certainly has to do with him, and some of it has to do with being on one of the deeper offensive teams in hockey. The lowest they've been in scoring since the crap year was 8th. They've been top 5 more often than not.
I'd expect you to understand that the smaller the sample size, in this case with Bourdon and his limited minutes, the less accurate the picture is. If you go by how your lookikng at them, that would suggest that Bourdon is a better player then Carle is. Do you feel that is the case?

Most of Carle's numbers have to do with him. He's one of the reasons the team is so good offensively. Especially at ES play. As he has been one of the top point producers at ES the last few years.

I have no idea how the author chose the players he compared Carle to.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 01:09 PM
  #212
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I'd expect you to understand that the smaller the sample size, in this case with Bourdon and his limited minutes, the less accurate the picture is. If you go by how your lookikng at them, that would suggest that Bourdon is a better player then Carle is. Do you feel that is the case?

Most of Carle's numbers have to do with him. He's one of the reasons the team is so good offensively. Especially at ES play. As he has been one of the top point producers at ES the last few years.

I have no idea how the author chose the players he compared Carle to.
First, I have no idea how he chose the players either because the comparisons don't make sense. Which doesn't really help the article's credibility.

Next, no I don't think Bourdon is a better player. However, that's never what I said. I said that if Carle was the player you make him out to be, he'd have better numbers than Bourdon regardless of the situation.

Also, how do you bring up sample size with Bourdon, but not with Pronger? You, and the article, say that Carle performed better without Pronger. However, Carle spent roughly 730 minutes ES not playing without Pronger in 2010-11. That's just as small a sample size as his time with Bourdon. Therefore, you must not believe Carle's numbers that year, sans Pronger, paint all that accurate of a picture. And if that's true, than that is another shot to the credibility of the article.

The better sample would be Carle with Pronger for 1 1/2 seasons vs. him without Pronger for 1 1/2 seasons. We've kind of seen those numbers already, haven't we... Definitely better with Pronger.

Also, yes Carle is a good passer, and a good offensive player. However, he plays on a deep team, and I think more rational people would look to the forward core than to Matt Carle when they are looking for reasons the team is good offensively.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 02:03 PM
  #213
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
First, I have no idea how he chose the players either because the comparisons don't make sense. Which doesn't really help the article's credibility.

Next, no I don't think Bourdon is a better player. However, that's never what I said. I said that if Carle was the player you make him out to be, he'd have better numbers than Bourdon regardless of the situation.

Also, how do you bring up sample size with Bourdon, but not with Pronger? You, and the article, say that Carle performed better without Pronger. However, Carle spent roughly 730 minutes ES not playing without Pronger in 2010-11. That's just as small a sample size as his time with Bourdon. Therefore, you must not believe Carle's numbers that year, sans Pronger, paint all that accurate of a picture. And if that's true, than that is another shot to the credibility of the article.

The better sample would be Carle with Pronger for 1 1/2 seasons vs. him without Pronger for 1 1/2 seasons. We've kind of seen those numbers already, haven't we... Definitely better with Pronger.

Also, yes Carle is a good passer, and a good offensive player. However, he plays on a deep team, and I think more rational people would look to the forward core than to Matt Carle when they are looking for reasons the team is good offensively.
There is a huge sample size of Carle with Pronger. There's the entire previous Season. Also Pronger isn't a rookie. He's an experienced veteran who can step right in and play at a high level, regardless of the number of games. It's a completely different situation then limited games with a rookie.

And I agree that an equal sample of games with and without would be better. What defenseman wouldn't be better with Pronger then without?

I think rational people would look at the entire picture of the team's offense. Carle is as good offensively from the back end as most of the Flyers forwards are . Informed fans know how important the puck movement that Carle provides, is to the team's offense and transition game. Carle has been an intergral part of the Flyers offense.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 02:11 PM
  #214
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,748
vCash: 156
If Carle is so good on defense and integral to offense, why is his +/-ON/60 9th on the team amongst defensemen who played for the Flyers this season? Why is he 10th in GFON/60? One would expect someone who is integral to the offense to be ranked higher than that. MAB, Kubina, Coburn, Timonen, Mez, and Gus all put up better numbers. The team scored more when they were on the ice. It sounds like Carle is getting overrated again.

