kickazz

Yeah because last year was 3 years since Fedorov quit the game in Russia and Hasek also got in after he quit in Czech finally. These are all just opinions of announcers though. He could never beat out Crosby or Malkin for Ted Lindsay Award or Hart trophy for a reason. I mean Fedorov was able to win Selke and Hart trophy AND Pearson in the same year so I'm not sure if I agree with the whole "he could have scored more if he wanted to" theory because it's obviously possible for a player to score the most and be the best on defense. Datsyuk was probably a top 3 player for a couple of years but Fedorov was actually number 1 in 1993/94 both defensively and offensively. Unfortunately the other thing for Dats was also his inability to play at the same level in the playoffs, something Crosby and Malkin could do. I think that's mostly what separates those guys from Datsyuk, in the eyes of the league. Dats won't ever be known for any playoff heroics while Malkin and Crosby will be (all while being recognized as top season players in those years). I think the year Malkin wrecked the playoffs in 2009, he also won Ross and came in second for Hart trophy and won the Conn Smythe. I mean obviously, I prefer Datsyuk but Crosby and Malkin were just on another level in those years. Both season and playoffs. And the fact that Crosby was able to recover from his injuries (which honestly is probably the worst type of injury for a player) and still dominate the league post-injury speaks volumes of his hockey level. Can't believe I'm actually trying to prove Crosby is the best player. Yuck. I think I'm done.

By the way, I don't think Datsyuk is eligible for Hall of Fame yet since he still a current player. It takes affect after a player stops playing the game.

I mean we say that because we have bias towards him. But the entire league would probably disagree. If he was the best player he would have the awards to show for it (being voted as best by his peers or the hockey writers). He was the best defensive forward, which is why he has 3 of those awards. I'm not saying he shouldn't be in, but Datsyuk wasn't better than Crosby. Crosby's vision on ice is ridiculous and most Red Wings fans would never admit it because we purely disliked the guy in the late 2000s. Datsyuk was the most skilled and talented player in this era (although probably one of the worst slap shooters) but that doesn't make him the best. Those two are unrelated. If skills and talent defined being the best then Tomas Jurco would be the best player on our team now that Datsyuk is gone.

Like when? This leagues been dominated by Crosby, Malkin, Ovie, now transitioning into Kane, Benn etc. Dats was the best defensive foward for a few years. But that's not nearly as valuable to the league (in their perception) as offensive forwards are.

Selanne and Brodeur are shoe-ins. Martin St. Louis will get in. Alfredsson and Datsyuk should also get in but I can see why people argue against them. I think Roenick needs to be in as well. The guy is a 500 goal scorer and scored over 1200 points. Lack of hardware is costing him. I think the general consensus for forwards is 1000 points to HoF right? There's rare exceptions I believe.

I mean if they're being ultra conservative on who gets into the HoF then from this current era only Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin and Brodeur would get in. So I get what he's saying. If we expand the pool then guys like Datsyuk, Toews, Kane would get in. But I don't think it's that strict anymore. At least it doesn't seem that way.

Lol dude still gets paid $20 million for the next 10 years.

Yeah on the PK he has the most goals against on our team (and is bottom in the league). Abdelkader has the lowest. This past season Abby was on ice for only 9 power play goals against while Glendening was on ice for 27 goals against. Glendening plays more on the PK so if you adjusted his and Abby's PK minutes for a simple scale like "PK goals against per minute of PK" - Glendog is twice as bad as Abby. (A rate of 0.13 for Glendog and 0.07 for Abby). Abby also happens to have the least shots against while on the PK while Glendog has the most shots against on the PK per 60 minutes. Abby might be the most underrated PKer on this team to be honest.

Lmfao

I'm starting to sound harsh against Glendog. Partly because people are overrating him including the coaching staff. The guy needs a lesser role and there's others on the team that would do better. We went from being a team that would outshoot opponents to a team that was consistently outshot last year and struggled to hang on to the puck. How is this not an issue for people? Getting outshot is not the first step to winning games. This is basic hockey. How many games did San Jose get outshot by Pittsburgh by wide margins in the cup finals last year and lost? All of them.

