HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Karlsson vs. Doughty vs. Pietrangelo (without a twist)

View Poll Results: Who is the best defenceman (in order):
Karlsson-Pietro-Doughty 85 18.24%
Karlsson-Doughty-Pietro 75 16.09%
Pietro-Karlsson-Doughty 70 15.02%
Pietro-Doughty-Karlsson 76 16.31%
Doughty-Karlsson-Pietro 57 12.23%
Doughty-Pietro-Karlsson 103 22.10%
Voters: 466. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 10:55 AM
  #376
swiftwin
#lalala
 
swiftwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny FTW View Post
What's with all this "East doesn't have any physicality" stuff?



Karlsson may not play a physical game but its not like he can't handle it.
lol, wat? Did Karlsson just muscle Big Buff off the puck then lead an off man rush the other way?

swiftwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:02 AM
  #377
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,996
vCash: 500
Some people here do make the false assumption that:

Overall: Player with weakness < player with no weakness

Potential: Player with weakness < player with no weakness.

In the first case, it's a case by case analysis, yeah I'd argue Karlsson's that much more gifted than the other two that it gets blurry. I don't have the equation to tell me what the actual answer is though. Just that if you're willing to give an answer like its gospel; you're kind of not smart.

In the second case, it's also a case by case, but when the reigning Norris winner is the one with the biggest weaknesses, at a discipline he's shown marked improvement from day 1 up until his last NHL game...well I'm not sure how confident you could be choosing anyone else as far as upside goes. The offensive aspect of the game is the one that gets the most value, it just is, it's the hardest to find and rarest to find in the quantities Karlsson's plays it with. Since that player has a weakness that is in the middle of improving vastly....you might wanna consider that ultimate upside at 21-22 going forward sides with the young offensive wizard that led the league's Dmen in takeaways.

I didn't need Karlsson to put up 78 points to say he was capable of a PPG in a season. I said it in his rookie year. Given the way they play and their talents, I couldn't say the same thing about the other two...they'd have to get pretty lucky and they'd need quite a bit of help. If Karlsson got the same help you may see him push 90...because that's how much he shoots, and that's how much he has the puck compared to the other two.


Last edited by Minister of Offence: 11-01-2012 at 11:07 AM.
Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:17 AM
  #378
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minimalist View Post
Karlsson


Now his faults. There are 2 very big ones. First is defensive positioning. Against a cycle, he just doesn't know what to do. His game is build around speed and stick checking, and when you're hemmed in, these tools while still useful come second place to defensive awareness and positioning. Controlling open ice. Man to man coverage. Knowing when to cover, when to rush, etc etc. I watched about 20 games last year, and he was badly out of position in every single one (actually, not true. He played one game in the playoffs where he wasn't completely out of position.)

In fact, he has become predictable. There is a set play I've seen teams use against him. You see, while he's standing out in front of the net on his corner, he'll just out of the blue rush someone at the top of the circles, even if there is a forward hanging down at the half boards or in the corner. So many times he'll rush, and whoever has it above the circles will dump it to the low man, who has a clear break to the net. Not only a clear break to the net, but it causes a systematic break down of the defensive system. Now everyone is rushing that side, which opens up lanes. Particularly to the opposing side pinching D. I've seen it nearly a dozen times in the games I watched. Now, yes, ideally if he rushes he should have his center moving down to cover him. But the problem is he is so sporadic and spontaneous... and fast, that there just isn't time. By the time Spezza realizes Karlsson's on the move, the puck is down low and they're driving the net.

So his positioning in the defensive zone, particularly against a cycle, is quite poor. Next is just dumb plays. He's young, and this problem will be a lot easier for him to correct than the prior one I mentioned. He just makes really dumb passes sometimes. Which, is a common problem among a lot of defensemen. So I'll just leave it there.
So what you're saying is despite being labelled the best Dman in the 2011-12 season he has a ton of room for improvement?