Carle is 3rd in GFOFF/60, indicating the team was scoring more when he wasn't on the ice compared to other defensemen. How can that possibly be, if he's so incredibly important to the offense? It doesn't make a shred of sense. Now, if the answer is that you are greatly overrating Carle's ability, that would make sense.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 02:43 PM
  #215
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
There is a huge sample size of Carle with Pronger. There's the entire previous Season. Also Pronger isn't a rookie. He's an experienced veteran who can step right in and play at a high level, regardless of the number of games. It's a completely different situation then limited games with a rookie.

And I agree that an equal sample of games with and without would be better. What defenseman wouldn't be better with Pronger then without?

I think rational people would look at the entire picture of the team's offense. Carle is as good offensively from the back end as most of the Flyers forwards are . Informed fans know how important the puck movement that Carle provides, is to the team's offense and transition game. Carle has been an intergral part of the Flyers offense.
You missed the point.

You are taking a half a season (2010-2011) of Carle without Pronger, and saying he did better without him. You then passingly refer to that as irrefutable fact.

However, when I used numbers from the Bourdon/Carle pairing you said that the sample size was too small to get an accurate picture. The sample size of the Bourdon/Carle pairing in 2011-2012 is virtually the same size as the sample of Carle without Pronger in 2010-2011.

Therefore by your reasoning, Carle's numbers from 2010-2011 without Pronger are not large enough a sample to draw any significant conclusions about his play. In which case, the point you and the article made on that subject is not well supported.

The sample of Carle playing with Pronger, 1 1/2 seasons, is now equal to his time without him. In his time with Pronger his numbers are much better. He has not performed better without him.

Lastly his numbers without Pronger have been mostly average. I showed this in my original post. You want to show his 2010-2011 season as elite, but don't want to look at the fact that he was average at best last season. Legit #2 Dmen are not average at best without a legit #1 to help make them better.

Protest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 02:48 PM
  #216
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
Also, how do you bring up sample size with Bourdon, but not with Pronger? You, and the article, say that Carle performed better without Pronger. However, Carle spent roughly 730 minutes ES not playing without Pronger in 2010-11. That's just as small a sample size as his time with Bourdon. Therefore, you must not believe Carle's numbers that year, sans Pronger, paint all that accurate of a picture. And if that's true, than that is another shot to the credibility of the article.

.
OH....

now you've gone and done it, hahaha

Flyerfan4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 02:50 PM
  #217
Flyerfan4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Richmond BC, Canada
Country: England
Posts: 12,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Carle has been an intergral part of the Flyers offense.
oh come on now... so not only is Carle a world beater D.men now hes gunna challenge roo aswell ???

is there no end to how high you will loft Carles abilities, i think NOT !!!

hahaha

Flyerfan4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 03:45 PM
  #218
fauxflex
Registered User
 
fauxflex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 306
vCash: 500
So called "facts" can be used in an effort to support an opinion, but sometimes there are other variables at play and other realities of the situation that may contradict those cited facts.


Let's take an example some statistical FACTS from a few years back...

In 2008-2009

Steve Eminger - 26 pts in 71 games
Matt Carle - 26 pts in 76 games

Steve Eminger - 12 PP pts in 71 games
Matt Carle - 8 PP pts in 76 games

These are FACTS that are indisputable.

A simple, suface level opinion based on those facts might be that Steve Eminger is more productive and thus more valuable than Matt Carle.

However, people familiar with the situation would likely come up with a very different opinion. They would know that Eminger was pressed into top pairing type minutes with a poor team that lacked depth in Tampa, even though he didn't really merit that type of role. They would be able to see both players on the ice with their own eyes and notice material differences in the quality of plays being made...things that don't necessarily show up on a stat sheet. This isn't that unlike how it may be with Matt Carle today. There are statistics that can be cited to compare Carle favorably with some of the top D men in the league, but those familiar with the situation know better. With Pronger out and Timonen banged up, Carle was thrust into playing a role over his head, as top minute guy for the Flyers. His minutes were inflated and, because he plays on a potent offensive team with lots of surrounding talent, his numbers were inflated accordingly. Should Matt Carle be a top minute guy on a good NHL team? No. Is Matt Carle as good as some of the top players in the league (for example, Ryan Suter) and paid as such? No.

