OEL has now sunk into the top 10 worst +/- players in the entire National Hockey League out of all 869 players.

[dougieL]

19 hours ago, aGENT said:

And yet we still gave up 5 goals. Weird. 

Yeah we replaced OEL with a replacement level player and nothing changed. Weird. 

 

[dougieL]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:59 AM, Hairy Kneel said:

We need a go fund me to bribe him to get a skin allergy to his equipment. 

I think our best hope is that we hire Tocchet and his Tocchet allergy flares up again 

[canuck73_3]

On 1/11/2023 at 9:45 AM, Harold Drunken said:

Lol... your personal hatred for Yeo is absolutely fascinating. 

I have not been impressed with how he's handled our defensive coaching, but Heffy's hatred for him is absolutely baffling

[dougieL]

20 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I have not been impressed with how he's handled our defensive coaching, but Heffy's hatred for him is absolutely baffling

Maybe Yeo cut him off in traffic a couple of months ago

 

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

25 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I have not been impressed with how he's handled our defensive coaching, but Heffy's hatred for him is absolutely baffling

It is because he refuses to look at any stats.  He can't explain why some of our highest paid d-men suck without blindly pointing the finger at the coach.  For someone who absolutely disdains analytics but also doesn't watch much hockey outside of Vancouver, you would think Heffy would dial back on his hot takes.  It's hard not to compare our team to others, but if someone only knows one team and won't use stats, is it even worth trying to discuss?

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, dougieL said:

I think our best hope is that we hire Tocchet and his Tocchet allergy flares up again 

I'm not suggesting he's played overly well this year (who has outside of Petey, Kuz and Horvat?). But it's pretty clear he also isn't the problem with this team's inability to play defense.

 

And he's got an NMC, so all your foot stomping is solving what exactly...?

[King Heffy]

2 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

It is because he refuses to look at any stats.  He can't explain why some of our highest paid d-men suck without blindly pointing the finger at the coach.  For someone who absolutely disdains analytics but also doesn't watch much hockey outside of Vancouver, you would think Heffy would dial back on his hot takes.  It's hard not to compare our team to others, but if someone only knows one team and won't use stats, is it even worth trying to discuss?

I watch plenty of other teams, I just have much less tolerance for defencemen who can't play defence than you seem to.  The main difference between this year and last year was Shaw being replaced by Yeo, who has consistently made things worse everywhere he's gone.  Get OEL in the right system with  less matchups against the top line and you'll see a huge improvement.

 

Who would you blame for poor systems play if not the coach specifically hired to implement a system?

[dougieL]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

I'm not suggesting he's played overly well this year (who has outside of Petey, Kuz and Horvat?). But it's pretty clear he also isn't the problem with this team's inability to play defense.

 

And he's got an NMC, so all your foot stomping is solving what exactly...?

In this case, I was merely pointing out the fact that your statement seemed to imply that replacing OELs spot in the lineup with basically a replacement level player (I suppose you can argue about how his actual minutes were divided up amongst Hughes, Dermott, and Stillman, with Dermott missing significant time) made no tangible difference to the number of goals we allowed.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

9 hours ago, King Heffy said:

I watch plenty of other teams, I just have much less tolerance for defencemen who can't play defence than you seem to.  The main difference between this year and last year was Shaw being replaced by Yeo, who has consistently made things worse everywhere he's gone.  Get OEL in the right system with  less matchups against the top line and you'll see a huge improvement.

 

Who would you blame for poor systems play if not the coach specifically hired to implement a system?

Let's ignore the fact that high quality offensive d-men are typically the highest paid players on their team.  They are considered so valuable that a resurgent Erik Karlsson has recouped much of his lost trade value and the current asking price is 3 first round picks.  On the flip side, we let one of the league's most resurgent defensive d-men (Chris Tanev) walk for free because we weren't willing to pay $4.5 million.  It doesn't really matter what sport - the ability to score is typically valued higher than the ability to provide defensive stops.

 

But that's unfair to the defensive darlings of the game.  Again, how can you possibly assess how effective that type of player is for a team?  How can we possibly quantify the value an offensive or defensive d-man brings to the table?  Whether you like it or not, whether you intend to beat up kids over it or not, the answer lies in statistics.  I'm going to challenge your hockey knowledge by asking you to name me three of the league's best pure offensive d-men, and then three of the best pure defensive d-men.  Relying on your gut isn't going to get you very far.

