Fan Poll: Which Team will Win the Western Conference in 2010-11?
by Hawerchuk on Aug 27, 2010 9:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintVote early!
99 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Heh, you should know as well as anyone that the better team doesn’t always win (coughPenscough).
I didn’t see Edmonton or Colorado, so I contemplated Vancouver, Chicago, and San Jose. After deciding that it’s not great odds to go to the SCF two years in a row, do better than you did last year after losing a top-pair D, and have career goal scoring years from all your top goal scorers and expect to be better, I picked LA.
but what about the Red Wings?
Hawerchuk, I’m not going to vote because I’m slightly superstitious about predicting things for the season, but don’t you think the picture you chose is slightly leading? ;)
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
by chiblackhawks on Aug 27, 2010 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Hard call - everyone has question marks
I went with the Hawks – lots of questions with the offseason turnover, but the Hawks still have their top 4 D back (by ice time) and keep Kane, Toews, Sharp, and Hossa up front, so they’ve still got a lot of talent at the top-end.
I also have a bias towards teams that stay out of the box … San Jose and Vancouver are among the teams that give up the most powerplays – that’s not a formula for success in the playoffs when you consider the power plays of the top teams.
San Jose. They’re always there in the top two, right up until the second round hits.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
For that matter, I don’t get the LA picks. Their D looks great, yeah, but Jon Quick ain’t exactly leading you to the promised land, at least not based on his performance to date. Plus, I think they could go for some scoring depth, given the injury history in their top six.
But yeah, seriously, other 23%. Are you just picking your favourite team, or do you really think that this time Sutter’s found the magic and it’s ’04 redux?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
but Jon Quick ain’t exactly leading you to the promised land,
All they have to do is get in, and have him get hot (or lucky, whichever term you prefer) Happens all the time, with no way to reliably predict it.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 27, 2010 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
For that matter, I don’t get the LA picks. Their D looks great, yeah, but Jon Quick ain’t exactly leading you to the promised land, at least not based on his performance to date.
Antti Niemi?
Plus, I think they could go for some scoring depth, given the injury history in their top six.
I have no idea what Lombardi will do, but LA has plenty of prospect depth that they can afford to trade for “now” pieces (at least, I think they can afford to). I’m guessing they’ll address some of those weaknesses they have, and I think they have the cap room too.
by red army line on Aug 27, 2010 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Antti Niemi?
I think that would work fine. I’m not sure if Lombardi will consider going that way, or if he’ll prefer to go with Quick & Bernier and let the cards fall where they may. Depends on if he decides that This Is The Year. Given his pursuit of Kovalchuk, he may very well feel that way.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Eh, not what I meant. I tried to use Niemi as a counterexample. “Their D looks great”—> kind of stacked, maybe not to CHI extent. If they can control shots somewhat like Chicago then they should be good to go.
by red army line on Aug 31, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Ah, gotcha.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
I went with Chicago, but re: your Flames comment, I do have a gut feeling they’ll do pretty well this year. Could just be my IBS, but we’ll have to wait and see.
by SmellOfVictory on Aug 27, 2010 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Yes, it’s my favorite team. But yes, I believe they have the ability to play with any team in the league, and can take it all now there’s no slackers and a new energetic Captain. Ask a Blackhawk who the toughest team was for them to play in the playoffs last year…
I went with the Sharks. Less questions than the Hawks. In fact, the Wings might overtake the Hawks again for the Central this year, all things depending.