If you thought it was bad last year, you'd have been in stitches watching his rookie year. It's like we took a prodigal 13 year old hockey player off the streets who had never actually played hockey. Way outmatched in the NHL, to an embarrassing extent, but too good for the AHL on talent alone (he didn't need to know position). You don't see this kinda thing often. It's getting to the point that his defensive inadequacies are what they were in the AHL when he was 19...just something to nit pick at, but in the grand scheme of things it's just a spot he can improve on and get better overall with...but as far as overall impact goes his offense just smothers is.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:32 AM
  #379
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,406
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 Karlsson 5 View Post
your post was a fair assesment on all 3 players but.... If piets were out of hitchs system he would not score 70 pts there is a reason very little defenceman do this, and also if he was out of that system his defence would not be as good, correct me if i am wrong but the blues are a lot stonger defensive team as a whole then the sens
I don't understand the thought that Pietrangelo is essentially a product of the system. Niedermeyer wasn't a product when he left Jersey. Elite players are elite anywhere.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:44 AM
  #380
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minister of Offence View Post
In the first case, it's a case by case analysis, yeah I'd argue Karlsson's that much more gifted than the other two that it gets blurry. I don't have the equation to tell me what the actual answer is though. Just that if you're willing to give an answer like its gospel; you're kind of not smart.
See I don't know that I agree with this.

If we just look at ES for a minute, Karlsson had 50 ESP, Pietrangelo had 26 ESP.

That's 24 points in Karlsson's favour. Corrected for icetime, Karlsson would have 44 ESP if he played the same amount as Pietrangelo, so the point gap shrinks to 18 points.

That means Karlsson directly contributed to 18 more goals for than Pietrangelo did at ES.

Now if we look at GA, Karlsson was on the ice for 68 goals against, Pietrangelo 40. If you adjust for icetime, Karlsson was on the ice for 60 goals against. That shows a difference of 20 goals.

In other words, at least from an even-strength perspective, Karlsson would have had to be directly responsible (must in the same way that he was directly responsible for a goal for when he gets a goal or assist) for all of those additional goals scored against Ottawa while he was on the ice in order for us to be able to say that Pietrangelo was the better player.

I'll leave you to assess whether or not that's a reasonable assumption... This an aside from the fact that Ottawa's net goal differential at 5 on 5 was +8 and St. Louis' was +35 (that is, obviously Ottawa gets scored on more than they score when compared to St. Louis), and also aside from the obvious fact that Karlsson probably had a lot more "unrecorded assists" (ie. he contributed on the goal but didn't get an assist) than Pietrangelo had.

I don't know...I'm all for being reasonable and saying Pietrangelo is a fantastic, elite defenseman, but to say that Karlsson isn't a clear step ahead of him is wrong in my opinion.

I realize you're trying to be conservative here but...I think you're going overboard. Karlsson was clearly better than Pietrangelo and Doughty in the regular season this year, I have no doubt about this.

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:13 PM
  #381
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,406
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
See I don't know that I agree with this.

If we just look at ES for a minute, Karlsson had 50 ESP, Pietrangelo had 26 ESP.

That's 24 points in Karlsson's favour. Corrected for icetime, Karlsson would have 44 ESP if he played the same amount as Pietrangelo, so the point gap shrinks to 18 points.

That means Karlsson directly contributed to 18 more goals for than Pietrangelo did at ES.

Now if we look at GA, Karlsson was on the ice for 68 goals against, Pietrangelo 40. If you adjust for icetime, Karlsson was on the ice for 60 goals against. That shows a difference of 20 goals.

In other words, at least from an even-strength perspective, Karlsson would have had to be directly responsible (must in the same way that he was directly responsible for a goal for when he gets a goal or assist) for all of those additional goals scored against Ottawa while he was on the ice in order for us to be able to say that Pietrangelo was the better player.

I'll leave you to assess whether or not that's a reasonable assumption... This an aside from the fact that Ottawa's net goal differential at 5 on 5 was +8 and St. Louis' was +35 (that is, obviously Ottawa gets scored on more than they score when compared to St. Louis), and also aside from the obvious fact that Karlsson probably had a lot more "unrecorded assists" (ie. he contributed on the goal but didn't get an assist) than Pietrangelo had.

I don't know...I'm all for being reasonable and saying Pietrangelo is a fantastic, elite defenseman, but to say that Karlsson isn't a clear step ahead of him is wrong in my opinion.

I realize you're trying to be conservative here but...I think you're going overboard. Karlsson was clearly better than Pietrangelo and Doughty in the regular season this year, I have no doubt about this.
Again, you continue to use statistics to make the bulk of your argument, despite major variables being left unaccounted for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Karlsson is essentially the backbone of the Senators offense. He knows that he has to start the offense, and that is pretty much his main job on even strength. In St. Louis, in a defensive system, our defensemen are told to play defense first. Ottawa wins by outscoring the other team, and St. Louis wins by not allowing the other team to outscore us. That is the reason why the even strength statistics are different, for both goals for and goals against.

