Fwiw I think defense is much tougher to rate than centers. Crosby and McDavid seem to have broken away from everyone else. And then you have 7-10 centers where everyone has their own preference.

Fwiw I think defense is much tougher to rate than centers. Crosby and McDavid seem to have broken away from everyone else. And then you have 7-10 centers where everyone has their own preference.
- sditulli

I actually heard Barkov was the best center in the NHL, possibly the world.

Wow, a guy who won 2 Norris Trophies in the past 6 years isn't mentioned on any ballots except for Chicago's JJ.

I guess if the Hawks don't win a Cup, Keith doesn't get recognition.

1. Doughty
2. OEL
3. Hedman
4. Josi
5. Brodie

Karlsson cracks my top 10, but solely based on his offense. He's a defensive disaster and basically a forward

Lindholm doesn't even crack my top 20 yet, but is certainly headed towards that direction

Fwiw I think defense is much tougher to rate than centers. Crosby and McDavid seem to have broken away from everyone else. And then you have 7-10 centers where everyone has their own preference.
- sditulli

I put Tavares in a category with those 2

Hawks fans

Hawks fans
- KINGS67

We have still not seen the best of Karlsson. If he is going to be the best Dman of his era he needs to lead his team to a Stanley Cup! Every change Ottawa has made in the off season including coaches and players is all about building the team around Karlsson's game. I think this next season we are going to see the best of Karlsson. He is a unique and precious talent.

I wonder is Mr. Tanner realizes that stating that Karlsson is #1, and it's not subjective, or an opinion, and that it is a fact, is actually an opinion!

He was there before. And most likely in yours too.

But hits and #gritness. You mentioned none of the #gritness. You're argument is invalid.
- Victoro311

#gritness is defined with one word: Jake Gardiner.
Dude's so gritty, you use him to clean sandpaper.

RE: J Machette

I agree, it is an opinion - as I clearly said. The only thing that isn't debatable is who is number one.

As for trading PK, I guess I should have specified deferencemen only. It was in reference to the Weber trade and I guess I figured that was sort of implied.
- James_Tanner

It absolutely is debatable. In my my opinion, Drew Doughty is the best defenseman in the league, and he's a better all around defenseman than Karlsson is.

1. Doughty
2. OEL
3. Hedman
4. Josi
5. Brodie

Karlsson cracks my top 10, but solely based on his offense. He's a defensive disaster and basically a forward

Lindholm doesn't even crack my top 20 yet, but is certainly headed towards that direction
- TylerSeguin19

Lol.

No one is free of a bias, that's true. Tanner doesn't have Doughty on the list, I have him at 2. Predictable, maybe yes, but the reality.

Being a Kings writer I get to see Doughty play every single night, and realize the validity of certain eye test factors, which I generally try to factor into most of my evaluations! Eye test is important. You cannot base every decisions purely on numbers, you can use them to support something but not entirely base your decision on them.

I like Muzzin, I think he's a top 10-15 defender in the league. I wouldn't say top 5 even though numbers put him there. Why? I've watched him play enough.

Numbers are there to help us support, not dictate. There are also a lot of analytics to value, some may take certain things in higher order than others. That is simply the nature of having so much information to work with along with the traditional views of things.

So just because Tanner and I are both "Numbers guys" doesn't mean we will come to the same exact decision because "The numbers say so".
- Jason_Lewis

Well said. Tanner thinks the opposite, numbers are there to dictate, and nobody can use the eye test to come to an accurate conclusion. The other day, he said if teams would fire all their scouts, and just use analytics, they've have a ridiculous advantage over the rest of the league to paraphrase.

Good points. We also are arguing over a set of players who are so close in terms of talent and contributions that it all comes down to personal preference.

I prefer Muzzin because I think he brings a bit more offense and creativity to his game. Perhaps you feel Doughty 'controls' the game better. You watch them more so I'll cede this one to you - but again, it's like trying to say who is better between Mozart and Bach.
- James_Tanner

Muzzin is a very good defensman, but he's not in the league that Doughty is. Doughty is elite, and is the best defenseman in the league in my opinion. Muzzin is the next group down.