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
I really wish the (to date) 24 people picking another team would let us know who they are selecting. Because I really don’t see another team even being in the running.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
I can kind of get Phoenix since they finished high in the standings (not saying I buy them, just more than, say, Minnesota) and I kind of get Nashville since if Rinne gets hot it’ll be extremely tough to score on them and they have good scoring depth.
by red army line on Aug 27, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Scoring depth? Not the Predators, surely. Lombardi and Kostitsyn (maybe) are upgrades, but I’m still not horribly impressed.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
They have maximum one top end forward, but they had 10 players hit 30 points. I think of those only Dumont had a really high sh%
by red army line on Aug 31, 2010 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Right, but depth is of limited utility if they can’t put up decent numbers. I mean, the top end was 51 points last year. I realize it’s not all about the counting stats, but holy hell.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Personally, as of today, I have the Wings as the favorite. They had a lot of injuries last year, several players had down years, and they still managed to have great underlying numbers. I think Lidstrom-Rafalski and Zetterberg and Datsyuk form as good of a core in the NHL, and the additions of Modano and Hudler adds to a very impressive collection of depth.
With that said, I’d take the field over them b/c the odds would be better. But, if I was forced to pick one team, then it would be the Wings.
What are you asking? To name the best team? To predict the reg season 1st place team? To predict the Campbell bowl winner?
heh, zing. I think Pitts can play with any of these teams though.
by Passive Voice on Aug 28, 2010 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
San Jose and Detroit have really terrific forwards. Chicago too, though that bottom six might kill them. Of the three, San Jose has the best goalie. So I pick them.
Nittymaki better than Howard or Turco? Clearly you jest.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 27, 2010 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Why do you think Turco is worse than Niittymaki? Turco’s EV save percentage has been better in three of the last four seasons, and his puckhandling likely eliminates a small percentage of shots against and DZ FO’s as well. Given the uncertainty around Howard’s true level of ability, I think Turco is probably the best bet of the three.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 28, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe the value of save percentage from four seasons ago has almost zero predictive value, particularly for a 35-year-old goalie. Even if they’ve had equal SV% over the last three years, Niittymaki’s projection for next season has to be better than Turco’s. Plus – and purely subjective here – Turco seems to be colossally unaware of his shortcomings.
You can correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you usually use a four-year sample when determining goaltender ability? I understand that Niittymaki’s 2006-07 looks like an outlier, but Turco’s 2008-09 is no different (ten points worse than any other season post-lockout). If you throw out each guy’s “bad year” and combine the other three of the last four, Turco’s EV Sv% is .923, compared to Niittymaki’s .921. Age is a concern for Turco, but that’s balanced out by the fact that he’s a superior puck-handler which helps with shot prevention. Whether Turco’s aware of his shortcomings seems kind of irrelevant, since if he’s that way now, he’s probably always been that way. I don’t see why it would impact his performance more next season than any other.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 4:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I was actually using 5 years of data, but someone convinced me 3 years was as far back as I should go. Also, the Sharks – by signing Niittymaki – are claiming that year-4 doesn’t matter. Otherwise he’s replacement level.
I also think we may be underestimating his ability a little bit – Tampa is just so freaking bad on defense that they appear to have allowed tougher scoring chances.
Also, the Sharks – by signing Niittymaki – are claiming that year-4 doesn’t matter. Otherwise he’s replacement level.
And what did the Oilers’ signing of Khabibulin say about how far back to go? I realize that the Sharks are a much (MUCH) better team at evaluating talent, but a study that looked at whether one, two, three, four, five, or all years was the better predictor would probably be the way to go. Did you do a study like that when you first settled on five years?
Tampa is just so freaking bad on defense that they appear to have allowed tougher scoring chances.
This is really interesting. Did you find some data that points in this direction?
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 30, 2010 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, seems the Sharks are signing Niemi. So this conversation suddenly goes a bit sideways.
Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Sep 1, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
If true, Gabe’s appeal to authority doesn’t look quite as good :)
by Scott Reynolds on Sep 1, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Howard’s EV save % is good at .925, but he was helped out tremendously by some good fortune with his special teams save %. That is highly likely to regress and his overall numbers should, as well. His numbers in the minors were not that great, either. He probably could end up being a league average goalie or so long term. And, considering how little they spend on goalies, that is probably all the Wings expect out of that position. But, I doubt he ends up being any better than that.
And Nittymaki is no better than a league average goalie himself, and he’s had years to establish himself as such. He’s been mostly a career backup, or no more than a co-#1, I don’t see how he suddenly becomes the best goalie here.