I love you you say it's obvious that he probably had more "3rd" assists. It's not obvious to anyone who isn't a Sens fan.

So, by your calculations Pietrangelo was +2 better during even strength, so I guess I should thank you on that one.

I don't understand why you brought up team goal differential. All that proves is that they Blues are better than the Senators and that we have a lot more depth. It has nothing to do with comparing 2 individual players.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:25 PM
  #382
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Again, you continue to use statistics to make the bulk of your argument, despite major variables being left unaccounted for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Karlsson is essentially the backbone of the Senators offense. He knows that he has to start the offense, and that is pretty much his main job on even strength. In St. Louis, in a defensive system, our defensemen are told to play defense first. Ottawa wins by outscoring the other team, and St. Louis wins by not allowing the other team to outscore us. That is the reason why the even strength statistics are different, for both goals for and goals against.
I don't see anything relevant in here.

Quote:
I love you you say it's obvious that he probably had more "3rd" assists. It's not obvious to anyone who isn't a Sens fan.
Oh my. Any fans from other teams want to chime in on this?

Quote:
So, by your calculations Pietrangelo was +2 better during even strength, so I guess I should thank you on that one.
If you assume Karlsson was directly responsible for every single additional goal scored on the Sens when he was on the ice compared to Pietrangelo? Yep. If you want to make that assumption, have at it.

Quote:
I don't understand why you brought up team goal differential. All that proves is that they Blues are better than the Senators and that we have a lot more depth. It has nothing to do with comparing 2 individual players.
Well you see, if Ottawa gets scored on a lot more than they score, let's assume for arguments sake that their net goal differential at ES was -30. It would be pretty reasonable to conclude that Karlsson's GA while on would be higher than Pietrangelo's for the simple fact that his team isn't as good (-30 vs St. Louis' +35). I'm just illustrating the fact that it seems Ottawa as a team allows a lot of goals against more than St. Louis does thus kind of refuting the idea that Karlsson was personally responsible for every incremental goal he allowed compared to Pietrangelo.

Make sense?

Another way to look at it is that Ottawa allowed 90 non-Karlsson goals. St. Louis allowed 62 non-Pietrangelo goals. In other words, Ottawa without Karlsson allowed 45% more goals than St. Louis without Pietrangelo. Ottawa with Karlsson allowed 70% more goals than St. Louis with Pietrangelo did. In other words, Karlsson allowed approximately 10 goals more than Pietrangelo that could potentially be attributed to him. That's really the most aggressive estimate as to how many goals against Karlsson could have directly caused more than Pietrangelo. (Note: this also disregards the fact that Karlsson played far more at ES than Pietrangelo did)

Also of interest is that Ottawa's non-Karlsson goals for was 116 while St.Louis' non-Pietrangelo goals were 111 (ES).

Again, it's not like I'm tearing Pietrangelo down. I think he's a top 5 defenseman in the NHL, I just find it hard to accept the fact that people can't see the overwhelming amount of statistics that show Karlsson was a better player this year than Pietrangelo.

I realize you hate statistics and everything, but they are overwhelmingly in Karlsson's favour, as is the Norris, as are the all-time greats' reviews of his play, as are the Sens fans' assessments...it's not a coincidence man.

EDIT: Again, I'm not advocating that the statistics are perfect, but no matter which way you look at it, it seems they continue to relay the same message: Karlsson was better than Pietrangelo last year.


Last edited by Sureves: 11-01-2012 at 12:37 PM.
Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:44 PM
  #383
Micklebot
Registered User
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Again, you continue to use statistics to make the bulk of your argument, despite major variables being left unaccounted for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Karlsson is essentially the backbone of the Senators offense. He knows that he has to start the offense, and that is pretty much his main job on even strength. In St. Louis, in a defensive system, our defensemen are told to play defense first. Ottawa wins by outscoring the other team, and St. Louis wins by not allowing the other team to outscore us. That is the reason why the even strength statistics are different, for both goals for and goals against.

I love you you say it's obvious that he probably had more "3rd" assists. It's not obvious to anyone who isn't a Sens fan.

So, by your calculations Pietrangelo was +2 better during even strength, so I guess I should thank you on that one.