Well said. Tanner thinks the opposite, numbers are there to dictate, and nobody can use the eye test to come to an accurate conclusion. The other day, he said if teams would fire all their scouts, and just use analytics, they've have a ridiculous advantage over the rest of the league to paraphrase.
- MJL

And he's right. To paraphrase.

Wow, a guy who won 2 Norris Trophies in the past 6 years isn't mentioned on any ballots except for Chicago's JJ.

I guess if the Hawks don't win a Cup, Keith doesn't get recognition.
- bwarner929

Keith is a hall of famer, but he s 33... Letang is 29, subban is 27 ... Looking at the next 3-5 years it's not even a question you take the younger guys all else being equal... In this case it's not, letang and subban are superior offensive d men (all 3 are great in there own end)
Doughty is better then all 3

And he's right. To paraphrase.
- Feds91Stammer

It was one of the most ridiculous comments I ever read. Even by Tanner's standards.

It was one of the most ridiculous comments I ever read. Even by Tanner's standards.
- MJL

You should read your comments more often then.

It absolutely is debatable. In my my opinion, Drew Doughty is the best defenseman in the league, and he's a better all around defenseman than Karlsson is.
- MJL

Congrats on your new job at Fox News.

It was one of the most ridiculous comments I ever read. Even by Tanner's standards.
- MJL

1) Analytics, pretty much by definition, is the process of using verified data to test hypotheses and make educated conclusions. Doesn't sound too awful, does it?

2) People assume that the stats we see is the extent of the data available to teams. I would propose that a good amount of time, money and effort has been invested by teams into more in-depth proprietary analyses that far surpass that which is available in the public sphere...

It might be a good idea to set guidelines for criteria when evaluating a question as open to interpretation as 'who are the top 5 D'.

Reasonable guidelines in my opinion include:

i) 0 weighting on speculative future projections. We aren't asking who will be the best tomorrow, because that is essentially pure speculation. We want to know who is the best today, so I don't need to hear about how someone is going to improve or decline in the future to answer that question.

ii) Heavy weighting (e.g., 80%) on the results of the most recent seasons performance. Whether these are analytic results or 'eye-test' results, we should favor the most recent sample set because we are not asking who was the best player last season or two seasons ago. Nor or we asking who has been the best player over the past 5 seasons.

iii) Lesser weighting on results from 2-3 years ago. Maybe a 15% and 5% weighting for example. Consistency is still an important factor and larger sample sizes (3 years should be fine) are needed to determine whether that player's most recent results will be repeatable or if they are just a one off.

iv) Essentially zero weighting given to results from 3+ years ago. That is long enough ago as to no longer be relevant to the question who is the best today. Sorry JJ, nobody cares about what Toews contributed to the Hawks first cup run. The 2010 playoffs are simply not an important factor for deciding who the best centers are today. Posting WJC achievements is just stupid. Similarly, nobody should care about Crosby's offensive statistics from 5 years ago.

Obviously these weightings are just guidelines and need to be subjectively adjusted to consider things like injuries, down-years, etc...

1) Analytics, pretty much by definition, is the process of using verified data to test hypotheses and make educated conclusions. Doesn't sound too awful, does it?

2) People assume that the stats we see is the extent of the data available to teams. I would propose that a good amount of time, money and effort has been invested by teams into more in-depth proprietary analyses that far surpass that which is available in the public sphere...
- lumlums

I totally agree, and said so recently in other threads. To NHL teams that are on the forefront of analytics, stats like corsi and corsi related stats are archaic.

Congrats on your new job at Fox News.
- James_Tanner

Thank you James, and I wish you success at MSNBC.

Thank you James, and I wish you success at MSNBC.
- MJL

He's more CNN. Stories are devoid of substance, but have lots of charts, graphs, polls, holograms and is usually read by someone completely biased in a cackling voice.