SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Top 10 nhl d man

Created by: that_onehabsfan
Team: 2022-23 Custom Team
Initial Creation Date: Sep. 12, 2022
Published: Sep. 12, 2022
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
10$1$85,134,000$0$0-$85,133,999
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$9,000,000$9,000,000
RD
UFA - 5
Logo of the New York Rangers
$9,500,000$9,500,000
RD
UFA - 7
Logo of the Dallas Stars
$8,450,000$8,450,000
LD/RD
UFA - 7
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$7,875,000$7,875,000
LD
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Nashville Predators
$9,059,000$9,059,000
LD
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Boston Bruins
$9,500,000$9,500,000
RD
UFA - 8
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$9,000,000$9,000,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Vegas Golden Knights
$8,800,000$8,800,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Pittsburgh Penguins
$6,100,000$6,100,000
RD
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$7,850,000$7,850,000
LD
UFA - 5

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Sep. 15, 2022 at 1:26 a.m.
#26
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 3,179
Likes: 1,068
Quoting: Caniac2000
No, no he shouldn't have. He scored 100 points as a defenseman and was a net negative on the ice statistically. He's that garbage defensively. He's the best offensive defensemen we've seen since Orr. But he is not a good defenseman. Saying he should have won the Norris this year is ludocrist.

Karlsson was completely different. His analytics never faded. His product did. Don't be fooled by end product. That's an important part of the game, but it is still less than 10% of the game.


There are currently only two defensemen in the entire world who could be a threat to hit 100 points, being one of them makes that worth it. Josi has free reign to do whatever he wants on the ice, since he has to make things happen. Playing that way as a team isn't perfect, but Nashville relies on a solid goaltending from Saaros who usually get's it done. I don't think any other defensemen besides those two (Makar and Josi) are good enough to design your entire team's structure around. Hedman is still the best all-round defenseman in the league.
Knuckl3s liked this.
Sep. 15, 2022 at 4:40 p.m.
#27
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 19,127
Likes: 4,975
Quoting: Canucks33
There are currently only two defensemen in the entire world who could be a threat to hit 100 points, being one of them makes that worth it. Josi has free reign to do whatever he wants on the ice, since he has to make things happen. Playing that way as a team isn't perfect, but Nashville relies on a solid goaltending from Saaros who usually get's it done. I don't think any other defensemen besides those two (Makar and Josi) are good enough to design your entire team's structure around. Hedman is still the best all-round defenseman in the league.


Stop. Makar is a better all around defenseman than Hedman. Josi is not good enough to build your entire team around. You seem to forget Nashville wasn't build around him. It was built around him and Ryan Eliis, who covered a lot of his ugly warts. Now, the predators are a walking first round elimination and he's a GARBAGE can defensively. Yes, Saros is a top 5 goalie in the league and he has to be because no one plays defense. To be a good DEFENSEMAN you have to play DEFENSE. It's the Brent Burns argument. Burns was never a good defenseman, he was a good offensive defenseman. Can't be good offensively if you sh*t the bed in your own zone.
Sep. 15, 2022 at 6:24 p.m.
#28
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 3,179
Likes: 1,068
Quoting: Caniac2000
Stop. Makar is a better all around defenseman than Hedman. Josi is not good enough to build your entire team around. You seem to forget Nashville wasn't build around him. It was built around him and Ryan Eliis, who covered a lot of his ugly warts. Now, the predators are a walking first round elimination and he's a GARBAGE can defensively. Yes, Saros is a top 5 goalie in the league and he has to be because no one plays defense. To be a good DEFENSEMAN you have to play DEFENSE. It's the Brent Burns argument. Burns was never a good defenseman, he was a good offensive defenseman. Can't be good offensively if you sh*t the bed in your own zone.


I think if you evaluated Josi as a player instead of as a player on Nashville you could see that the analytics do not match the level of talent and ability in this case. Burns was never even close to as good as Josi is right now.
Sep. 15, 2022 at 7:06 p.m.
#29
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 19,127
Likes: 4,975
Quoting: Canucks33
I think if you evaluated Josi as a player instead of as a player on Nashville you could see that the analytics do not match the level of talent and ability in this case. Burns was never even close to as good as Josi is right now.