I don't understand why you brought up team goal differential. All that proves is that they Blues are better than the Senators and that we have a lot more depth. It has nothing to do with comparing 2 individual players.
read a little closer; he said you would have to assume Karlsson was directly responsible (he even bolded that part) for all the goals against while he was on the ice for Pietrangelo to have a better net impact at ES.

I'm not sure that's a fair way to compare them, as neither player was directly responsible for every goal against while on the ice; but his calculation inhearently benefits a defensive player, as it gives full value for goals against while on the ice (the lower the better) and only partial value for goals for on the ice (the player needed to get a point).

Micklebot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:47 PM
  #384
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,406
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
I don't see anything relevant in here.

If you assume Karlsson was directly responsible for every single additional goal scored on the Sens when he was on the ice compared to Pietrangelo? Yep. If you want to make that assumption, have at it.

Well you see, if Ottawa gets scored on a lot more than they score, let's assume for arguments sake that their net goal differential at ES was -30. It would be pretty reasonable to conclude that Karlsson's GA while on would be higher than Pietrangelo's for the simple fact that his team isn't as good (-30 vs St. Louis' +35). I'm just illustrating the fact that it seems Ottawa as a team allows a lot of goals against more than St. Louis does thus kind of refuting the idea that Karlsson was personally responsible for every incremental goal he allowed compared to Pietrangelo.

Make sense?

Also of interest is that Ottawa's non-Karlsson goals for was 116 while St.Louis' non-Pietrangelo goals were 111.

Again, it's not like I'm tearing Pietrangelo down. I think he's a top 5 defenseman in the NHL, I just find it hard to accept the fact that people can't see the overwhelming amount of statistics that show Karlsson was a better player this year than Pietrangelo.

I realize you hate statistics and everything, but they are overwhelmingly in Karlsson's favour, as is the Norris, as are the all-time greats' reviews of his play, as are the Sens fans' assessments...it's not a coincidence man.
The beginning is quite simple, and very relevant. During even strength, Karlsson is relied upon to create offense and Pietrangelo is relied upon to prevent goals from being scored. This is how they are used to get the most out of them by their respective teams. If Pietrangelo played in an offensive system, you could see his numbers shift a little bit.

Watching Pietrangelo play night in and night out, it is clear that the coaching staff holds him back at times because of the system, and there is nothing wrong with that. We keep our defensemen at the blue line on offense for the transition game. Late in games when it is tied or we are down, you will see Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk paired together, and you will also see Pietrangelo deeply involved in the play.

No one has ever said that Karlsson was personally responsible for every goal against. If we assume he wasn't, then we must assume Pietrangelo wasn't either. That's a pretty easy assumption to make considering that Kuba and Colaiacovo were their partners. Thus all the goals against statistics you brought up are essentially useless, unless you or someone else wants to spend hours dissecting every single goal against that they were on the ice for. No one here is paid enough to do that.

Again, I don't hate statistics, but I don't think they should be the backbone of an argument, especially when simple hockey logic can explain them away. I love these circular arguments.

Edit: The only definitive conclusion about your statistics, is that they can be interpreted in multiple different ways. It is not overwhelming, obvious, or clear that they show the same message.


Last edited by bleedblue1223: 11-01-2012 at 12:53 PM.
bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:51 PM
  #385
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,406
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
read a little closer; he said you would have to assume Karlsson was directly responsible (he even bolded that part) for all the goals against while he was on the ice for Pietrangelo to have a better net impact at ES.

I'm not sure that's a fair way to compare them, as neither player was directly responsible for every goal against while on the ice; but his calculation inhearently benefits a defensive player, as it gives full value for goals against while on the ice (the lower the better) and only partial value for goals for on the ice (the player needed to get a point).
Yep, I went over that again on my next post. Either we assume that they were responsible for every goal against or we assume that they both were not responsible for every goal against. Either Pietrangelo has the advantage or the statistic is useless. Notice why I think statistics are a bad way of comparing individuals.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 01:00 PM
  #386
Micklebot
Registered User
 
Micklebot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Yep, I went over that again on my next post. Either we assume that they were responsible for every goal against or we assume that they both were not responsible for every goal against. Either Pietrangelo has the advantage or the statistic is useless. Notice why I think statistics are a bad way of comparing individuals.
Again, the point is the calculation inhearently favours the defensive aspect of the game. If the gap between their respective defensive games is as wide as most here seem to indicate, it's a marvel that Karlsson is as close to Pietrangelo as he is in the comparisson. He purposfully made it a worse case comparisson for Karlsson.