 

As for OEL playing like crap, the guy has been playing like that for five years.  100% Benning's fault for acquiring someone at the tail end of his decline.  You can only blame coaches so much on a guy who is being paid like a franchise d-man but doesn't have the legs to keep up.  The best defensive coach in the world can't make me an NHL quality player, and the statistics show that OEL is no longer NHL quality.

[King Heffy]

4 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Let's ignore the fact that high quality offensive d-men are typically the highest paid players on their team.  They are considered so valuable that a resurgent Erik Karlsson has recouped much of his lost trade value and the current asking price is 3 first round picks.  On the flip side, we let one of the league's most resurgent defensive d-men (Chris Tanev) walk for free because we weren't willing to pay $4.5 million.  It doesn't really matter what sport - the ability to score is typically valued higher than the ability to provide defensive stops.

 

But that's unfair to the defensive darlings of the game.  Again, how can you possibly assess how effective that type of player is for a team?  How can we possibly quantify the value an offensive or defensive d-man brings to the table?  Whether you like it or not, whether you intend to beat up kids over it or not, the answer lies in statistics.  I'm going to challenge your hockey knowledge by asking you to name me three of the league's best pure offensive d-men, and then three of the best pure defensive d-men.  Relying on your gut isn't going to get you very far.

 

As for OEL playing like crap, the guy has been playing like that for five years.  100% Benning's fault for acquiring someone at the tail end of his decline.  You can only blame coaches so much on a guy who is being paid like a franchise d-man but doesn't have the legs to keep up.  The best defensive coach in the world can't make me an NHL quality player, and the statistics show that OEL is no longer NHL quality.

Offensive:

Makar

Hughes

Morrissey

 

Defensive:

Toews

Tanev

Slavin
 

I took consistency into consideration.  I still strongly believe that it's not possible to quantify defensive contributions effectively statistically, and there is no substitute for actually understanding the game instead of relying on the analytics dweebs.

 

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

3 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Offensive:

Makar

Hughes

Morrissey

 

Defensive:

Toews

Tanev

Slavin
 

I took consistency into consideration.  I still strongly believe that it's not possible to quantify defensive contributions effectively statistically, and there is no substitute for actually understanding the game instead of relying on the analytics dweebs.

Four of the players you mentioned are considered elite TWO-WAY defenders, who are dangerous in the offensive zone as well as being able to distribute/prevent in their own end.  This is why you couldn't Nicklas Lidstrom as an offensive or defensive d-man, since there was nothing he couldn't do.  Hughes and Tanev are the only players who are more single-minded in their approach to the game.  It's funny that you think Morgan Rielly isn't even worthy of playing in the NHL (which literally anyone watching hockey would disagree with you on), when he has a game very similar to Hughes.  Our guy is a bit better defensively, less lethal offensively. 

 

The other four guys are able to do everything.  Makar has almost no weaknesses on either side of the ice.  Everyone knows what he can do offensively, but he is also incredibly effective at preventing goals without the puck (his one problem being physical in the corners).  Morrissey is a weird selection since he's always been known as a two-way defender with solid defensive stats but one who's struggled mightily since Byfuglien left.  This year has been an absolute breakout season for him, but he was the definition of inconsistent these past three years.  He is not a pure offensive d-man.

 

On the flip side, Toews and Slavin aren't pure defensive d-men either.  They put up great numbers on both ends of the ice.  You probably can't identify solid defensive d-men because they don't produce wild numbers offensively, and it's difficult to recognize precisely what they're doing to prevent scoring.  You could've mentioned Siegenthaler, Brodin, and Pelech, who I believe to be the strongest pure defenders.

 

Your ignorance of analytics is just that - pure ignorance.  Just like offense, most of their actions can be quantified.  Are they being attacked in one-on-one situations?  Do those situations result in lost possession?  If the attacker retains possession, does it lead to a scoring chance?  If possession is lost, can the defender successfully retrieve the puck?  If they do get the puck, are they able to exit the defensive zone succesfully?  Do they prefer to exit the zone by passing or by carrying the puck?  Every single question I mentioned here are things coaches and fans look for in a defender.  You can approximate some things if you watch them game after game, but there are 11 other players on the ice you're trying to follow.  I understand the game far better than you do simply by virtue of me recognizing my human limits of what I can analyze.  Stats aren't everything, but I can use them to reliably explain why a player is good or bad at anything, unlike trying to spew generalities as you have.

