Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

If Kronwall isn't a #1


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:05 PM

Yes. he is a very good second pair guy. As of tonight Kronwall is 10th in points by Dmen. But he is 151st in +/-. yes I understand that +/- isn't perfect. But no one that is top 10 or 20 or 30 should be ranked 151st.

#42 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,445 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:09 PM

Tonights game was a good example of why Kronwall isn't a true #1 or a top 20ish Dman. he played poorly coming down the stretch and E was downright terrible. Kronwall finished the game -2 and E was -4! That is our top pair!

In 2000 Lidstrom went -4 in a game against PHX. He won the Norris that year. What's your point?



#43 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:14 PM

151st. after tonight, a game that E was -4, he still has a positive +/-. think about that.

#44 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,445 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:26 PM

Yes. he is a very good second pair guy. As of tonight Kronwall is 10th in points by Dmen. But he is 151st in +/-. yes I understand that +/- isn't perfect. But no one that is top 10 or 20 or 30 should be ranked 151st.

Shea Weber is 274 in +/-
Karlsson is 279 in +/-

... what's your point?


Letang is 228 in +/-


Ben Lovejoy is 8 in +/-  #1 guy right?


Krug - far from a defensive Dman - is 43 in +/- but he's better than Kronners at D right?


Liles couldn't crack the Leafs line up but he's 50 in +/- should we trade kronner for him?


151st. after tonight, a game that E was -4, he still has a positive +/-. think about that.

Lidstrom finished his last season minus. No way he was gonna be our #1 guy if he had come back for one more....



#45 T.Low

T.Low

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,911 posts
  • Location:Bellingham, Wa

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:47 PM

That's why Holland was trying to throw $90m at Suter, so we'd have a legit #1 and take the unjust pressure off Kronwall and Ericsson.

#46 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:05 PM

 

That's why Holland was trying to throw $90m at Suter, so we'd have a legit #1 and take the unjust pressure off Kronwall and Ericsson.

 

I agree. In fact they are both paid like second pair guys. Top pair dmen make 6+ million each. If we found a top 10 RHed Dman to pair with dekeyser that would allow Kron and E to move back to the second pair. Make us a much better team overall. But those type of Dmen are very expensive.

#47 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,912 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:16 PM

Yes. he is a very good second pair guy. As of tonight Kronwall is 10th in points by Dmen. But he is 151st in +/-. yes I understand that +/- isn't perfect. But no one that is top 10 or 20 or 30 should be ranked 151st.

 

In 2011 Lidstrom was 2nd in points by Dmen.  He was 148th in +/- with a -2.  He also won the Norris trophy. 

 

When plus minus is an argument for or against a player, it's not really much of an argument.  At best it's an indication something is going on, like if a player's +/- is much better or worse than his teammates. 



#48 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,445 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 11 March 2014 - 10:26 PM

Rich, your awfully quiet after your +/- argument...

#49 Finnish Wing

Finnish Wing

    13th Forward

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,475 posts
  • Location:Finland

Posted 12 March 2014 - 10:47 AM

151st. after tonight, a game that E was -4, he still has a positive +/-. think about that.

+/- is totally a team stat. It's only useful if you compare players who play in the same team. And that's it.

 

Please, never make the mistake of comparing +/- of players from different teams.


Detroit Red Wings & Tampereen Ilves forever!

#50 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:13 PM

Yes +/-is  flawed stat, I understand that and said so. but lets also look at it correctly. prir to becoming a "top pair" guy a typical Kronwall year was 30ish pointsand +7. Now he is a 50ish point guy with a - rating. He is getting more minutes, more PP time, and far more shifts with our top forward line. yet his D is worse overall. yes losing Stuart-who everyone agreed was a #4 Dman hurt. Kronwall is simply not a #1 guy. Even in this very thread others are talking about he needs to be paired with...... #1 Dmen don't need to be paired with others to be great. They are great and make others around them better. Kronwall doesn't.

 

BTW, anyone who says, and I quote: "Quincey gets to much heat from fans on this forum..... wouldn't mind him back at a lower salary" has no room to talk about the quality of any Dman in hockey.



#51 Son of a Wing

Son of a Wing

    London Lions Captain

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,756 posts
  • Location:London, Ontario

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:21 PM

Yes +/-is  flawed stat, I understand that and said so. but lets also look at it correctly. prir to becoming a "top pair" guy a typical Kronwall year was 30ish pointsand +7. Now he is a 50ish point guy with a - rating. He is getting more minutes, more PP time, and far more shifts with our top forward line. yet his D is worse overall. yes losing Stuart-who everyone agreed was a #4 Dman hurt. Kronwall is simply not a #1 guy. Even in this very thread others are talking about he needs to be paired with...... #1 Dmen don't need to be paired with others to be great. They are great and make others around them better. Kronwall doesn't.

 

BTW, anyone who says, and I quote: "Quincey gets to much heat from fans on this forum..... wouldn't mind him back at a lower salary" has no room to talk about the quality of any Dman in hockey.

 

28d84f75-c2ea-49a7-8b8f-baf7a4ea4328ipho


"The leader must never close the gap between himself and the group. If he does, he is no longer what he must be. He must walk a tightrope between the consent he must win and the control he must exert."
Vince Lombardi
 
When asked who won, Babcock said, “Well it doesn’t really matter as long as you don’t lose. It’s like going bear hunting, you take a slow guy with you in case the bear is hungry.”

