I would rather have Kronwall on the Wings than Suter.
i suppose you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is absolutely insane.
Jump to content
Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:40 PM
I would rather have Kronwall on the Wings than Suter.
Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:05 PM
You do know that Kronwall has a much better career PPG than Suter, all while being much more physical, and dare I say it better defensively than Suter? Not to mention the difference in power play time considering first and second line defenseman, with Suter playing with Weber, and Kronwall usually on the second pairing behind Lidstrom.
Kronwall isn't elite Norris discussion, but he's a top 10-15 defenseman with a absolutely amazing skill that can change games unlike many point producing defensemen in the league.
Wings got hurt with the loss of Lidstrom, but they are still one of the better offensive defenses in the league. Compare
Doughty(36)/MItchell(24) Kronwall(36)/Smith(.50 PPG or around 38 points)
Martinez(12)/Scuderi(9) to Colaiacovo(19) only 50 games on St. Louis/Ericsson(11)
Yea, Lidstrom helped Whites numbers, but he's put up similar numbers 26,30 etc in Toronto and Calgary as well. Colaiacovo only played 50 games, Quincey has put up 38 in the past. The Wings defense is also younger as a whole.Kronwall,Quincey, Ericsson are all physical. I don't see a great discrepancy, surely the Kings had Quick play extraordinarily well, but Howard's career numbers are very similar.
Nothing against Kronwall I really like him, but Suter is in another league, stats aren't everything. The defense as a whole will need to step up thats for sure. Even Weber himself admitted that he can do all the sexy offensive stuff because of Suter taking care of business.
Edited by frankgrimes, 17 January 2013 - 06:06 PM.
The Offseason of truth ...
Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!
blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..
<< Win it for Mr. Hockey !
Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:41 PM
Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:08 PM
I dont understand why some dont see +/- as important over extended periods. I will agree that a 20 game stretch or even a season can sometimes not be an accurate representation of a player's ability to help the team. But over 5 seasons +, I think its a great stat. Lool at Bobby Otr and see if you think he was just an offensive guru. +120 one year!! Nope.
There's just too many variables for +/- to be that meaningful of a stat. If it has any use at all I think it's only when you use it to look at the extremes for players on the same team. If someone on the Wings is a -17 on the season and the next lowest guy is a -2, I think that's meaningful.
But over multiples seasons and across teams, I don't think it means much.
Rick Nash is a career -71. By that number you'd think he never crossed center ice to head back into his defensive zone. Patrick Kane on the other hand, who isn't exactly a strong backchecker, cherry picks a lot and is always the first guy headed up ice looking for a pass, is a career +23. So Nash is that much worse defensively than Kane? Not really.
Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:58 PM
Sorry, I don't put much stock into +/-. But if you want to then you do realize Kronwall has a higher career +/-? But really +/- is a very misleading statistic in my eyes at least. I watch a lot of hockey, and look at all of stats and trends. That's how I come to my opinions. +/- can go beyond a player's control, like goaltending, and simple luck. I personally like noticing giveaways, takeaways, hits, decisions(pinching, commiting to a corner in the defensive zone, first passes etc.)
Oh ok, you want to go there? I was using +/- as something everyone can relate to and understand, and considering they ARE defensemen the +/- should matter. Kronwall is prone to making bad decisions, ie going for a big check which ends up causing a goal, rushing towards the oppositions net to get a loose puck just to have it stolen and now hes out of position causing an odd man rush, not having a good idea of a play that is about to happen etc... I am not saying Kronwall is bad, he plays a different game than suter. What I am saying is you're putting too much stock in what one reporter is saying about suter and not seeing clearly things kronwall does wrong.
Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:52 AM
I dont understand why some dont see +/- as important over extended periods.
Because it is very close to a useless stat. It's much more a team stat than individual. Also, the more offensive guys are more likely to have a good stat in that area than a good defensive guy, yet people use it all the time to try and explain why someone is good defensively.
Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:33 PM
Kronwall's going to be sickkkkk this year. I expect a 40 point season out of him (10G,30A) and a +15
Posted 18 January 2013 - 08:48 PM
Posted 18 January 2013 - 08:51 PM
I agree that +/- is a very team influenced stat, but i think it holds a lot of value. Fedorov and Jagr were huge +/- guys in the playoffs and reg season from 1993-2003. And they were arguably the 2 best forwards during that decade.
Franzen and Bertuzzi led the Red Wings in +/-, and they are definitely not two of the best forwards on the Red Wings.
Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:05 PM
Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:54 AM
<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Carman" data-cid="2341420" data-time="1358560261"><p>
Franzen and Bertuzzi led the Red Wings in +/-, and they are definitely not two of the best forwards on the Red Wings.</p></blockquote>
They were #1 and #2 LW last year.
So Bertuzzi is one of (two of) the very best forwards on the Red Wings?
Don't Toews me, bro!
Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:14 AM
Back OT, this is a HUGE year for Kronwall. AFAIK he's never spent any meaningful time on the top pairing, and its a big step up from the 2nd pairing. He's gone from facing good players every other night, to facing star players every single night. Just to add to the pressure, he is now by far our best D-man now on a D-corps full of 3rd pairing guys, and hes stepping into the skates of the 2nd best defenceman of all time. No pressure then.
It'll be interesting to see how he does on the 1st PP unit, when he's feeling confident, and he chooses to use it, he's got a terrific shot from the point, but in the past he's gone through long stretches where you just don't see it.
So genuine #1 defenceman who's simply been denied the opportunity because of the quality of players in front of him, or good 2nd pairing guy who's been over-promoted? Only time will tell.
Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:25 AM
We will see if Kronwall is a #1 D-Man. We still have to see him against the Top Lines but I think he is absolutely capable of handling them. Not as good as Lidstrom for sure and maybe not as good as Suter. As stated above : Only time will tell. Besides, do we a second Suter ? No, what we need is a solid defense and that is something that Kronwall has delivered the past years. So I'm quite confident about him.
"I'd have my **** out if I scored four goals. Id have my **** out, stroking it." - "Jumbo" Joe Thornton
Posted 19 January 2013 - 01:42 PM
Posted 19 January 2013 - 01:50 PM
<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Dabura" data-cid="2341473" data-time="1358585642"><p>
So Bertuzzi is one of (two of) the very best forwards on the Red Wings?</p></blockquote>
He was in the top 6 last year. You cant deny that.
No, I can't. But being in the top-6 doesn't necessarily make you one of the two best forwards.
Anyway, that was last season. Is he considered one of (two of) the very best forwards on this Wings team?
(Not to put too fine a point on it, but - Datsyuk and Zetterberg are our two best forwards, and Kronwall is our best defenseman.)
Don't Toews me, bro!
Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:07 PM
|Topic||Forum||Started By||Stats||Last Post Info|
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users