[King Heffy]

43 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Four of the players you mentioned are considered elite TWO-WAY defenders, who are dangerous in the offensive zone as well as being able to distribute/prevent in their own end.  This is why you couldn't Nicklas Lidstrom as an offensive or defensive d-man, since there was nothing he couldn't do.  Hughes and Tanev are the only players who are more single-minded in their approach to the game.  It's funny that you think Morgan Rielly isn't even worthy of playing in the NHL (which literally anyone watching hockey would disagree with you on), when he has a game very similar to Hughes.  Our guy is a bit better defensively, less lethal offensively. 

 

The other four guys are able to do everything.  Makar has almost no weaknesses on either side of the ice.  Everyone knows what he can do offensively, but he is also incredibly effective at preventing goals without the puck (his one problem being physical in the corners).  Morrissey is a weird selection since he's always been known as a two-way defender with solid defensive stats but one who's struggled mightily since Byfuglien left.  This year has been an absolute breakout season for him, but he was the definition of inconsistent these past three years.  He is not a pure offensive d-man.

 

 

I don't think a defenceman who can't play defence belongs in the NHL, let alone belongs on any "best" list.  Entirely pure offensive defencemen belong in the AHL until they learn how to stop being liabilities in their own zone.  I grant that Siegenthaler, Brodin, and Pelech are all solid players.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

I don't think a defenceman who can't play defence belongs in the NHL, let alone belongs on any "best" list.  Entirely pure offensive defencemen belong in the AHL until they learn how to stop being liabilities in their own zone.  I grant that Siegenthaler, Brodin, and Pelech are all solid players.

Please answer the question I've laid out instead of giving a half-baked answer.  Most of the defending abilities of a hockey player can and have been quantified.  They are not perfect, but they paint a far better picture than anything you can provide.  You have zero answers for every defensive metric I provided in my last post.  Admit you're in over your head and start using your intelligence to watch hockey.  Siegenthaler, Brodin, and Pelech aren't just solid - they are the best at what they do.

 

In terms of offensive defencemen, that is such an outdated philosophy.  Unless you are a complete dinosaur who grew up watching pre-Orr hockey, you are just plain wrong about what D-men are supposed to do.  Things are a bit simpler with offensive metrics.  Can they generate more scoring opportunities than conceding them?  That is it.  When Erik Karlsson was on Ottawa and won the Norris, he was one of the WEAKEST defenders in the NHL.  You think the way you do because you don't understand how modern hockey works.  You're stuck in the 1950s.

[King Heffy]

8 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Please answer the question I've laid out instead of giving a half-baked answer.  Most of the defending abilities of a hockey player can and have been quantified.  They are not perfect, but they paint a far better picture than anything you can provide.  You have zero answers for every defensive metric I provided in my last post.  Admit you're in over your head and start using your intelligence to watch hockey.  Siegenthaler, Brodin, and Pelech aren't just solid - they are the best at what they do.

 

In terms of offensive defencemen, that is such an outdated philosophy.  Unless you are a complete dinosaur who grew up watching pre-Orr hockey, you are just plain wrong about what D-men are supposed to do.  Things are a bit simpler with offensive metrics.  Can they generate more scoring opportunities than conceding them?  That is it.  When Erik Karlsson was on Ottawa and won the Norris, he was one of the WEAKEST defenders in the NHL.  You think the way you do because you don't understand how modern hockey works.  You're stuck in the 1950s.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  Just because I don't agree with your insistence that the analytics trash has any value does not mean I don't understand the sport, just like you trusting these unqualified dweebs doesn't mean you don't understand the sport..  The players listed are good players, which is clearly obvious by watching the game.  You can get far better results by assigning scouts to watch a player and reporting back instead of trusting someone who has zero qualifications in hockey.  We'll also never agree on offensive defensemen.  The position is called defence for a reason, and there is a minimum acceptable standard for play in one's own end.  If someone can't meet that, they belong on the bench or in the AHL learning how to play like NHLers aft both ends of the rink.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

12 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  Just because I don't agree with your insistence that the analytics trash has any value does not mean I don't understand the sport, just like you trusting these unqualified dweebs doesn't mean you don't understand the sport..  The players listed are good players, which is clearly obvious by watching the game.  You can get far better results by assigning scouts to watch a player and reporting back instead of trusting someone who has zero qualifications in hockey.  We'll also never agree on offensive defensemen.  The position is called defence for a reason, and there is a minimum acceptable standard for play in one's own end.  If someone can't meet that, they belong on the bench or in the AHL learning how to play like NHLers aft both ends of the rink.