#52 number9

number9

    All The Best Players Wear A 9

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,445 posts
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:24 PM

Yes +/-is  flawed stat, I understand that and said so. but lets also look at it correctly. prir to becoming a "top pair" guy a typical Kronwall year was 30ish pointsand +7. Now he is a 50ish point guy with a - rating. He is getting more minutes, more PP time, and far more shifts with our top forward line. yet his D is worse overall. yes losing Stuart-who everyone agreed was a #4 Dman hurt. Kronwall is simply not a #1 guy. Even in this very thread others are talking about he needs to be paired with...... #1 Dmen don't need to be paired with others to be great. They are great and make others around them better. Kronwall doesn't.
 
BTW, anyone who says, and I quote: "Quincey gets to much heat from fans on this forum..... wouldn't mind him back at a lower salary" has no room to talk about the quality of any Dman in hockey.


You say you know it's a team stat but then judge his play based on it....

Doesn't make others look good? He makes Ericsson look real good out there and E is probably a #4 guy at best.

Shea Weber is every fan in the leagues defensive wet dream and he's like -14 or something right now.

With the poor season we've been having everyone on the team should have lower +/-

You simply cannot use that stat to judge any one player

#53 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 02:44 PM

No he doesn't. Even though E-is primary partner has a positive rating.......



#54 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,886 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 12 March 2014 - 05:55 PM

No he doesn't. Even though E-is primary partner has a positive rating.......


Sooooooo you're saying E is our number 1 defensman?

#55 dropkickshanahans

dropkickshanahans

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 06:41 PM

The only time I take +/- seriously is when it's consistent with the whole team, like Chicago and St. Louis having consistently positive +/- this year. But even then it shouldn't be viewed as an individual stat. It just shows that those teams play good team defense and have a good goalie. Individuals should be looked at objectively by how well (or bad) they play defense.

 

Looking at individuals, Weber is like -14, but he's considered one of the best in the league defensively by many. Kopitar is +27 and Mike Richards is -2, but lots of people have considered Richards as one of the top two-way players in the league. Zetterberg is +19 and Datsyuk is -2 and they've been debated many times for their defensive play even though Datsyuk has 3 Selkes. And like Harold mentioned, Lidstrom was 148th in the league with a -2 when he won the Norris, but his partner Rafalski was a +11 that year.

 

It's a flawed stat that can't be looked at correctly for individual players when there's other factors in the game that affect that stat, such as a goalie playing bad, a teammate blowing an assignment, a puck deflecting off a leg, etc.


Edited by dropkickshanahans, 12 March 2014 - 06:47 PM.


#56 DickieDunn

DickieDunn

    http://redwingsandotherthings.wordpress.com/

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts
  • Location:Belding

Posted 12 March 2014 - 07:32 PM

Ericsson should be a #3.  So should Dekeyesr for now.  By the end of camp next year Dekeyser might be a #2.  Smith could develop into a #4 by that time, too.  That would leave Kindl and a rookie as the 3rd pair and Lashoff as the #7.  People say that they want to give the kids a chance to develop and earn their spots, then that's the route the Wings should take.


Oh this young man has had a very trying rookie season, with the litigation, the notoriety, his subsequent deportation to Canada and that country's refusal to accept him, well, I guess that's more than most 21-year-olds can handle... Ogie Ogilthorpe!


#57 brett

brett

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,974 posts
  • Location:NJ

Posted 12 March 2014 - 07:51 PM

swap weber with kronwall

 

how many more wins/pts do you think we have? just because they are a #1


Edited by brett, 12 March 2014 - 08:08 PM.


#58 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 08:33 PM

brett, first kronwall isn't able to land weber-which is part of the point. Would the current RW's team be better with Weber instead of Kronwall? yes. much better. Our D would be better and our O would be better. That is what a true #1 provides. Yes this is a pipe dream and would never happen.



#59 brett

brett

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,974 posts
  • Location:NJ

Posted 12 March 2014 - 08:38 PM

brett, first kronwall isn't able to land weber-which is part of the point. Would the current RW's team be better with Weber instead of Kronwall? yes. much better. Our D would be better and our O would be better. That is what a true #1 provides. Yes this is a pipe dream and would never happen.

i didnt mean trade, just a hypothetical.



#60 nawein

nawein

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 340 posts

Posted 12 March 2014 - 08:42 PM

brett, first kronwall isn't able to land weber-which is part of the point. Would the current RW's team be better with Weber instead of Kronwall? yes. much better. Our D would be better and our O would be better. That is what a true #1 provides. Yes this is a pipe dream and would never happen.


Rich, I think you're missing the distinction between legit #1 defenseman and elite, superstar level defensman. Weber is elite. Weber is a superstar. Weber is easily a top 5 dman in the game, probably top 3. If that's your cutoff for #1 guy then you're right, Kronner is not that. But if that's your cutoff, then there might be 5 in the world. Kronwall would not be a #1 on any team, but he would be a #1 on a lot of teams. As far as the Quincey comment, before you tell everyone else on a public hockey forum that they're not allowed to voice their opinion on players because they're not qualified, show us your qualifications.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users