Micklebot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 01:06 PM
  #387
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,406
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micklebot View Post
Again, the point is the calculation inhearently favours the defensive aspect of the game. If the gap between their respective defensive games is as wide as most here seem to indicate, it's a marvel that Karlsson is as close to Pietrangelo as he is in the comparisson. He purposfully made it a worse case comparisson for Karlsson.
The difference was a net, combination of offense and defense, and Pietrangelo was +2. If Karlsson's offensive game was so much better, it's a marvel that Pietrangelo was able to make up for it defensively. Both had terrible defensive partners, so it is clear that neither were at fault for every goal against. So either the stat is useless, someone dissects every goal against, or we roughly assume that they were at fault for a similar proportion of the goals against, that would result in Pietrangelo once again being ahead in differential.

The only logical conclusion is to determine that the statistic is useless, as you can't make a clear and definitive conclusion. The only conclusion that can be made if you think that statistic still works is a good deduction/assumption.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 01:35 PM
  #388
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
The beginning is quite simple, and very relevant. During even strength, Karlsson is relied upon to create offense and Pietrangelo is relied upon to prevent goals from being scored. This is how they are used to get the most out of them by their respective teams. If Pietrangelo played in an offensive system, you could see his numbers shift a little bit.
Right, so Pietrangelo's defensive numbers look better (GA) because he's focusing on playing defense, and Karlsson's offensive numbers look better (Points) because he's focusing on playing offense. These are both reflected in their GA and points and for that reason, my analysis captures that. What you said isn't wrong, it's just not relevant to what I posted since that's precisely what the numbers are capturing.

Quote:
Watching Pietrangelo play night in and night out, it is clear that the coaching staff holds him back at times because of the system, and there is nothing wrong with that. We keep our defensemen at the blue line on offense for the transition game. Late in games when it is tied or we are down, you will see Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk paired together, and you will also see Pietrangelo deeply involved in the play.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Because of the times Pietrangelo is focusing on playing defense, I'd expect his GA to be lower than Karlsson's GA (who is focusing on scoring). Similarly, when he's playing with Shattenkirk late in the game and trying to score, I'd expect that to be captured in his point totals. Again, that's precisely what the analysis is evaluating.

Quote:
No one has ever said that Karlsson was personally responsible for every goal against. If we assume he wasn't, then we must assume Pietrangelo wasn't either. That's a pretty easy assumption to make considering that Kuba and Colaiacovo were their partners. Thus all the goals against statistics you brought up are essentially useless, unless you or someone else wants to spend hours dissecting every single goal against that they were on the ice for. No one here is paid enough to do that.
Sure, obviously neither of them is fully responsible for every GA allowed while they were on the ice, that's insane and I'm glad we agree. So the question is, why is Pietrangelo's goals against not much better than Karlsson's (relative to Karlsson's point advantage)? It should be if he's better defensively, no? And it is better...much better in fact, just not "better enough" to make up for Karlsson's torrid advantage in point-getting.

The only way it is true is if you assume Karlsson was in fact responsible for all of the incremental goals he allowed while on the ice relative to Pietrangelo, which as we both seem to agree, is ridiculous.

Quote:
Again, I don't hate statistics, but I don't think they should be the backbone of an argument, especially when simple hockey logic can explain them away. I love these circular arguments.
This is an interesting point. In an ideal world you're absolutely correct. You and I could have an identical hockey knowledge expertise, watch all 82 games of the other player, and have the same level of critical thinking.

Because we don't, I need to try and justify why I believe I am right and why I believe Karlsson is a clear step ahead of Pietrangelo as an overall player. Because those ideal conditions are never met, I have to rely on statistics to support my belief.

Again, I do not believe that it's a coincidence that every single way you slice the ES statistics, Karlsson comes out ahead. I mean come on, even if I was trying to prove Pietrangelo was better than Karlsson, you know where I would go first to prove that? I'd look at his +/- ON relative to Karlsson and say "look, he's got a better +/- than Karlson, that suggests he's better".

It would be a very bad argument with tons of holes because St. Louis is a MUCH better team (+35 goal differential vs. +8 for Ottawa at 5 on 5) but if that was true, I could at least cover my ears with my hands and yell that "the stats show Pietrangelo is overall better than Karlsson", and you know what? I would really strongly disagree with that, but the fact remains that in a metric that measures overall ability, Petro beats Karlsson.