You must also think purely defensive forwards are useless, then.  Curtis Lazar is a perfect example of one.

 

There is no concession to be made here.  Your take on pure offensive D-men  makes no sense and goes against the concensus of the entire hockey community.  Again - Erik Karlsson won two Norris trophies despite being one of the worst defenders in the league.  That is how much offensive capability is valued in hockey, even at the expense of defending.  That is why he is the highest paid D-man in the NHL.

 

All of this makes zero sense as to why a genuine Canuck fan thinks this way.  By your standard, Quinn Hughes is not our best D-man, but rather someone who shouldn't even belong in the NHL.  He is extremely weak defensively in 5v5 situations, especially on the rush.

[King Heffy]

Just now, Bob.Loblaw said:

You must also think purely defensive forwards are useless, then.  Curtis Lazar is a perfect example of one.

 

There is no concession to be made here.  Your take on pure offensive D-men  makes no sense and goes against the concensus of the entire hockey community.  Again - Erik Karlsson won two Norris trophies despite being one of the worst defenders in the league.  That is how much offensive capability is valued in hockey, even at the expense of defending.  That is why he is the highest paid D-man in the NHL.

 

All of this makes zero sense as to why a genuine Canuck fan thinks this way.  By your standard, Quinn Hughes is not our best D-man, but rather someone who shouldn't even belong in the NHL.  He is extremely weak defensively in 5v5 situations, especially on the rush.

I think Hughes is borderline acceptable in his own end, but he's not our best blueliner.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I think Hughes is borderline acceptable in his own end, but he's not our best blueliner.

By what metric, then?  What does he SPECIFICALLY do right and what does he SPECIFICALLY do wrong?  And do you have any evidence to back it up?

 

I can't believe I'm talking with someone who thinks Hughes isn't our best D-man.  Why is it that he, along with Rielly/Karlsson and any other offensive D, earns the most money on their team?  Why does the entire hockey community (including scouts) seem to fundamentally disagree with you?

[King Heffy]

19 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

By what metric, then?  What does he SPECIFICALLY do right and what does he SPECIFICALLY do wrong?  And do you have any evidence to back it up?

 

I can't believe I'm talking with someone who thinks Hughes isn't our best D-man.  Why is it that he, along with Rielly/Karlsson and any other offensive D, earns the most money on their team?  Why does the entire hockey community (including scouts) seem to fundamentally disagree with you?

Struggles with covering bigger forwards, clearing the crease, and battles in the corners.  Sometimes he tries to do too much at the end of a shift and gets burned when he really needs to make the simple play and get off the ice.  He does have good hockey sense and uses his stick well.  I'm honestly not sure why anyone in their right mind would consider Rielly's outright refusal to even try to stop hurting the team with his refusal to learn how to play defence acceptable. 

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Struggles with covering bigger forwards, clearing the crease, and battles in the corners.  Sometimes he tries to do too much at the end of a shift and gets burned when he really needs to make the simple play and get off the ice.  He does have good hockey sense and uses his stick well.  I'm honestly not sure why anyone in their right mind would consider Rielly's outright refusal to even try to stop hurting the team with his refusal to learn how to play defence acceptable. 

Maybe it's because you're dead wrong about what offensive defencemen can provide for their team.  Just maybe.

 

As for Hughes, your assessment is one that is based off watching him every game.  How can you assess players you only see once a year?  You don't have access to scouting reports.  Either way, you didn't mention his most glaring weakness, which is getting burned on the rush.  You can see how opposing players will typically attack him knowing he struggles to maintain proper position.  In any case, you're proving my point about generalities.  "Good hockey sense and uses stick well"?  What the heck is that? 

[RU SERIOUS]

After tonight's victory against Carolina, he somehow managed to chalk up yet another minus -1 and claw his way up even further towards having the the worst +/- record in the entire National Hockey League moving up to 29th worst +/- player in the league.    Looks like that "Healthy scratch" had little lasting effect on him.  Wondering when BB will sit him out again?