That's not true because both Helm and Sheahan are considered defensive forwards with higher defensive zone starts than the top 6 and their numbers are far better than Glendening. Far better. Would you like me to post another chart or is it going to end up in another excuse driven post? Why bother I guess. I've said my piece. Last year when WIIM posted it we all called them crazy. At this point Mlive has caught on and I'm sure the rest of the press will follow suit. BTW what does bad team mean? We were one of 8 teams to make the playoffs in the east. That's a bad excuse. In the chart I posted of top toughest usage forwards, Auston Watson and Mikka Salomaki both play for Nashville (7th seed). Bryon Froese plays for the Maple Leafs (Lol). I feel like you're completely ignoring charts and figures people are posting for you without even reading jumping to conclusions of denial. Unless you can actually look at the points I'm trying to make, and read the information on the charts (and realize those other players are also on "bad teams"), this is pointless. I'm basically arguing with someone who refuses to look at data.

It's likely a "bad" hockey team because of player misusage. What a stranger coincidence that we did worse last year than we did with Babcock with basically a better team on paper (Dylan Larkin + Mrazek). Oh that's right, Babcock didn't play guys like Glendening 24 minutes a night against Ovechkin and if he did, he put him on a line with Datsyuk to mask his weaknesses. But carry on believe what you gotta believe.

Lol. First it's not WIIM. It's quite clear you have decided to brush away any fact given here and run the same narrative OVER AND OVER again. The original article came from Mlive that Krsmith posted. http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2016/07/analyzing_forwards_with_compar.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+detroit-redwings+%28Detroit+Red+Wings+-+MLive.com%29 Second, when all things are equal I showed you a graph of top 15 tough usage forwards in OTHER teams and still in denial. Cool. Seriously if you can't come up with a good argument and keep going on about "well I don't believe numbers" blah blah blah then that's fine. If you have nothing to show for your argument then this conversation is useless. I'm giving you basic stats and you're still stuck on anti-advanced stats narrative. Basic simple, goals against, shots against, ice time.

This is starting to become one of the most used and incorrect arguments for Glendening. The whole "well he plays tough minutes that's why his numbers are bad". Let me show you other players in the league who also play so called "tough minutes". The title of this graph is a dead give away btw. Take a look. Out of 15 players in the league who are subject to "tough minutes" Glendening ranks amongst the bottom at shot generation. What's his excuse? There is no excuse. He's just not a good shutdown forward. I'm moving on from this narrative that Luke Glendening is a good defensive forward. He simply isn't. Kruger, Desjardins, Watson, Nystrom. Majority of the people on that list have better shot attempts than Glendening and similar defensive zone starts. And before anyone says, "it's because our coaches prefer to play safe". That excuse doesn't work when you look at other defensive forward on our team. This guy ranks bottom in shots against when short handed, ranks bottom in GOALS AGAINST when short handed. Ranks towards bottom shot generation amongst other players in the league who have just as much defensive zone starts as him. I think I'd rather us move on from using Glendening for this role and move onto using Sheahan and Helm. Or like I said earlier, give Frans Nielsen the defensive shutdown role just as Zetterberg was in from 2006-2013. If people want to ride on the "Well Luke Glendening works hard and Holland, Babcock and Blashill all praised him so he must be good" narrative then by all means. But even the simplest stats, eyeball tests and obviously advanced stats are racked against this argument. Anyways no point. 5 more years. Hopefully rookie coach learns from his mistakes sooner rather than later. The top two overusage issues on this team are: 1. Henrik Zetterberg 2. Luke Glendening

Precisely. Something I've noticed with the Red Wings is we've had really crappy luck where we lack top 2 centers but are filled with bottom 2 centers. Have plenty of top 9 wingers. Our lack of top 2 centers basically forced Zet to switch to Center and maintain the position which means we no longer had a good/elite winger for Datsyuk (ironically Helm became Datsyuk's winger with Tatar when Franzen went down). Helm was switched to Wing because we have too many Sheahans, Anderssons, Ferraros and Glendenings. Basically bottom 2 line centers. And none of those guys can play winger that well. Maybe Sheahan but not really. This goes hand in hand with my bitching in the other thread about Glendening. We are using players in positions because we are forced to or maybe too stubborn to, rather than being able to use them at their best. I'd say Helm is our best third line center if given the opportunity again. And I'd rank him as a top third line center in the league. I don't know about being the best in the league. Maybe it's possible. It could be proven (to an extent)with math freak data but then people would get into the whole "dial-up", "blah blah advanced stats suck, I'm staying ignorant to it" conversation again STILL HATE HIS CONTRACT THO

Doesn't matter. The guy scores regardless of screens. Mrazek just turned Super Saiyan on Ovechkin that night. Lmao that's exactly what I mean about your bold sentence. It's not safe. Glendening is one of the worst in goals against on the PK. Did you not read my previous post? Luke Glendening ranks in the bottom in shots against and goals against while short handed.