Burns was arguably better! Josi just had a 100 point year, that's incredible. He also had 8 games against Chicago and Arizona, played in the notoriously weaker conference and was still a trash can defensively. So to recap, his QoC is lower, his defense is BAHAHAHAHAH, and his offensive is incredible. Burns on the other hand at his best was playing against the might of the California era. Yes, 8 games a year against Arizona and Edmonton, but the highest of the highs were better. So, QoC favors Burns. Let's talk QoT. Well, that's fairly simple. This Predators team doesn't have the offense the sharks used to. Okay, fair. So, what about the underlyings? Burn's dxG numbers remain some of the best ever in the one year he wasn't an entirely useless trash can in his own end. Josi put up 100 points and his dxG is barely above EVEN. It's just about greater than 0. He had to put up 100 points to be a net positive this year! So, that favors Burns. Eye test, well, I still personally believe Burns looked better than Josi did this year, but that is subjective. But Josi does not belong in this conversation, and there's no evidence outside of subjective viewership that suggests Josi should be in here. Even his base defensive stats were bad.
Sep. 15, 2022 at 8:17 p.m.
#30
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 3,179
Likes: 1,068
Quoting: Caniac2000
Burns was arguably better! Josi just had a 100 point year, that's incredible. He also had 8 games against Chicago and Arizona, played in the notoriously weaker conference and was still a trash can defensively. So to recap, his QoC is lower, his defense is BAHAHAHAHAH, and his offensive is incredible. Burns on the other hand at his best was playing against the might of the California era. Yes, 8 games a year against Arizona and Edmonton, but the highest of the highs were better. So, QoC favors Burns. Let's talk QoT. Well, that's fairly simple. This Predators team doesn't have the offense the sharks used to. Okay, fair. So, what about the underlyings? Burn's dxG numbers remain some of the best ever in the one year he wasn't an entirely useless trash can in his own end. Josi put up 100 points and his dxG is barely above EVEN. It's just about greater than 0. He had to put up 100 points to be a net positive this year! So, that favors Burns. Eye test, well, I still personally believe Burns looked better than Josi did this year, but that is subjective. But Josi does not belong in this conversation, and there's no evidence outside of subjective viewership that suggests Josi should be in here. Even his base defensive stats were bad.


Subjective views based on the eye test are worth more than analytics, by a lot. When evaluating how good a player is, analytics are worth 20% max. Eye test, role within the team, performance under pressure, situational use and rarity around the league are more important.
Sep. 15, 2022 at 8:35 p.m.
#31
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 19,127
Likes: 4,975
Quoting: Canucks33
Subjective views based on the eye test are worth more than analytics, by a lot. When evaluating how good a player is, analytics are worth 20% max. Eye test, role within the team, performance under pressure, situational use and rarity around the league are more important.


Major disagree. The eye test is so flawed. Your eyes will show you what narratives you hear. It's called the McGurk effect. Analytics remove that. They break down the game to a base level. I'd give the eye test at max 30%. It's so flawed and fatal, and a good example of that is Roman Josi who is such a trash can defensively. It's not a shock that most of the best teams in the league invest in analytics, and trust them to a large effect.
Sep. 16, 2022 at 12:27 a.m.
#32
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 3,179
Likes: 1,068
Quoting: Caniac2000
Major disagree. The eye test is so flawed. Your eyes will show you what narratives you hear. It's called the McGurk effect. Analytics remove that. They break down the game to a base level. I'd give the eye test at max 30%. It's so flawed and fatal, and a good example of that is Roman Josi who is such a trash can defensively. It's not a shock that most of the best teams in the league invest in analytics, and trust them to a large effect.


Teams around the league invest in analytics as a tool, not as the whole picture. Find me a GM who says that they trust analytics more than their eye test.
Sep. 16, 2022 at 5:20 a.m.
#33
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 19,127
Likes: 4,975
Quoting: Canucks33
Teams around the league invest in analytics as a tool, not as the whole picture. Find me a GM who says that they trust analytics more than their eye test.


Don Waddell? Kyle Dubas? Hell, almost every GM in the league favors them to the eye test. There are some that prefer base stats, but the eye test is so deceptive. Reach out to anyone in hockey, they'll tell you the same thing. The eye test is pointless. Base totals are what is usually used, but they have flaws. With most of the best teams in the NHL being analytically driven (Tampa Bay, Colorado, Carolina, Toronto, Vegas) you can't justify saying the eye test is more valuable anymore. It shows a Jurassic level of thinking about the game. You can watch every shift a player has, ups and downs. That's fine. It'll help you learn the player's strengths and weaknesses perhaps. It'll show you how they make their mistakes and can be great for coaching. However, players have good nights and bad nights. Analytics take that out of it. They remove the inconsistency. It's why they have become the second biggest driving factor in management decision-making in recent years. You're being a dinosaur if you're still trying to argue the eye test is more important. There's no world that supports that hypothesis
Sep. 16, 2022 at 3:25 p.m.
#34
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2017
Posts: 3,179
Likes: 1,068
Quoting: Caniac2000
Don Waddell? Kyle Dubas? Hell, almost every GM in the league favors them to the eye test. There are some that prefer base stats, but the eye test is so deceptive. Reach out to anyone in hockey, they'll tell you the same thing. The eye test is pointless. Base totals are what is usually used, but they have flaws. With most of the best teams in the NHL being analytically driven (Tampa Bay, Colorado, Carolina, Toronto, Vegas) you can't justify saying the eye test is more valuable anymore. It shows a Jurassic level of thinking about the game. You can watch every shift a player has, ups and downs. That's fine. It'll help you learn the player's strengths and weaknesses perhaps. It'll show you how they make their mistakes and can be great for coaching. However, players have good nights and bad nights. Analytics take that out of it. They remove the inconsistency. It's why they have become the second biggest driving factor in management decision-making in recent years. You're being a dinosaur if you're still trying to argue the eye test is more important. There's no world that supports that hypothesis


Well, it doesn't look like we're going to convince each other of anything.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll