Bahhahaha. Nope, just total coincidence that when he's on the ice, the Sens get scored on at a must faster pace, right? total coincidence.

I've never seen a group of fools with their heads buried so far in the sand.
- prock

It's funny that you say that becuase I am convinced that majory sides with us, even professional analytics and professional hockey minds agree with us. I guess the sand falls on the other side of the timeglass.

It's funny that you say that becuase I am convinced that majory sides with us, even professional analytics and professional hockey minds agree with us. I guess the sand falls on the other side of the timeglass.
- PtotheY

What makes you think that?

What makes you think that?
- prock

Prock, is there any room for the middle ground, and some objective conversation? Ottawa as a team, was one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Certainly that's not due to just one player. On the flip side, it's fair to say that the player who played the most minutes out of anyone on the team, deserves some culpability in that. Karlsson played almost 29 minutes a game. I think we have to look at a number of factors when determining how good of a defender Karlsson is. I certainly don't think he's good enough defensively to turn the team's overall defense around. He's not that kind of player. Even an average or adequate defender, which I think Karlsson is, who plays the high amount of minutes he does, isn't going to have pretty defensive numbers on a bad defensive team. I think we have to be very careful when looking at goal stats, especially a stat like goals/60. That can be very skewed, and misleading. Also have to look at systems play, and what a player is asked to do, to give the team the best chance to win. Perhaps, due to his elite puck moving and offensive ability, really one of the best offensive defenseman in the history of the league, the coaching staff wanted him to push offensive play, and take risks. I think we would find if he played on a better team, his defensive numbers would be better. To be fair, Karlsson shares in the culpability of Ottawa's defensive numbers. I just think calling him an awful defender, is not accurate. I think he's an elite of the elite, offensive defenseman, who is average, or adequate defensively. To his credit, he has improved his defensive game. I don't think he's the best defenseman in the league, but he's certainly in the conversation.

FYI ... Weber is is currently part of the BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD at the World Cup Championship and getting close to winning it all ... while PK is drinking beer and listening to country music in Nashville.

Any of you "experts" care to explain why that is?

Prock, is there any room for the middle ground, and some objective conversation? Ottawa as a team, was one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Certainly that's not due to just one player. On the flip side, it's fair to say that the player who played the most minutes out of anyone on the team, deserves some culpability in that. Karlsson played almost 29 minutes a game. I think we have to look at a number of factors when determining how good of a defender Karlsson is. I certainly don't think he's good enough defensively to turn the team's overall defense around. He's not that kind of player. Even an average or adequate defender, which I think Karlsson is, who plays the high amount of minutes he does, isn't going to have pretty defensive numbers on a bad defensive team. I think we have to be very careful when looking at goal stats, especially a stat like goals/60. That can be very skewed, and misleading. Also have to look at systems play, and what a player is asked to do, to give the team the best chance to win. Perhaps, due to his elite puck moving and offensive ability, really one of the best offensive defenseman in the history of the league, the coaching staff wanted him to push offensive play, and take risks. I think we would find if he played on a better team, his defensive numbers would be better. To be fair, Karlsson shares in the culpability of Ottawa's defensive numbers. I just think calling him an awful defender, is not accurate. I think he's an elite of the elite, offensive defenseman, who is average, or adequate defensively. To his credit, he has improved his defensive game. I don't think he's the best defenseman in the league, but he's certainly in the conversation.
- MJL

Hmm, just saw this.

There is always room for middle ground. But it's true, Karlsson is among the worst defensively in the league. He's so far out of position all the time, it's crazy. One on one, he's a nightmare, a total pylon. Put all this together, and the Sens get scored on like a seive, year, after year, after year, with him on the ice. That gets much WORSE with him on the ice. They were a top 10 team in terms of goals against/60 without him on the ice. Dead last by a wide margin with him on the ice. Is this indicative of someone that is "adequate" defensively? You say perhaps he is ASKED to do this. Maybe, maybe not. If he is asked for offense, no matter how much it costs the team on defense, how many points would it cut if he were asked to play defense? If that's the case, then he really isn't all that great offensively, he's just boosted by being relieved of all defensive duties. A boost other dmen don't get.

It takes a real mess of a dman to draft the worst team in the league down.

Hmm, just saw this.

There is always room for middle ground. But it's true, Karlsson is among the worst defensively in the league. He's so far out of position all the time, it's crazy. One on one, he's a nightmare, a total pylon. Put all this together, and the Sens get scored on like a seive, year, after year, after year, with him on the ice. That gets much WORSE with him on the ice. They were a top 10 team in terms of goals against/60 without him on the ice. Dead last by a wide margin with him on the ice. Is this indicative of someone that is "adequate" defensively? You say perhaps he is ASKED to do this. Maybe, maybe not. If he is asked for offense, no matter how much it costs the team on defense, how many points would it cut if he were asked to play defense? If that's the case, then he really isn't all that great offensively, he's just boosted by being relieved of all defensive duties. A boost other dmen don't get.