I'll clarify my point on what I mean by Babcock having better usage of Glendening and using him sparingly. I'll do it with the perfect example. Babcock used Glendog against the Johnson line in the 2015 playoffs. It worked for a couple of games in our favor. Good stuff. Blashill came in and tried to build on this by initially pairing up Glendening against a crap ton of top line players. This resulted in a lot of game tying goals being given up in 2016 season. Now here's my example. Blashill decided to use Glendening against Ovechkin last november. That night Ovechkin broke the shots on goal in one game NHL record by shooting 15 times on Mrazek. In short, what is Glendening's weakness? His weakness is possession. He's not very good at keeping the puck away from our net and more often than not, players on opposing teams end up shooting on our goal a lot when Glendening is on ice. Blashill, instead of masking Glendening's weakness, decided to put Glendening against the best shot taker in the league (Ovechkin). This resulted in Ovie exploiting our weakness and managing to get off 15 shots. I think because of his weakness, Glendening is better served by having more of his faceoffs taken in the offensive zone rather than defensive. I think they need to stop putting him up against high shooting team top lines and I think they need to match him with a PK partner who is better at hanging onto the puck. I'd suggest someone like Larkin. Not Miller. Miller should be with someone like Helm.

Go back a few pages and probably 5 times on this forum and you'll find a member or two who think his value is all about faceoffs. Faceoffs are a laughable stat to argue for. Just because player A is 1% better than player B at faceoffs, all of a sudden player A is labeled as "OMG HES THE BEST FACEOFF GUY ON OUR TEAM HES SO VALUABLE" (Player A is Glendog and Player B is Datsyuk) Hard work should never be an excuse over how bad a player is in situations. That's the dumbest philosophy and a hill coaches die on. You always play the best players in the best positions you can. That's what separates Quennevelle and Babcock and Bowman etc from others. It's like what my mother says. "I don't care how popular he is or how hard he works, he just better be a godam good doctor"

I don't mind having him if he wasn't treated like a savior defensive forward. I don't hate the guy at all. I hate how he's used. I also don't like how he's labelled as a great defensive forward when he's clearly not. I present all these bad numbers of Glendening. But is that his fault? No. That's a coaching issue. When you put a player in a position to fail, that's on you as a coach. The difference between Babcock and Blashill is that Babcock used Glendening sparingly and in the right situations. Blashill for whatever reason decided to take it up 3 or 4 notches and use the hell out of him last season. Something Babcock was too smart to do. One thing Babcock was good at was masking his players weaknesses. Blashill has a lot to learn in that regard. His player usage is definitely poorer. He's got to stick to his own philosophy and step away from Babcockian hockey.

Lol here's another one. Between 2013 and 2016, 332 forwards played >1500 minutes 5 on 5. Luke Glendening is DEAD LAST in shots against relative to teammates. I guess hard work really puts a curtain on how terrible one is. The more I look into Glendening the more I realize how bad he really is and how blinded management and fans are with this guy. Babcock overrated the hell out of him and everyone fell for it.

Lol you think that's bad. Take a look at this. He's one of the worst penalty killers in the league. This isn't even advanced stats btw. This is just simple numbers put on a graph. It's basically showing all the penalty killers from 2007-2016. It's showing how many shots different penalty killers allow per 60 minutes of penalty killing time. Just take a look at Glendening on the graph. He allows 100 shots per 60 minutes of penalty kill time. I feel bad for Howard and Mrazek. Take a look at where Datsyuk and Zetterberg on the graph lol. They only allowed about 50 shots per 60 minutes. It also shows that Glendening is one of the worst penalty killers when it comes to goals against on the PK.

That's dumb

I dont think anyone would care that much if Jurco or Pulk got dealt for peanuts to be honest. Both of their hypes have been GREATLY dminished

Wait what? I thought it was fans for each team?

Is that more than last year or less?