I applaud SJ for not overpaying for goaltending, but that doesn’t mean the guy they signed is a suddenly a stud.
Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 28, 2010 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the Craig Anderson dilemma.
How Niittymaki is perceived has little to do with his true value. Michael Leighton sucks, got released mid-season, and then picked up a multi-year deal. Turco stunk up the joint but was signed to a long-term deal. I’m sure Dallas would have released him years ago if not for the price tag.
The difference between these guys is tiny (although Leighton really sucks).
Anyways, Greiss is a pimp. Let’s not forget what he should be able to do in SJ.
you’ve mentioned greiss before…how come you like him so much?
by Passive Voice on Aug 29, 2010 2:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what you mean by the “Anderson dilemma,” but Anderson and Niittymaki are quite different situations. Before being signed last year Anderson had put up a combined .936 EV Sv% over three years (1250 shots), compared to only .921 over the last three years for Niittymaki (2265 shots). A four year sample demolishes both guys. Anderson had also never been given a starting job, so there was more (positive) uncertainty, whereas Niittymaki has had a lot more reps, and unless he’s made significant improvement (which is possible), has come up as about average over the long haul.
I’m also a bit confused by your confidence in Greiss. His AHL numbers are pretty bad and he hasn’t done much at the NHL level yet.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 29, 2010 4:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. Anderson had all of 88 career starts before last year. Nittymaki’s had more than twice that (and is two years older than last year’s Anderson), it would seem his value is more established than Anderson’s was.
Greiss…eh? SJ does have the best backup of the 3 teams, at least in theory. I just don’t see how they have the best goalie, subjectively or objectively.
Camp Torturella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
Blueshirt Banter - "ARISTH"-Assuming Redden is sent to Hartford
Twitter: RangerSmurf
by George E. Ays on Aug 29, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Detroit plainly has the best top pairing. Chicago’s got Keith but man their D2-8 houses some of the most overrated mediocre-to-shit hockey players in the entire league. Still, CHI has a nice top 6 and so the D will piggy back on that.
San Jose keeps doing what they’ve always done, they pay RH shots like Boyle to play PP minutes and said RH shots deliver. They plainly do not have an EV difference-maker like Lidstrom or Keith but one wonders if they need it, their forwards are just so damn good.
I really like the Wings in the West. I’d like them better if they had a second non-Osgood goaltender, but I think they’ve got great depth at forward and on defense. I’d be kind of surprised if Chicago repeats as division champs.
by Scott Reynolds on Aug 28, 2010 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the wings too. I nick them because they play in the best division in the league (though they’ve always done well regardless) plus Howard has close to no track record.
But damn their top 2F and top 2D are as good as anybody.
Their whole forward group is great. They’ve got a very strong top nine, and some of the guys below that would be able to step into more ice time without too much difficulty.
by Scott Reynolds on Sep 1, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I would dispute, btw, that SJ keeps doing what they’ve always been doing. They used to (as late as mid 2008-09) run a checking line with sheltered ice time for Thornton et al. They had mediocre goaltending but dominated shots. They’ve moved to Power-vs-Power now.
I see that you're a Flames fan
And I’m sorry that you have so much pent up anger from the sub-par play of Phaneuf and Bouwmeester last year. You’re clearly misdirecting it towards the Blackhawks’ D corps.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Aug 31, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
How exactly is my comment “mouth-breathing”? You took a jab at Chicago’s D, I took a jab at Calgary’s D. It’s what sports fans do. Take it easy, and good luck next season!
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 1, 2010 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Since BtN isn’t biased in coverage towards any one team (unless they’re showing interesting trends like Corsi dominance or high team shooting percentage) I don’t think that’s the way Hawerchuk wants things done here.
by red army line on Sep 1, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
All I really ask for is evidence – when you join the site, you agree to provide it. If you’re here to “be a fan” and “support your boys” then you’re unlikely to add much to the conversation.