It takes a real mess of a dman to draft the worst team in the league down.
- prock

I don't think you're being realistic here. I don't think Karlssson is relieved of all defensive duties. I just think he has the green light to play aggressively offensively, and take chances.

I don't think you're being realistic here. I don't think Karlssson is relieved of all defensive duties. I just think he has the green light to play aggressively offensively, and take chances.
- MJL

again, top 10 in goals per 60 against without him on the ice, last place by a wide margin with him on the ice.

THere is a very obvious, consistent from year to year, shift in the team struggling to keep the puck out of their own net with him on the ice, to being just fine without him.

Whether he's just not capable of being responsible defensively, or your theory that he's been told he doesn't have to be responsible defensively, I don't know or care, I just know he's a trainwreck defensively.

again, top 10 in goals per 60 against without him on the ice, last place by a wide margin with him on the ice.

THere is a very obvious, consistent from year to year, shift in the team struggling to keep the puck out of their own net with him on the ice, to being just fine without him.

Whether he's just not capable of being responsible defensively, or your theory that he's been told he doesn't have to be responsible defensively, I don't know or care, I just know he's a trainwreck defensively.
- prock

Where are you getting this stat from?

Where are you getting this stat from?
- MJL

stats.hockeyanalysis.com

GA60 at 5on5 for Karlsson
GA60 5on5 for his teammates when he is not on the ice (TMGA60)

then look Team goals against rates at 5 on 5.

The rate the Sens get scored at 5 on 5 when he is not on the ice, isn't bad at all (compared to the team rates). When he is on the ice, it's the worst in the league by a wide margin.

It's one thing if this is a one off, just this year. But it's every year. And on top of that, he gets cushy zone deployment AND qualcomp to just about every dman near the worst in that list.

He is quite blatantly clearly not very effective at stopping the opposition from scoring.

stats.hockeyanalysis.com

GA60 at 5on5 for Karlsson
GA60 5on5 for his teammates when he is not on the ice (TMGA60)

then look Team goals against rates at 5 on 5.

The rate the Sens get scored at 5 on 5 when he is not on the ice, isn't bad at all (compared to the team rates). When he is on the ice, it's the worst in the league by a wide margin.

It's one thing if this is a one off, just this year. But it's every year. And on top of that, he gets cushy zone deployment AND qualcomp to just about every dman near the worst in that list.

He is quite blatantly clearly not very effective at stopping the opposition from scoring.
- prock

Karlsson does not rank in the top 10 in that category.

Karlsson does not rank in the top 10 in that category.
- MJL

In what category, exactly?

In what category, exactly?
- prock

TMGA60 for NHL defenseman playing 1000 minutes at 5 on 5 hockey. Karlsson ranks 30th.

http://stats.hockeyanalys...ls&sort=TMA60&sortdir=ASC

TMGA60 for NHL defenseman playing 1000 minutes at 5 on 5 hockey. Karlsson ranks 30th.

http://stats.hockeyanalys...ls&sort=TMA60&sortdir=ASC
- MJL

Yes, there are individual dmen that fare better. I'm talking about how the Sens do with Karlsson, compared to the rest of the TEAMS in the league, vs how they do without him.

http://stats.hockeyanalys...5v5&sort=GA60&sortdir=ASC

The Sens gave up goals at a faster pace than Edmonton with Karlsson on the ice. Without him, they performed like a top 10 team.

You're one of the most biased poster on this site.

People can't tell if you're trolling or serious half the time.

I honestly still can't.

You can make a case for Subban being #2 so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt but considering your history on this site, it'll take alot more for people to take you seriously claiming you're "unbiased".

Cheers.
- Scabeh

Not to mention that his statement about Sergachev replacing Subbasn as the only Habs player he would take on his team is ridiculous, and biased.

Yes, there are individual dmen that fare better. I'm talking about how the Sens do with Karlsson, compared to the rest of the TEAMS in the league, vs how they do without him.

http://stats.hockeyanalys...5v5&sort=GA60&sortdir=ASC

The Sens gave up goals at a faster pace than Edmonton with Karlsson on the ice. Without him, they performed like a top 10 team.
- prock

The link you posted is team stats.

The link you posted is team stats.
- MJL

yes, that's what I said.

This isn't hard to follow.

Without Karlsson on the ice, they perform like a top 10 team, in terms of goals against/60.

When he is on the ice, they're much worse than the worst team in the league.

They are practically two different teams with/without him on the ice. The one with him on the ice is a mess defensively. the one without him, isn't bad.

yes, that's what I said.

This isn't hard to follow.

Without Karlsson on the ice, they perform like a top 10 team, in terms of goals against/60.

When he is on the ice, they're much worse than the worst team in the league.

They are practically two different teams with/without him on the ice. The one with him on the ice is a mess defensively. the one without him, isn't bad.
- prock

Like I said, I still don't see where you're getting that stat. How do you filter Karlsson in and out with the link to team stats you just posted?