The problem is, even if I chose that ridiculous statistic to use as my claim that Petro was better than Karlsson: it doesn't hold.

Karlsson's +/- on 60 is 0.82 vs Petro's 0.42! Even selecting the most Petro-favourable number I could pick, it still comes out largely in favour of Karlsson!

Linemates you say? His most comment linemates were Spezza, Michalek, Greening, Alfy, Foligno, Condra, Turris, Smith, Neil in that order.

Here are their +/- on 60:

Spezza: 0.68
Michalek: 0.43
Greening: -0.11
Alfy: 0.91
Foligno: 0.29
Condra: 0.53
Turris: 0.68
Smith: 0.20
Neil: -0.38

The weighted average by ice time of those players give Karlsson an expected +/- on 60 of +0.39. Karlsson crushes that, suggesting he really is making a huge positive difference.

And Pietrangelo?

Backes: 0.73
Oshie: 0.67
Berglund: 0.11
Perron: 1.11
Stewart: 0
Sobotka: 0.58
Langenbrunner: 0.54
Arnott: 1.15
Steen: 2.26

Weighted average of +0.72!

I mean it's just insanity. Again, this is the metric I would specifically pick to suggest Pietrangelo is better than Karlsson: honest to God it is.

Karlsson has a +0.82 ON despite playing on a team that is +8 at ES, while Pietrangelo is at +0.42 on a team that is +35 at ES! Karlsson destroys him.

Then, if we want to go the teammate route, we see that Karlsson's +/- "should" be +0.39 based on his teammates, but in reality he is +0.43HIGHER than that at +0.82!

And Pietrangelo "should" be at +0.72 but he's actually 0.30 LOWER than that at +0.42!

The one stat I would pick - despite the fact that it's totally unfair to Karlsson and puts him at a SERIOUS disadvantage because he's on such a worse team, he still blows Pietrangelo out of the water.

I could go on for days (and have) with more Karlsson-favourable metrics to look at which are less favourable for Pietrangelo and get even more drastic results.

There's just no way you can show me that at the overall game of hockey, Pietrangelo was better than Karlsson this year: you cannot.

I invite you to prove me wrong.

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 01:41 PM
  #389
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
The difference was a net, combination of offense and defense, and Pietrangelo was +2. If Karlsson's offensive game was so much better, it's a marvel that Pietrangelo was able to make up for it defensively. Both had terrible defensive partners, so it is clear that neither were at fault for every goal against. So either the stat is useless, someone dissects every goal against, or we roughly assume that they were at fault for a similar proportion of the goals against, that would result in Pietrangelo once again being ahead in differential..
But it wouldn't. If we assume both are only partially responsible for each goal against (say arbitrarily 25% responsible) than Karlsson is ahead again...in fact, he's ahead at all times unless you assume that they are both 90%+ responsible for every goal against...

Might have wanted to crunch the numbers there before saying that

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 01:53 PM
  #390
Twilight Sparkle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 434
vCash: 500
Doughty and Pietrangelo were not very effective this year. Powerplay aside. Talent aside.

They were a class below Weber, Chara and Karlsson.

Twilight Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:07 PM
  #391
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,406
vCash: 50
Bro, you are the one that said the difference between Karlsson and Pietrangelo during even strength when adjusted for ice time, is Pietrangelo at +2. Advantage Pietrangelo, yet you are using that to say Karlsson has the advantage. If you want to fully validate your statistic, watch every goal against that they were on the ice for and determine who was at fault. If you do that, you might as well look at all of their 2nd assists and determine if they actually contributed to the goal or not.

Now you want to compare the +/- to the forwards they played with? Did Karlsson or Pietrangelo play every minute with those players when they achieved those numbers? No, so once again it is flawed.

Statistical arguments pretty much only work in baseball, because the statistics are completely individual.

This is why scouts continue to use tape and film. Moneyball was a cute film, but there is a reason that the practice that they used did not go mainstream around the majors.

The is not clear better player between Pietrangelo, Karlsson, and Doughty. This entire discussion is either about homers and people that prefer a certain style. I would take Pietrangelo or Lidstrom over anyone because I prefer that type of style, and I despise everything that is the Detroit Red Wings, and I can't wait till Detroit plays without Lidstrom. That's the style I prefer. You prefer Karlsson, either because that's the style you prefer or because you are an Ottawa fan, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Hell, if I could have an ideal center, it would be Datsyuk, and I'm pretty sure I just threw up in my mouth typing that.