Hockey teams are ruthlessly unemotional about winning. Fans are a check on that intelligent impulse.
I can live with that
Which is why I took a jab at R O … there was nothing to back up his claim that outside of Keith, Chicago’s D is overrated. In fact, most regarded them as the best and deepest D corps in the league, along with Philly and maybe Nashville.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 1, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? I don’t see that. Seabrook got benched in the olympics and Campbell needs to be kept away from the other team’s top lines. Beyond that, I don’t see much.
Some teams you may not have thought about that had great D last year:
LAK, BUF, DET, CBJ, STL, DAL, N.J
Chicago, not so much. Remember – they didn’t play against their own forwards and they need to take a huge discount for that.
Ah, I definitely overlooked LA. Other than that, I don’t think I’d take any of those other teams’ D over Chicago’s (I’m obligated to snub Detroit, of course, as a ’Hawks fanboy).
Seabrook got benched in the Olympics, but doesn’t the fact that he was an Olympian on the deepest team in the Olympics bolster my claim? He was benched behind Keith, Doughty, Weber, Niedermayer, Pronger and Boyle. Of course those 6 are better than him, but only Doughty is younger.
Campbell isn’t a defensive defenseman, no argument there, but he and Hjalmarsson complement each other perfectly. Campbell really sets the tone for Chicago’s style of play, which was supremely evident during their struggles while he was out with his Ovechkinjury.
Hjalmarsson could have easily been on Sweden’s Olympic team as well, and I think he is starting to get the recognition he deserves as a bona fide top-4 Dman with a top pairing upside.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 1, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
2008-09 playoffs. Campbell gives the puck away in his own zone. Cameras pan to Scotty Bowman. He mouths “What the fuck?”
I’m not sure I understand the point of that anecdote.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 1, 2010 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
As in the architects of the current team most definitely do not agree with you about Brian Campbell. They found it best to shelter him like he’s George Parros.
Seems rather presumptuous to base the opinion of the organization on one “WTF” moment. Those moments happen in every game, and every player has them.
Campbell is certainly overpaid (but probably only by about $2 mil) and I’m sure the ’Hawks would love to get rid of that contract, but he is an integral part of why they won the Cup last year.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 1, 2010 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the word “integral.” Campbell was integral in the sense that he was 8th among D-men in Quality of Competition and 7th in defensive zone starts:
He played less than 40 seconds a night on the PK.
Then look at the playoffs:
Quenneville made sure he never got a D-zone draw, and his PK time dropped to nine seconds per game. He even dropped him to #2 on the PP behind Keith in the playoffs.
So you have a guy who gets sheltered minutes at even-strength, can no more be trusted to play in his own zone than Ben Eager, doesn’t play the PK, and when push comes to shove, isn’t even your #1 choice on the PP. What part of that is “integral”?
I think the original posters timing may have been off.
Campbell in the playoffs was seldom used – true. He was barely trusted to do anything at this time.
However, Campbell in the regular season played more than 23 mins per game – tied with Seabrook for 2nd most on the back end for the Hawks and 31st in the NHL. I think a fair case can be made that with that amount of ice time, at least the Hawks saw him as a key component.
That doesn’t square with ruthlessly unemotional though, does it?
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Sep 2, 2010 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
This is hogwash. They struggled mightily without him in the lineup last year.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 2, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Win% with Campbell: 0.588
Win% w/o Campbell: 0.607
I like this conversation. I give you evidence, you respond with feelings.
by Hawerchuk on Sep 2, 2010 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
To be fair, I don’t see how you get this Gabe. Just counting wins & losses, Chicago was 44-24 until Campbell was injured, then 8-6 in the season and 1-2 in the playoffs until he returned, at which point they rolled the rest of the way (15-4). Regardless of Campbell’s actual value, they did much better with him in the lineup.