Knowlegeable observers watching Carle's play night in and night out should be able to see the shortcomings in his game that may not show up on the stat sheet, but can surely impact the performance of his team. Things like his soft defensive play, poor gap control, defensive zone turnovers, the lack of ability to run a powerplay, a penchant for risky passes, a poor shot, etc. These are all things that should be part of the equation when evaluating his play and his value, instead of just focusing on selected statistical "facts" that make him look better than he is. It seems that some people here only want to focus on the statistical "facts" and discount, deny or ignore the other variables that don't support their own (inflated) view of the player. I favor the view that takes all the variables into consideration, those that show up on the stat sheet and those that don't.

fauxflex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:14 PM
  #219
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
If Carle is so good on defense and integral to offense, why is his +/-ON/60 9th on the team amongst defensemen who played for the Flyers this season? Why is he 10th in GFON/60? One would expect someone who is integral to the offense to be ranked higher than that. MAB, Kubina, Coburn, Timonen, Mez, and Gus all put up better numbers. The team scored more when they were on the ice. It sounds like Carle is getting overrated again.

Carle is 3rd in GFOFF/60, indicating the team was scoring more when he wasn't on the ice compared to other defensemen. How can that possibly be, if he's so incredibly important to the offense? It doesn't make a shred of sense. Now, if the answer is that you are greatly overrating Carle's ability, that would make sense.
I thought you didn't value +/-? Carle was second on the Flyers defenseman in points scored. And he was ranked 20th in the NHL among all defenseman in points scored. That's 20th out of 180 regular defenseman in the NHL. But by all means, MAB, Kubina, Coburn, , Mez, and Gus, were all better offensively then Carle was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protest View Post
You missed the point.

You are taking a half a season (2010-2011) of Carle without Pronger, and saying he did better without him. You then passingly refer to that as irrefutable fact.

However, when I used numbers from the Bourdon/Carle pairing you said that the sample size was too small to get an accurate picture. The sample size of the Bourdon/Carle pairing in 2011-2012 is virtually the same size as the sample of Carle without Pronger in 2010-2011.

Therefore by your reasoning, Carle's numbers from 2010-2011 without Pronger are not large enough a sample to draw any significant conclusions about his play. In which case, the point you and the article made on that subject is not well supported.

The sample of Carle playing with Pronger, 1 1/2 seasons, is now equal to his time without him. In his time with Pronger his numbers are much better. He has not performed better without him.

Lastly his numbers without Pronger have been mostly average. I showed this in my original post. You want to show his 2010-2011 season as elite, but don't want to look at the fact that he was average at best last season. Legit #2 Dmen are not average at best without a legit #1 to help make them better.
No, I'm quite aware that Carle's Season last year was not as good as it was in 10/11. I've made multiple statements that Carle was elite in ES play in 10/11. I've not made that statement of Carle's play in 11/12. So I'm obviously aware that Carle did not have as strong a Season this past Season, as he did the previous one. I've also posted multiple times, that Carle also led the NHL in Plus games in 10/11 while racking up a +30. He did not do as well in 11/12. Your not looking at all the metrics available. You don't finish in the top 20 in scoring among defenseman, and call it average. The article I posted points out how Carle had better numbers with Meszaros in 10/11 then he did with Pronger. So that disputes that Carle can't play to a high level without Pronger.
Also you also didn't get my point correctly about the sample size of games with Carle playing with Bourdon. That comment was in reference to some of Bourdon's number being better then Carle's. And about Bourdon's numbers, not Carle's numbers.
And also, surely you understand the difference between playing with a proven NHL defenseman as a partner, such as Pronger, Meszaros, and Timonen, and playing with a Rookie who has never played a full NHL Season. And is not established as a full time NHL player. And how that can effect the numbers.
The bottom line is that Carle has proven that he can be a solid compliment as a #2 defenseman, playing with a legitimate #1 defenseman. Take in the entire statement. Not just part of it. Is Carle a defenseman you'd want playing on a top pairing with an equal or lesser partner? No, you wouldn't. It's about the mix of players, and how they compliment each other when you build a defense. If Carle is going to be partnered with say a Grossmann, Meszaros, or Coburn. Then that would ideally be a 2nd pairing. Not a first pairing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan4life View Post
oh come on now... so not only is Carle a world beater D.men now hes gunna challenge roo aswell ???