This issue is like discussing politics. No Republican will be able to convince a Democrat that the trickle-down method works. There is no chance that you will be able to change the minds of the people that pick Pietrangelo or Doughty, and all hope for a reasonable discussion was lost somewhere in January or February.


Last edited by bleedblue1223: 11-01-2012 at 02:13 PM.
bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:13 PM
  #392
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 23,406
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twilight Sparkle View Post
Doughty and Pietrangelo were not very effective this year. Powerplay aside. Talent aside.

They were a class below Weber, Chara and Karlsson.
Right, Pietrangelo didn't lead a record setting defense or anything.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:22 PM
  #393
Sureves
Registered User
 
Sureves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 7,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Bro, you are the one that said the difference between Karlsson and Pietrangelo during even strength when adjusted for ice time, is Pietrangelo at +2. Advantage Pietrangelo, yet you are using that to say Karlsson has the advantage.
What I said was, if in fact Karlsson was directly responsible for every single one of the incremental goals allowed with respect to Pietrangelo, then in fact, Pietrangelo would have made a +2 net positive difference over Karlsson this year.

You yourself have already stated that that is a ridiculous assumption, and you are correct. The idea that Pietrangelo had a better year than Karlsson at an overall ES level is strictly unsupportable by statistics unless you want to accept that view - one that you yourself have admitted is wrong.

Quote:
Now you want to compare the +/- to the forwards they played with? Did Karlsson or Pietrangelo play every minute with those players when they achieved those numbers? No, so once again it is flawed.
If you want to live in a world where statistics need to be PERFECT for them to hold weight in an argument, you my friend are in for a rough run during your stay on Planet Earth.

The point is this. I said in January that Karlsson had a real shot at the Norris and all of you Blues fans laughed at me (and other Sens fans) because it was such a ridiculous concept, and you couldn't wait til he wasn't nominated.

You were wrong.

Then when he was nominated and I said he deserved to win it, but probably wouldn't due to politics, still you guys laughed and said not a chance.

You were wrong.

Then you guys went on and on about how he didn't deserve the Norris, how what the alltime greats said was irrelevant, what other players and coaches said were irrelevant, what Sens fans said was irrelevant, what I said was irrelevant.

And now you say that statistics are imperfect so they hold no support to my argument.

I just don't know what else to show you to illustrate that you're wrong about this...everything I give, and everything that happens seem to be rejected by your camp because you don't like the conclusion it suggests.

You reject the statistics simply because they don't support Pietrangelo and that's true and you know it. Just because there is no statistics out there which suggest Pietrangelo is better at the overall game of hockey than Karlsson doesn't mean you should refuse to consider their conclusions since you won't watch all 82 Sens games.

There are plenty of statistics that show that Pietrangelo is better defensively than Karlsson, and guess what? He is.

There are plenty of statistics that show Karlsson is better offensively than Pietrangelo, and guess what? He is.

There are plenty of statistics that show that Karlsson is better overall than Pietrangelo (last year at least) and not a single statistic which suggests that Pietrangelo is as good as Karlsson, and guess what? He isn't.

Again, fantastic defenseman: top 5 in the league, but he is a clear step behind Karlsson and everything supports it.

Sureves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:25 PM
  #394
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves View Post
See I don't know that I agree with this.

If we just look at ES for a minute, Karlsson had 50 ESP, Pietrangelo had 26 ESP.

That's 24 points in Karlsson's favour. Corrected for icetime, Karlsson would have 44 ESP if he played the same amount as Pietrangelo, so the point gap shrinks to 18 points.

That means Karlsson directly contributed to 18 more goals for than Pietrangelo did at ES.

Now if we look at GA, Karlsson was on the ice for 68 goals against, Pietrangelo 40. If you adjust for icetime, Karlsson was on the ice for 60 goals against. That shows a difference of 20 goals.

In other words, at least from an even-strength perspective, Karlsson would have had to be directly responsible (must in the same way that he was directly responsible for a goal for when he gets a goal or assist) for all of those additional goals scored against Ottawa while he was on the ice in order for us to be able to say that Pietrangelo was the better player.

I'll leave you to assess whether or not that's a reasonable assumption... This an aside from the fact that Ottawa's net goal differential at 5 on 5 was +8 and St. Louis' was +35 (that is, obviously Ottawa gets scored on more than they score when compared to St. Louis), and also aside from the obvious fact that Karlsson probably had a lot more "unrecorded assists" (ie. he contributed on the goal but didn't get an assist) than Pietrangelo had.