Well, Tom beat me to it. I was confused by those numbers as well, unless Hawerchuck was referring to 08-09, when Campbell was a massive disappointment.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 2, 2010 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
They were 7-4-3 during the regular season w/o him. (0.607)
They were 30-18-20 with him. (0.588)
I didn’t look at the playoffs – it’s hard for me to believe that Campbell moving to 71% Ozone draws and dropping to #2 on the PP reflected increased contributions.
Also, I don’t think there was a substantial difference between Campbell’s 08-09 and his 09-10.
Okay, so now we're back to the depth
Not saying Campbell is some sort of PK specialist, but he didn’t need to be used on the PK because of the depth of the ’Hawks D. Chicago had Keith/Seabrook and Hjalmarsson/Sopel. Sopel is a PK specialist, albeit an overpaid one.
Look, Campbell gets plenty of shit around the league, and especially in Chicago, but at this point he’s been so maligned I feel like he’s almost underrated. His contract is an albatross, but he’s a really good hockey player.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 1, 2010 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know how much it should be factored in, but Campbell was coming back off of an injury for the playoffs. I know that doesn’t make him any more integral to their success over those four series, but that period probably isn’t the best one to look at to determine what the coaches think of his normal level of play either.
by Scott Reynolds on Sep 2, 2010 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Remember – they didn’t play against their own forwards and they need to take a huge discount for that.
wait, how much of a discount? i plead ignorance (not for the last time)—how much of a difference can that make in a 30-team, 82-game league?
by Passive Voice on Sep 2, 2010 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought it was pretty incontrovertible fact that the Chicago D corps is basically an all-world Keith surrounded by overpaid (Campbell) and overrated (Seabrook, Hjalmarsson) bums. Didn’t think there was much controversy to that, I mean we did watch the same games right?
I don’t think we should be humoring this Chicago fan anyway. At some point it becomes like pairing JF-Jacques with Ales Hemsky – no matter how good Hemsky’s passes are or how many pucks he wins from the opposition, Jacques just drags the team to shit regardless.
I don’t get how any of this is “humoring” me. I also think there would be a lot of controversy if you went on SBN blogs and stated that Chicago’s D is comprised of overpaid or overrated bums. Hell, take a look at the Niemi thread on Fear the Fin from yesterday. You’ll find almost all Sharks fans (a team Chicago played 8 time last year) raving about Chicago’s D. The consensus is that Niemi is an average-at-best goalie who benefited from playing behind a stellar D corps. I agree with that assessment.
Hell, Cristobal Huet had decent numbers behind Chicago’s D for the better part of last year.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 2, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not the least bit interested in having a serious hpckey conversation with the average fan.
So when I say something is “incontrovertible” I don’t refer to you or the average fan, but rather to people who have even a rudimentary understanding of hockey.
by R O on Sep 2, 2010 2:39 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Understood. I’d rather not have a serious hockey conversation with a condescending fan, so I think we can both get what we want and just end this conversation.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 2, 2010 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Panda,
I think you’re in the wrong here. Look back at what you’ve written:
“I’m sorry that you have so much pent up anger from the sub-par play of Phaneuf and Bouwmeester last year. You’re clearly misdirecting it towards the Blackhawks’ D corps.”
“I took a jab at Calgary’s D. It’s what sports fans do.”
“most regarded them as the best and deepest D corps in the league, along with Philly and maybe Nashville.”
“Campbell really sets the tone for Chicago’s style of play, which was supremely evident during their struggles while he was out with his Ovechkinjury.”
“[Hjalmarsson] is starting to get the recognition he deserves as a bona fide top-4 Dman with a top pairing upside.”
“[Campbell] is an integral part of why they won the Cup last year.”
“at this point [Campbell]’s been so maligned I feel like he’s almost underrated…he’s a really good hockey player.”
“there would be a lot of controversy if you went on SBN blogs and stated that Chicago’s D is comprised of overpaid or overrated bums…You’ll find almost all Sharks fans (a team Chicago played 8 time last year) raving about Chicago’s D.”