is there no end to how high you will loft Carles abilities, i think NOT !!!

hahaha
Read back and comprehend what was said. At no time did I come even close to stating that Carle is going to challenge Giroux.

hahahaha

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:18 PM
  #220
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgar View Post
So called "facts" can be used in an effort to support an opinion, but sometimes there are other variables at play and other realities of the situation that may contradict those cited facts.


Let's take an example some statistical FACTS from a few years back...

In 2008-2009

Steve Eminger - 26 pts in 71 games
Matt Carle - 26 pts in 76 games

Steve Eminger - 12 PP pts in 71 games
Matt Carle - 8 PP pts in 76 games

These are FACTS that are indisputable.

A simple, suface level opinion based on those facts might be that Steve Eminger is more productive and thus more valuable than Matt Carle.

However, people familiar with the situation would likely come up with a very different opinion. They would know that Eminger was pressed into top pairing type minutes with a poor team that lacked depth in Tampa, even though he didn't really merit that type of role. They would be able to see both players on the ice with their own eyes and notice material differences in the quality of plays being made...things that don't necessarily show up on a stat sheet. This isn't that unlike how it may be with Matt Carle today. There are statistics that can be cited to compare Carle favorably with some of the top D men in the league, but those familiar with the situation know better. With Pronger out and Timonen banged up, Carle was thrust into playing a role over his head, as top minute guy for the Flyers. His minutes were inflated and, because he plays on a potent offensive team with lots of surrounding talent, his numbers were inflated accordingly. Should Matt Carle be a top minute guy on a good NHL team? No. Is Matt Carle as good as some of the top players in the league (for example, Ryan Suter) and paid as such? No.

Knowlegeable observers watching Carle's play night in and night out should be able to see the shortcomings in his game that may not show up on the stat sheet, but can surely impact the performance of his team. Things like his soft defensive play, poor gap control, defensive zone turnovers, the lack of ability to run a powerplay, a penchant for risky passes, a poor shot, etc. These are all things that should be part of the equation when evaluating his play and his value, instead of just focusing on selected statistical "facts" that make him look better than he is. It seems that some people here only want to focus on the statistical "facts" and discount, deny or ignore the other variables that don't support their own (inflated) view of the player. I favor the view that takes all the variables into consideration, those that show up on the stat sheet and those that don't.
The Flyers Coaches are familiar with the situation. They disagree with you. Paul Holmgren is familiar with the situation. He disagrees with you. The entire League disagrees with you.

And here's the kicker. If Carle was as bad as you say he is. It would show up in the stats. They aren't independant of each other.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:24 PM
  #221
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,748
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I thought you didn't value +/-? Carle was second on the Flyers defenseman in points scored. And he was ranked 20th in the NHL among all defenseman in points scored. That's 20th out of 180 regular defenseman in the NHL. But by all means, MAB, Kubina, Coburn, , Mez, and Gus, were all better offensively then Carle was.
No, I said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
+/- is a terrible comparison tool across teams. Within a team, it can be effective. The fact that you based this opinion largely on assists (boosted thanks to the offense and it's dominance for half the season) and +/- sinks your theory immediately. If he was so elite, why wasn't he in the Norris discussion?
It can be useful when looking at players on the same team and when taken with a grain of salt; hence why I provided other stats as well. Comparison across teams, not so much. Carle's +/- on the team isn't all that impressive, by the way. Just like his GFON/60 and GOFF/60 stats.

Do you deny that the stats I provided show that the Flyers scored more when Carle wasn't on the ice? If so, I should just stop wasting my time immediately.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:35 PM
  #222
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
No, I said this:



It can be useful when looking at players on the same team and when taken with a grain of salt; hence why I provided other stats as well. Comparison across teams, not so much. Carle's +/- on the team isn't all that impressive, by the way. Just like his GFON/60 and GOFF/60 stats.