Like I said, I still don't see where you're getting that stat. How do you filter Karlsson in and out with the link to team stats you just posted?
- MJL

GA60 is what the goals against, at even strength are, with him on the ice. TMGA60 is the measure, for the Sens, when he is not on the ice. Together, they make up 100% of the time the Sens spend at ES. the breakdown of what the Sens do is not within team stats, it's within individual stats. Get it?

GA60 is what the goals against, at even strength are, with him on the ice. TMGA60 is the measure, for the Sens, when he is not on the ice. Together, they make up 100% of the time the Sens spend at ES. the breakdown of what the Sens do is not within team stats, it's within individual stats. Get it?
- prock

No kidding! I showed you where Karlsson ranks among NHL defenseman. You haven't backed up your assertions with the stats you've given.

No kidding! I showed you where Karlsson ranks among NHL defenseman. You haven't backed up your assertions with the stats you've given.
- MJL

holy poop. I just did. How do you not understand this.

With Karlsson on the ice, they get scored at a rate of 2.73 goals against per 60. The worst team in the league, overall, was Edmonton. On average, they gave up 2.56 goals against per 60.

Therefore, with Karlsson on the ice, the Sens gave up more goals against per 60 than the worst team in the league. Get it?

When he was not on the ice, they gave up 1.98 goals against per 60. The 10th best team in the league gave up 1.99 goals against per 60. So, without Karlsson on the ice, goals against rates dropped dramatically. Without him on the ice, they gave up goals at a rate comparable to a top 10 team (in goals against per 60).

It's very straightforward.

holy poop. I just did. How do you not understand this.

With Karlsson on the ice, they get scored at a rate of 2.73 goals against per 60. The worst team in the league, overall, was Edmonton. On average, they gave up 2.56 goals against per 60.

Therefore, with Karlsson on the ice, the Sens gave up more goals against per 60 than the worst team in the league. Get it?

When he was not on the ice, they gave up 1.98 goals against per 60. The 10th best team in the league gave up 1.99 goals against per 60. So, without Karlsson on the ice, goals against rates dropped dramatically. Without him on the ice, they gave up goals at a rate comparable to a top 10 team (in goals against per 60).

It's very straightforward.
- prock

What's very straightforward is that you're making it up, and there is no actual stat that shows or supports your statement. There's a lot of factors that go into those numbers. I think you have an unreasonable bias, and rate Karlsson lower than he should be. I agree you can make a reasonable argument against Karlsson as the best defenseman in the league, due to his defensive deficiencies, but I don't believe he is as bad as you think he is.

What's very straightforward is that you're making it up, and there is no actual stat that shows or supports your statement. There's a lot of factors that go into those numbers. I think you have an unreasonable bias, and rate Karlsson lower than he should be. I agree you can make a reasonable argument against Karlsson as the best defenseman in the league, due to his defensive deficiencies, but I don't believe he is as bad as you think he is.
- MJL

What??? Are you being serious? I just referenced every stat I mentioned. The only factors going into those stats are TOI at 5 on 5 of the player, the teams, the goals scored against the teams at 5 on 5, and the goals scored against the Sens with Karlsson on the ice, at 5 on 5, and without him, at 5 on 5.

They're all hard stats, no room for interpretation. It's just TOI at 5 on 5, and goals against, that's all.

I didn't make a single thing up. Every single one of them is there, on hockeyanalysis.com.

It's a fact, the Sens goals against per 60 rises dramatically with him on the ice. This has happened every year for the past 3 years, and almost every year of his career. It's all right there.

What??? Are you being serious? I just referenced every stat I mentioned. The only factors going into those stats are TOI at 5 on 5 of the player, the teams, the goals scored against the teams at 5 on 5, and the goals scored against the Sens with Karlsson on the ice, at 5 on 5, and without him, at 5 on 5.

They're all hard stats, no room for interpretation. It's just TOI at 5 on 5, and goals against, that's all.

I didn't make a single thing up. Every single one of them is there, on hockeyanalysis.com.

It's a fact, the Sens goals against per 60 rises dramatically with him on the ice. This has happened every year for the past 3 years, and almost every year of his career. It's all right there.
- prock

We disagree on Karlsson's level of defensive play, and I'll leave it at that.


There is no stat that you provided that shows that the Sens are top 10 in goals against per 60 against without Karlsson on the ice.

We disagree on Karlsson's level of defensive play, and I'll leave it at that.


There is no stat that you provided that shows that the Sens are top 10 in goals against per 60 against without Karlsson on the ice.
- MJL

It's not hard to figure out. It's simple math. Look at how many goals they gave up with him at even strength (hint, it's a lot). Look at how many they gave up without him. (hint: not as much). divide by minutes with him, and without him, you get some numbers. The numbers with him, unfortnately for him, are much higher.

It's not hard to figure out. It's simple math. Look at how many goals they gave up with him at even strength (hint, it's a lot). Look at how many they gave up without him. (hint: not as much). divide by minutes with him, and without him, you get some numbers. The numbers with him, unfortnately for him, are much higher.
- prock

How many goals specifically did they give up with Karlsson on the ice?

How many goals did they give up specifically when Karlsson was not on the ice?