You are engaging in logical fallacy. 1) You imputed another person’s emotional attachment to particular players without any evidence. 2) You’ve appealed several times to…well, it’s not even authority, because you’re appealing to what fans think. San Jose fans love Nabokov and until very recently trashed Marleau. You also made several statements about Campbell’s performance without backing it up in any way.
It doesn’t matter if you see yourself as a fan. You need to bring evidence to back up your statements. There’s plenty of space on the internet to “stick up for your boys,” but I think most people here want an analytical approach.
by Hawerchuk on Sep 2, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Why doesn’t everybody else have the same requirement? RO says: “I thought it was pretty incontrovertible fact that the Chicago D corps is basically an all-world Keith surrounded by overpaid (Campbell) and overrated (Seabrook, Hjalmarsson) bums”. So far you’ve provided a lot of evidence against Campbell, but RO has provided nothing. The other point was “Seabrook was benched at the Olympics”, which basically means he was the #7 defenseman on the best blue line in the world. The Sharks thought enough of Hjalmarsson to tender a sheet, and the Hawks enough to match.
And Scotty Bowman calls Hjalmarsson “little Nik Lidstrom”, but what does he know?
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 2, 2010 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
The only Scotty Bowman/Brian Campbell reference you’ve made was the result of one play.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 2, 2010 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
On that, we can agree.
"I have only space enough to add: against the assault of desperate pandas nothing can stand."
-ChicoMaki (channeling Mark Twain)
by HungryHungryPanda on Sep 3, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, you yourself showed Seabrook has the 4th-toughest matchups of any player in the league:
http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/2/3/1290293/2007-2010-5v5-tough-matchup-leaders
Overrated bums?
Sure, but I didn’t correct for Keith’s presence there. These guys all percolate downwards when you do.
You’re (obviously) correct. The point is Seabrook is an elite defenseman. Not Keith, but certainly no slouch. Boxcars, Corsi, QualComp, PK time… everything is positive. He’d be the #1 on at least 10-12 teams in the NHL.
Question (maybe you could make this a poll): How much do you think Seabrook will sign for next year?
The point is Seabrook is an elite defenseman
Pourqoui??
Seabrook and Keith play a lot together, it is obvious that they will have close QualComp numbers because the opposition they face is largely the same.
But, Keith separates himself from Seabrook every year in terms of their on-ice results. We most certainly cannot say with any certainty that Seabrook is a top 30 defenceman, not when we can give the credit to so many other people (Keith, Toews, Hossa, Sharp, etc.)
Otherwise, delusional VAN fans really are right, and Alex Burrows really is a bona fide elite player. Even though watching two VAN games would rectify you of that disillusion instantly.
Although, GVT puts him in the top 30 players. I think that says a lot about GVT, and none of it’s good.
As for the evidence you want: well it’s all there. Inevitably, like water falling down, good players are able to separate themselves and their on-ice results from their lesser teammates. And it’s obvious on the ice.
Believe it or not, I think we mostly agree. We both think Seabrook is good, but far from as good as Keith. The only difference between us is that you have much higher standards for saying that a player is “elite” than I do. As a thought experiment, who are the defensemen in the NHL who you would definitely take over Seabrook, just for next season? (Not for fantasy pools, obviously, I’m talking about building a team).
I came up with: Keith, Doughty, Lidstrom, Chara, Weber, Pronger, Boyle, Timonen, Gonchar, Rafalski, Green, Markov. (roughly in that order). Niedermeyer if he was still around.
There are about 20 who I consider close calls: Streit, Suter, Phaneuf, M Staal, Martin, Robidas, Visnovsky, Phaneuf, etc.
Do you disagree with this assessment? Do you have 40 names who you would incontrovertibly take over Seabrook?
Do you disagree with this assessment?
Vehemently.
Do you have 40 names who you would incontrovertibly take over Seabrook?
Do I think there are 40 defencemen who are positively EV impact players, or PP difference-makers, or just very capable 5on5 defencemen who make less than $3.5MM in RFA years or $5.83MM in UFA years?
I do think that, very much so.
by R O on Sep 3, 2010 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