Do you deny that the stats I provided show that the Flyers scored more when Carle wasn't on the ice? If so, I should just stop wasting my time immediately.
Stats don't lie. Only Braydon Coburn was on the ice for more goals scored for the Flyers, the Carle was. Coburn was on for 65 goals for, Carle was on for 62 goals for.


http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...4+25+26+27+28#

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:38 PM
  #223
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Wing or Retire!
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 36,748
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Stats don't lie. Only Braydon Coburn was on the ice for more goals scored for the Flyers, the Carle was. Coburn was on for 65 goals for, Carle was on for 62 goals for.


http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stati...4+25+26+27+28#
Stat's don't lie. The Flyers scored more goals overall when Carle was off the ice than on. Go sort by goals for and goals off, it's very clear. Carle had 23 minutes of ice time, so it was inevitable that he would be on the ice for goals. The issue is, when you extrapolate everyone's performance over a full 60 minutes it becomes clear that Carle wasn't terribly effective compared to what others were doing with their ice time.

Edit: Or rather, as effective as you claim.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:48 PM
  #224
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
Stat's don't lie. The Flyers scored more goals overall when Carle was off the ice than on. Go sort by goals for and goals off, it's very clear. Carle had 23 minutes of ice time, so it was inevitable that he would be on the ice for goals. The issue is, when you extrapolate everyone's performance over a full 60 minutes it becomes clear that Carle wasn't terribly effective compared to what others were doing with their ice time.

Edit: Or rather, as effective as you claim.
It's very clear that Carle produced offensively. In 5 on 5 play, only Coburn was on for more goals for. And Carle finished in the top 20 in points for NHL defenseman. How come it wasn't inevitable that Coburn racked up the same point totals? There wasn't much difference in ice time. Again, Carle got his points by accident. Just by being there! LOL

It's very clear that Carle was effective. Certainly not as effective as he was in 10/11. But definitely effective.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2012, 05:53 PM
  #225
Protest
C`est La Vie
 
Protest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deptford, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
No, I'm quite aware that Carle's Season last year was not as good as it was in 10/11. I've made multiple statements that Carle was elite in ES play in 10/11. I've not made that statement of Carle's play in 11/12. So I'm obviously aware that Carle did not have as strong a Season this past Season, as he did the previous one. I've also posted multiple times, that Carle also led the NHL in Plus games in 10/11 while racking up a +30. He did not do as well in 11/12. Your not looking at all the metrics available. You don't finish in the top 20 in scoring among defenseman, and call it average. The article I posted points out how Carle had better numbers with Meszaros in 10/11 then he did with Pronger. So that disputes that Carle can't play to a high level without Pronger.
It doesn't though because 1) he followed it up with a year of average defensive numbers, and secondary assists, and 2) the sample size was less than half a season.

Quote:
Also you also didn't get my point correctly about the sample size of games with Carle playing with Bourdon. That comment was in reference to some of Bourdon's number being better then Carle's. And about Bourdon's numbers, not Carle's numbers.
And also, surely you understand the difference between playing with a proven NHL defenseman as a partner, such as Pronger, Meszaros, and Timonen, and playing with a Rookie who has never played a full NHL Season. And is not established as a full time NHL player. And how that can effect the numbers.
My point still stands that if you can't draw anything out of Bourdon's numbers than you can't draw anything out of Carle's numbers in 2010-2011 when he wasn't with Pronger because the sample size is similar.

And we're going around in circles here. I'll keep saying, if Carle is the player you describe, the advanced stats would have shown him having a btter performance than he did.


Quote:
The bottom line is that Carle has proven that he can be a solid compliment as a #2 defenseman, playing with a legitimate #1 defenseman. Take in the entire statement. Not just part of it. Is Carle a defenseman you'd want playing on a top pairing with an equal or lesser partner? No, you wouldn't. It's about the mix of players, and how they compliment each other when you build a defense. If Carle is going to be partnered with say a Grossmann, Meszaros, or Coburn. Then that would ideally be a 2nd pairing. Not a first pairing
I mostly agree with this. However, you have to understand the way you describe him as a player, and this idea of him don't mesh.

Protest is offline   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 11:22 AM.

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.