I don't know...I'm all for being reasonable and saying Pietrangelo is a fantastic, elite defenseman, but to say that Karlsson isn't a clear step ahead of him is wrong in my opinion.

I realize you're trying to be conservative here but...I think you're going overboard. Karlsson was clearly better than Pietrangelo and Doughty in the regular season this year, I have no doubt about this.
Don't have any problem objectively stating that he had a better year last year. He did, under plenty of measures.

Minus playoffs.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:25 PM
  #395
Benny FTW
[yt]M6PbdJiAK84[/yt]
 
Benny FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,797
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Right, Pietrangelo didn't lead a record setting defense or anything.
Stop trying to credit Pietrangelo with a team accomplishment.

Benny FTW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:28 PM
  #396
Anidalife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Bro, you are the one that said the difference between Karlsson and Pietrangelo during even strength when adjusted for ice time, is Pietrangelo at +2. Advantage Pietrangelo, yet you are using that to say Karlsson has the advantage. If you want to fully validate your statistic, watch every goal against that they were on the ice for and determine who was at fault. If you do that, you might as well look at all of their 2nd assists and determine if they actually contributed to the goal or not.

Now you want to compare the +/- to the forwards they played with? Did Karlsson or Pietrangelo play every minute with those players when they achieved those numbers? No, so once again it is flawed.

Statistical arguments pretty much only work in baseball, because the statistics are completely individual.

This is why scouts continue to use tape and film. Moneyball was a cute film, but there is a reason that the practice that they used did not go mainstream around the majors.

The is not clear better player between Pietrangelo, Karlsson, and Doughty. This entire discussion is either about homers and people that prefer a certain style. I would take Pietrangelo or Lidstrom over anyone because I prefer that type of style, and I despise everything that is the Detroit Red Wings, and I can't wait till Detroit plays without Lidstrom. That's the style I prefer. You prefer Karlsson, either because that's the style you prefer or because you are an Ottawa fan, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Hell, if I could have an ideal center, it would be Datsyuk, and I'm pretty sure I just threw up in my mouth typing that.

This issue is like discussing politics. No Republican will be able to convince a Democrat that the trickle-down method works. There is no chance that you will be able to change the minds of the people that pick Pietrangelo or Doughty, and all hope for a reasonable discussion was lost somewhere in January or February.
You've made some decent arguments for your side, and I won't try to argue your other opinion points in this post right now, but please rethink what you said in bold. This is a factual mistake

Sureves gave out two almost unrelated number, 18 in points and 20 in goals while on ice, separately, and you're the one that decided to add them together and come up with a +2 in the end. This makes as much sense as saying Karlsson has 18 apples and Pietrangelo has 20 oranges, therefore Pietrangelo has 2 more bananas than Karlsson. It was pointed out to you by multiple people that you're interpreting the stat wrong, yet you continue to deny it.

If you want to add two number together, take goals for while on ice and goals against while on ice. (I'm sure Sureves could provide those numbers. ) That would at least make some sense. That should give you a better understanding of both players' contributions than this +2 you keep referring to.

Anidalife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:28 PM
  #397
Minister of Offence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny FTW View Post
Stop trying to credit Pietrangelo with a team accomplishment.
An accomplishment that goalies almost always receive the most credit.

Minister of Offence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:28 PM
  #398
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny FTW View Post
Stop trying to credit Pietrangelo with a team accomplishment.
You have to give credit to anyone who make Elliot look good, never mind an all-star!

HavlatMach9 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:31 PM
  #399
Twilight Sparkle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Right, Pietrangelo didn't lead a record setting defense or anything.
Lead? His defense stats were average on his team. Worse than average by 2% actually.

Jackman and Shattenkirk were more effective this year. I hope pietrangelo recovers to 2010/2011 shape next season.

Was it Colaiacovo's fault Pietrangelo had a down year? Maybe, hopefully. Is it Hitchcock's fault? maybe. His own fault? probably has to shoulder some blame.

Twilight Sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 02:32 PM
  #400
Benny FTW
[yt]M6PbdJiAK84[/yt]
 
Benny FTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,797
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HavlatMach9 View Post
You have to give credit to anyone who make Elliot look good, never mind an all-star!
Yup but that credit goes to Hitchcock.

Benny FTW 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 11:30 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.